I'lllllilllll .,

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

RESPONSE TO SCIENCE EDUCATION REFORMS: THE
CASE OF THREE SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL
PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

 

presented by
YOVITA NETSAI GWEKWERERE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PHD degree in TEACHER EDUCATION

Q ﬂea/2b

/ Major ProfesS’or's Signature
acL/Qa/WZ 44/1 02 00¢
U '

Date

 

 

\\)<’ ' '>

 

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Insﬁtution

 

f LIBRAE?
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

' ' '. ft'i’tﬁre-Waw"

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

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

 

RESPONSE TO SCIENCE EDUCATION REFORMS: THE CASE OF THREE
SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
By

Yovita Netsai Gwekwerere

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2006

ABSTRACT
RESPONSE TO SCIENCE EDUCATION REFORMS: THE CASE OF THREE
SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
By
Yovita Netsai Gwekwerere

Doctoral programs play a signiﬁcant role in preparing future leaders. Science
Education doctoral programs play an even more signiﬁcant role preparing leaders in a
ﬁeld that is critical to maintaining national viability in the face of global competition. The
current science education reforms have the goal of achieving science literacy for all
students and for this national goal to be achieved; we need strong leadership in the ﬁeld
of science education. This qualitative study investigated how doctoral programs are
preparing their graduates for leadership in supporting teachers to achieve the national
goal of science literacy for all.

A case study design was used to investigate how science education faculty
interpreted the national reform goal of science literacy for all and how they reformed
their doctoral courses and research programs to address this goal. Faculty, graduate
students and recent graduates of three science education doctoral programs participated in
the study. Data collection took place through surveys, interviews and analysis of course
documents. Two faculty members, three doctoral candidates and three recent graduates
were interviewed from each of the programs. Data analysis involved an interpretive
approach. The National Research Council Framework for Investigating Inﬂuence of the

National Standards on student learning (2002) was used to analyze interview data.

 

Findings show that the current reforms occupy a signiﬁcant part of the doctoral
coursework and research in these three science education doctoral programs. The extent
to which the reforms are incorporated in the courses and the way they are addressed
depends on how the faculty members interpret the reforms and what they consider to be
important in achieving the goal Of science literacy for all. Whereas some faculty members
take a simplistic critical view of the reform goals as a call to achieve excellence in
science teaching; others take a more complex critical view where they question who ‘all
students’ refers to and what science literacy means for learners with diverse cultural,
linguistic or economic backgrounds.

Faculty members’ views signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the nature and content of the
courses as well as the program focus. It was also shown that a relationship exists between
faculty views and the views of their doctoral students and recent graduates. In general,
faculty exhibited narrower and more in-depth views about issues they consider being
important in the ﬁeld of science education, than doctoral students and recent graduates.
External funding is critical in doctoral studies as it enables faculty to enact their visions
of achieving science literacy for all.

The study provides some implications for practice, policy and research. In order
to achieve both equity and excellence in science teaching, there is need for dialogue
among science educators to enable them to address issues of equity more effectively than
at present. If doctoral programs are to continue preparing graduates who can address
important issues in the ﬁeld, there is need for external funding for speciﬁc research

programs.

Dedicated:
In memory of my father Stanislous Kaseke for the great dreams he had for me
To My Mother Elizabeth Kaseke for her unwavering support

To my husband Bernard for being there as I pursued my dreams

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Getting tO this point has been a long journey. Mentioning all the people who have
made this journey successful would ﬁll a substantial volume. All I can say is that I am
grateful to have had the support of my family, mentors and friends who walked with me
throughout this journey. First of all I would like to thank the Lord for the wonderful giﬁ
of life, for good health, and strength that enabled me to get through the program. Coming
to America to for PhD studies was made possible by generous support from the Fulbright
fellowship in August of 2000. I would not have managed to complete my studies without
the generous ﬁnancial support I got from the Teacher Education Department at Michigan
State University, for the past four years.

I ﬁrst met my academic advisor Dr. James Gallagher in 1998 when I came to
Michigan State University as a visiting scholar. I thank him for encouraging me to apply
to the Teacher Education doctoral program. Since I came to the United States, Dr.
Gallagher has been a constant source of support, encouragement and hope. The most
important gift I got from working with Dr. Gallagher is that he believed in me, and this is
what got me through the program. He has been my mentor, anchor and source Of
encouragement. During times when I was overwhelmed with work and when I had lost
hope for going on, he encouraged me to stay on course. It was a great honor to have
opportunity to work with him on the Leadership Development Study---it was a deﬁning
moment in my academic career. He has been a ﬁne academic example.

My academic and dissertation committee members, Dr. Avner Segall, Dr. Edward
Smith and Dr. John Metzler provided valuable guidance, shaping my program of study

and my dissertation research ideas. I feel honored to have worked alongside such great

scholars. I am also greatly thankful for the valuable experiences and lessons I learned
from several faculty members in the Teacher Education program at Michigan State
University.

As a mid-career changer, I am greatly indebted to all the teacher educators who
have supported me as I navigated the ﬁeld of education. Through their unwavering
support I have become an accomplished scholar in the ﬁeld. Dr. Suzanne Wilson
deserves mention as my ﬁrst teacher educator; she taught me the art of scholarly writing.
Dr. Avner Segall taught me to look at education from different viewing points, something
that has helped me to deﬁne my true passion in the ﬁeld of science education.

I am deeply grateful to the space provided by Professors John Smith and Lynn Payne in
their courses where I was able to navigate issues that were dear to my heart-J conducted
research related to issues in Science Education in Zimbabwe and wrote conference papers
that I presented at conferences. This made my coursework at Michigan State University
very meaningful.

Dr. Joyce Parker deserves special mention--for two years she took me under her
wing as a teaching assistant. We planned and taught classes together, it was a pleasure
indeed to have worked with such a great teacher. I also had the opportunity to mentor
teacher interns as part of my learning to teach at Michigan State University—it was a
great learning experience. Professor Charles Anderson provided support and guidance,
and most of all space to reﬂect on what I was learning about teacher development. I am
also grateful to the science teacher interns and their mentors who I worked with for two

years in Lansing, East Lansing, St. Johns, Grand Ledge and Holt. Observing them teach

vi

and discussing their practice was one of the greatest experiences in my own journey to
becoming a teacher educator.

My journey to becoming an academic scholar was also enriched by the valuable
research experiences I gained along the way as a graduate assistant. The mentoring style
of the professors I worked with in the Teacher Education Department is unparalleled.
Working with Professors James Gallagher, Mary Lundeberg and Christina Schwarz on
their research projects were great professional development opportunities for me. By
valuing my ideas and seeing me as an equal partner on their research projects, they did
not only enrich me academically; but they modeled the best mentoring practices that I
will deﬁnitely use to mentor graduate students.

I have'leamed so much from my interviewees, both from my dissertation study
and ﬁom the Leadership Development Study. I am greatly indebted to the science
education professors, students and recent graduates who agreed to participate in my
study. I appreciate their valuable time and sharing their views and ideas with me. As I
come to ﬁnishing the dissertation, I realize it was time well spent. Although I take full
responsibility for this work, it does not solely belong to me, it belongs to all of us who
put our time into it.

I will forever be grateful for the support I got from my friends and colleagues. I
wouldn’t have made it through my ﬁrst year of doctoral studies without the support of the
millennium cohort. I was able to smile and laugh even as I went through culture shock
and homesickness. Their genuine support continues to this day. “Lorraine my Friend,” I
still ask myself what made you to come right up to me that one afternoon in the cafeteria

and just started talking to me. You came just when I needed somebody to lean on.

vii

“Thanks auntie L010,” for being a loving aunt to my daughters, you kept us all going.
Steve, Mary Kay, Karen, and Irfan, thank you for all the moral and academic support
especially during the ﬁrst year when I was navigating a new ﬁeld of study in a new
country. Steve, Felicia and Grace, you have listened to my ideas and read drafts of this
dissertation, thank you very much.

I am blessed with a loving family whose love and support saw me through the
highs and lows of this journey. Bernard, my husband has been very patient and always
there -- supporting me throughout the long haul. His support has been crucial, and all I
can say is, “Makaita basa Jena” (literary; you did a great job). My three lovely daughters
Michelle, Ruvarashe, and Zvikomborero have also traveled this long journey with me.
They understood when mom wasn’t there to make dinner, when mom couldn’t take them
out to have fun, and when mom’s door was closed-- in spite of all that I still got lots of
hugs and kisses. They have been brave souls.

Most of all I need to acknowledge the immense debt I owe to my mother
Elizabeth Kaseke—the most loving woman I know. She has endured my long absences
on journeys across the world and still wonders whether she will ever see her
grandchildren again. Her love and support has kept me going. I am glad, especially for

her, that the longest and hepefully the last of my journeys is coming to an end.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1
SITUATING THE STUDY ......................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................... 1
Current Reforms in Science Education ................................................... 5
Constraints to Implementation of the Reforms ......................................... 10
Why Study Doctoral Programs ........................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
How Science Literacy for all has Been Interpreted in Literature .................... 23
Achieving Science Literacy for All through Authentic Science Experiences. . 23
Achieving Science Literacy for all Through Equity in Science Teaching ......... 29
Achieving Science Literacy for all Through Teaching for Social Justice .......... 34
Studies of Doctoral Programs ............................................................ 37
Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 3
SRUDYING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS ....................................................... 49
Methodology ................................................................................ 49
Interpretive Approach ..................................................................... 52
Research Methods .......................................................................... 54
Data Collection ............................................................................. 60
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 4
THE STORY OF CITY VILLE SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL
PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 77
Introduction ................................................................................. 77
Findings ..................................................................................... 87
Mentoring of Doctoral Students through Research and Teaching ......... 97
Roles Doctoral Candidates are Prepared for ................................. 101
Views and Perceptions about Challenges in Science Education .......... 103
Addressing the Issues in Science Education ................................. 124
Aspects of Doctoral Program that Need to change .......................... 126
Discussion ................................................................................. 127
Conclusion ................................................................................. 133

ix

CHAPTER 5
THE STORY OF MIDWESTERN SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL

PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 135
Introduction ................................................................................. 135
Findings .................................................................................... 143

Courses Offered ................................................................. 143
Addressing the Current Science Education Reforms ...................... 153
Mentoring of Doctoral Students through Research and Teaching ....... 158
Roles Doctorates are Prepared for ............................................ 163
Views and Perceptions about Challenges in Science Education .......... 166
Addressing Issues in Science Education ..................................... 181
Aspects Of Doctoral Programs that need tO Change ........................ 183
Discussion ................................................................................. 185

CHAPTER 6

THE STORY OF SOUTHERN VALLEY SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL

PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 193
Introduction .............................................................................. 1 93
Findings .................................................................................. 201

Courses Offered ................................................................ 201
Addressing the Current Science Education Reforms ...................... 207
Mentoring of Doctoral Students through Research and Teaching. . ......210
Roles Doctorates are Prepared for ........................................... 215
Views and Perceptions about Challenges in Science Education ......... 216
Addressing Issues in Science Education .................................... 228
Aspects of Doctoral Programs that need to Change ........................ 232
Discussion ................................................................................. 235
Conclusion ................................................................................ 239
CHAPTER 7
SCIENCE LITERACY FOR ALL: VIEWS, PERSPECTIVES AND PhD
PREPARATION .................................................................................. 240
Similarities and Differences across the Programs ................................... 241
The Case of City Ville Doctoral Program .................................... 250
The Case of Midwestern Doctoral Program ................................. 259
The Case of Southern Valley Doctoral Program ............................ 265
Some Cross-Cutting Issues across Doctoral Programs .............................. 270
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................ 290
Introduction ................................................................................ 290
Implications for Doctoral Programs .................................................... 294
Implications for Policy ................................................................... 297
Implications for Research ............................................................... 298
Plans for Future Research ............................................................... 298

 

APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 302

Appendix A: Faculty Questionnaire ................................................... 303
Appendix B: Faculty Interview Protocol ............................................. 308
Appendix C: Recent graduate Interview Protocol ..................................... 310
Appendix D: Doctoral Candidates Interview Protocol .............................. 312
Appendix E: Additional Interview for Center Faculty .............................. 314
Appendix F: Letter to Senior Faculty .................................................. 315
AppendixG: ConsentForm... ...316
Appendix H: Letter to Recent Graduates ............................................. 318
Appendix J: Letter to Doctoral Candidates ........................................... 319
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 320

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.1: Research questions and how data were collected ............................... 63
TABLE 4.1: Selective and elective courses offered at City Ville ............................ 87
TABLE 4.2: Disciplinary courses and Science Education courses offered at City

Ville ................................................................................................... 88
TABLE 5.1: Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy courses required at
Midwestern ......................................................................................... 143
TABLE 5.2: Science Education focus courses offered at Midwestern ..................... 144

TABLE 5.3: Special Science Education courses Offered during the past 5 years at

Midwestern .......................................................................................... 145
TABLE 6.1: Information Technology in Science core courses .............................. 200
TABLE 6.2: Required core and research methods courses at Southern Valley ........... 202
TABLE 6.3: Department elective courses Offered at Southern Valley ..................... 202
TABLE 7.1: Similar features across the three doctoral programs. . . . 243
TABLE 7.2: Differences across the three doctoral programs ................................. 250

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1: Model of action for social justice in education ................................ 35
FIGURE 3.1: Inﬂuence of national standards on students learning ......................... 75
FIGURE 4.1: Roles doctorates are prepared for .............................................. 102
FIGURE 4.2: Views about the most important issues in Science Education at City

Ville ................................................................................................. 105
FIGURE 4.3: Solutions to addressing issues in Science Education ........................ 124
FIGURE 5.1: Roles doctorates are being prepared for ....................................... 163
FIGURE 5.2: Views about the most important issues in Science Education at
Midwestern ..................................................................................................................... 167
FIGURE 5.3: Solutions to addressing issues in Science Education ........................ 182
FIGURE 6.1: Views about the most important issues in Science Education at

Southern Valley .................................................................................... 217
FIGURE 6.2: Solutions to addressing issues in Science Education ........................ 228

FIGURE 7.1: Response to current reforms by City Ville

Doctoral Program ................................................................................. 256
FIGURE 7.2: Response to current reforms by Midwestern Doctoral

Program ............................................................................................. 263
FIGURE 7.3: Response to current reforms by Southern Valley

Doctoral Program ................................................................................. 269
FIGURE 7.4: Comparison of faculty views across the programs ........................... 281

xiii

CHAPTER 1

SITUATIN G THE STUDY

Introduction

In this study I set out to investigate how three science education doctoral
programs in the United States are interpreting the current reform goal of science literacy
for all and how they are enacting the reforms in their programs as they prepare future
leaders in the ﬁeld. I am interested in this study because it has been more than a decade
since the current science education reform documents, namely; a) Science Literacy for
All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989), b) Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy
(AAAS, 1993) and c) the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) were
published, and yet the problems that confronted the science education community in the
eighties still remain.

The two major problems in education that triggered the current reforms in the
early eighties are: 3) America’s failure to educate students to a level that is comparable to
other developed countries as shown by international studies (TIMSS, 1998), and b) The
achievement gap that has existed between poor urban schools and rich suburban schools
(Barton, 2003; Lee, 2003; & Brickhouse, 2001 ). High school students still graduate
unprepared for the demands of today’s job demands and urban and minority students in
urban schools are still not getting the same quality of science education as their
counterparts in suburban schools.

Findings from the most recent survey conducted by the Education Testing
Services in May 2006 show that the American public is still wonied about the failure by

schools to prepare young people in Mathematics, Science and Technology, which they

1

 

 

 

identiﬁed as critical to maintaining the country’s competitiveness in the global economy,
and college professors viewed the public schools more negatively than did Americans in
general (Luesdorf 2006) as shown in the following quotation:

Americans are increasingly worried about the quality of elementary and

secondary schools and students' preparedness to compete in the global

economy, and college faculty members are among the public-education
system's greatest critics, according to ﬁndings released on Wednesday

from the latest in a series of annual surveys. (p.l)

Why should college professors care so much about the quality and outcomes of
K-12 science learning? There are several reasons why, but most importantly, science
education professors are either directly or indirectly involved with supporting science
teachers to reform their teaching in three different ways: a) through preparing teachers
and teacher educators, b) through working directly or indirectly on professional
development projects to bring reforms to the classrooms, and c) some science education
faculty were signiﬁcantly involved in writing the reforms; hence they have invested
interest to see these reforms work.

Science education faculty have been actively involved in reforming science
teaching through teacher preparation programs and professional development efforts
(Hug, Krajcic & Marx, 2005). These efforts have been manifested in professional
conference presentations at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
and the American Educational Research Association for the past ﬁve years. Most of the
research presented focuses on innovations to improve teaching and learning. As a result,

college faculty have been blamed for failing to be efficient in bringing reforms to the

schools mainly because they talk to each other and fail to communicate their research to

practitioners (Gallagher et. al., 2003). College professors also talk to each other mostly

about the practice of teachers and in a few cases about their own innovations in teacher
education courses, but they rarely talk about their practice in preparing doctoral students.

There are two major areas that have not received much attention from science
education faculty: 3) there is limited literature that tells us how science education faculty
are interpreting the science education reform goal Of science literacy for all and how they
are enacting the reforms through their doctoral programs as they prepare future leaders in
the ﬁeld; b) and there also is limited literature on the practice of college faculty compared
to the abundance of literature on practice of teachers. The following quotation from
Segall (2002) shows concern for the limited amount of critical examination and
discussions about what is happening in teacher education:

Contrary to public schools, which have, for some time been the subject of critical

investigation by external researchers, teacher education programs-and for that

matter colleges of Education (and faculty in) education in general —have
maintained their extraterritorial status, remaining free from such investigation. In
other words, --- university classrooms have remained under lock and key. Teacher
educators, as educational researchers, tend to investigate their own practices or
those of others; they are not, by and large, the subjects of (external) investigation
themselves. Not surprisingly then, there is relatively little that critically describes
or assesses teacher education programs or provides a critical examination of the

teaching/learning interactions that take place in them. (p. 5)

In this study I bring together two strands of scholarship: science education
reforms and doctoral preparation. The intention of this study is neither to assess nor judge
the performance of doctoral programs or the work Of faculty. However, it provides
recommendations to science education faculty on the need to ﬁnd ways to address both
excellence and equity in doctoral preparation. My major goal is to stimulate discussion
among science education faculty about their practice in doctoral studies. I believe that

such a discussion brings hope to finding solutions to the growing problems in the

education system. By science education reforms I am referring to the K-12 curriculum

3

reforms, speciﬁcally the Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy and the National Science
Education Standards. I will not be focusing on the No Child Left Behind Policy due to
time and space limitation

The science education reforms have been interpreted in different ways (Oakes and
Rogers, 2005). As mentioned earlier, the reform goal is to achieve science literacy for all.
Research studies and literature has shown that research addressing the reform goals either
focuses on science literacy only, equity issues only or both (Oakes and Rogers, 2005;). I
believe this is the case because the reform goal as stated in the reform documents is to
achieve ‘science literacy for all.’ The National Science Education Standards went on to
state that the standards “encompass both equity and excellence”. In order to fully achieve
the reform goal both intentions of the reforms must be achieved. My hypothesis in this
study is that the way reforms are interpreted and enacted in doctoral programs will
greatly inﬂuence how future science educators are going to think about and enact the
reforms in the future. By reform interpretation I am referring to whether the science
educators’ research and teaching focus on achieving excellence in science pedagogy and
learning; or whether they focus on achieving equity in science teaching or whether they
focus on both.

A survey of science education faculty’s views about challenges confronting their
ﬁeld showed that they considered addressing the current reforms in science education to
be a major challenge in the ﬁeld (Gallagher & Gwekwerere, 2003). There is need to look
at how different college professors are interpreting and enacting the reforms in order to
ascertain the nature of the challenge. Gaining such knowledge will be an important

resource for college faculty as they seek to improve their practice in preparing future

leaders in the ﬁeld. In the rest of this chapter I will provide a detailed description of the
current science education reforms, the status of reform outcomes as shown by the
Leadership Development Study and why it is important to study science education
doctoral programs.
Current Reforms in Science Education

The history of reforms in science education can be traced back to 1957 when
Russia launched Sputnik (Dickson, 2003), a spaceship that silently revolved around the
earth every 90 minutes (Gallagher, 2006). This event raised several questions of why the
United States was behind Russia in technology (Gallagher, 2006). Federal funding was
provided to reform the science curriculum, which led to production of the Biological
Sciences Curriculum Study the Physical Science Study Committee and the Chemical
Broad Approach (DeBoer, 1991). These reform efforts of the 1960s were geared towards
providing curriculum materials with deep content knowledge that teachers would readily
use, and the belief at the time was that all teachers needed to be effective was a good
curriculum.

With change in administration, ﬁnancial support was eliminated (Gallagher,
2006) and this led to a marked decline in student achievement. Reports of an ailing
economy in a document entitled ‘A Nation at Risk’ (National Commission on Excellence
in Science, 1983) detailed how schools were failing to prepare students adequately in
science and mathematics in secondary schools at levels that are comparable to programs
in other developed nations. The American Association for the Advancement in Science
(AAAS) pioneered the current reforms by bringing together specialists in science,

mathematics and education, in order to come up with ideas on what should constitute

scientiﬁc literacy and how it can be achieved. This led to publication of Science for all
Americans by Rutherford and Ahlgren, (1989).

This book describes what constitutes literacy in science, mathematics and
technology and it highlights the steps that are needed to achieving it. It also included a
broader view of science than was found in most school programs by adding features such
as emphasis on nature of science, and how science integrates with mathematics and
technology (Gallagher, 2006). In addition to providing a broader view Of science, this
book also highlights he need to teach science to all young people regardless of their
social circumstances and career aspirations. “In particular, the recommendations pertain
to those who in the past have largely been bypassed in science and mathematics
education: ethnic and language minorities and girls” (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989 p.x).
In addition, this reform document called for teaching science for understanding, which is
Opposed to rote memorization. Teaching for understanding places emphasis on less but
relevant science content in more depth and helping students to make connections between
science ideas and the real world.

The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) was the second reforms
document that was designed to highlight the kind of curriculum described by Rutherford
and Ahlgren, (1989). This reform document contains a coherent set of speciﬁc learning
goals at 4 levels. Similar to Rutherford and Ahlgren’s book, the Benchmarks for Science
Literacy were set to achieve the goal of achieving scientiﬁc literacy for all by the 21 st
century (AAAS, 1993). The Benchmarks were a precursor for the National Science
Education Standards (N SES), published by the National Research Council in 1996. This

document laid out standards for science content, teaching, teacher professional

development, and assessment to be included in the school curriculum. It also laid out
standards for programs and the education systems to guide the national and state leaders.
The National Science Education Standards complement the two earlier documents by
detailing what students should know and be able to do in eight content dimensions
namely, unifying concepts and processes, science as inquiry, physical science, life
science, earth and space science; science and technology, science in personal and social
perspectives, and history and nature of science.

Both documents present a broader view of science curricular content than was
previously commonplace. What makes the standards different from the Benchmarks is its
emphasis on teaching science through inquiry. The NSES, the Benchmarks for science
literacy and Science for All Americans share the same goal of achieving science literacy
for all. The NSES clearly articulate this goal in the document overview: “The intent Of
the standards can be expressed in a single phrase: Science standards for all students. The
phrase embodies both excellence and equity. The standards apply to all students,
regardless of age, gender, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or
interest and motivation in science” (NRC, 1996. p 2).

The reforms are premised on a conviction that all students deserve and must have
the opportunity to become scientiﬁcally literate (NRC, 1996). The NSES for example,
call for more than "science as process," in which students learn such skills as observing,
inferring, and experimenting; they specify that science is something that students should
do and that science is not something done to them.

Although the National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks for

Science Literacy clearly articulate how excellence in science should be articulated by

describing what students should know and be able to do, what teachers should know in
order to teach science and what teacher education programs should do in order to prepare
teachers who can do their job, they do not specify what can be done to achieve equity in
science teaching. Rodriguez (2005) argues that the standards make ethnicity invisible,
and that this invisibility contradicts one of the standards main goals — to make science
accessible to all students. These documents for example do not advise teachers on how to
help students with different learning needs to achieve at the same level as their peers. By
students with different learning abilities I mean intellectual, physical and linguistic
abilities.

The reform documents are also silent on how students in resource poor schools
can have access to resources that can help them do science and not have science told to
them. Lack of resources such as books and supplies for conducting science inquiry makes
it impossible for the teachers to meet the goal of the science teaching standards that
require teachers to plan and teach inquiry. This also makes it impossible to achieve the
content standards goal that requires that all students should learn science through inquiry.

The silence by the reforms on issues of teaching science to diverse learners and
teaching science in resource poor schools means the reform documents failed to articulate
how equity can be achieved. The reform documents therefore contradict the claim that the
reform goals embody both equity and excellence. In order to achieve equity in science
teaching teachers in resource poor schools need resources that support them to achieve
the goal of scientiﬁc literacy for all. They also need help on how to teach linguistically

diverse students as well as students with learning disabilities.

The issues of inequity in public schools have been well documented in literature.
Kozol (1992) for instance, highlighted the plight of poor urban schools in three major
US. urban areas. He speciﬁcally showed the disparities in funding between schools in
wealthier districts compared to the ones in poorer districts in Chicago, Boston and New

York. In his later work, Kozol (2005) showed that these disparities in school funding and
resources are still there today. I have also noticed the disparities in science classrooms
and the quality of science taught to students when I visited interns teaching science in
different high schools in Lansing, Michigan.

In this study I decided to investigate how science education faculty address the
current reform issues in their doctoral program and in their research in order to see how
they are interpreting the reform goal of science literacy for all. One of the speciﬁc
questions that will guide this study is: ‘How are science education doctoral program
interpreting and enacting the reform goals through their coursework and research?’
Answering this question will enable us to see whether the science educators’
interpretation of the reform goals embody both equity and excellence or not. I am also
interested to know whether the science educators’ interpretations are translated into
action as they prepare future teacher educators.

I decided to investigate how science educators are responding to the reforms as a
follow up to the Leadership Development Study that I participated in as a research
assistant ﬁom 2001 to 2003. The Leadership Development study was an NSF funded
study of how present leaders in Science and Mathematics were developed and what led to
their success. Studies of Science and Mathematics education doctoral programs were also

Studied as channels through which leaders in the ﬁeld are developed.

ﬂu:

Vs.‘

In the next section I will describe the constraints to implementing reforms that
were identiﬁed by deans and science education faculty. I will also describe how science
education doctoral programs are addressing these challenges. At the end of the section I
will Show how the present study grew out of the questions raised in the Leadership
Development Study (Gallagher et. al., 2003).

Constraints Implementation of the Reforms:
Findings from the Leadership Development Study

Problems of implementing reforms have been reported (Horizon, 2002). Even
where reforms are being implemented, there remain problems of low academic
achievement in science and failure to recruit teachers who have good science content
background (Gallagher & Gwekwerere, 2003). In order to better understand why these
challenges remain despite the reforms efforts, it is imperative that we take a holistic look
at the education system, especially at science teaching as well as teacher education. A
holistic look at teacher education includes preservice teacher preparation, teacher
professional development, and doctoral preparation of teacher educators. A recent study
of science education doctoral programs provided insight into the nature of science
education doctoral programs and how they are addressing issues related to national issues
(Gallagher et. al., 2003).

Findings from the 2001-2003 Leadership Development Study revealed some
challenges that confront the ﬁeld of Science Education and are posing a challenge to
implementation of the current reforms. Deans and faculty who were interviewed for that
Study identiﬁed the following as challenges: a) the tension between educational policies

and academic work; b) teacher quality, teacher recruitment and equity; and ﬁnally c)

10

diversity, equity and teaching science to all students. It is clear that these challenges are
either directly or indirectly related to improving science teaching, which is in line with
implementation of science education reforms.

The deans and faculty highlighted the existence of a conﬂict between educational
policies and academic interests of professors as a challenge to reform implementation
efforts. One speciﬁc area where policies conﬂict with academic work is when state or
federal policies conﬂict with faculty interests. One example of this is in California where
the California State Board of Education established curriculum standards that have a
"back to the basics" mentality, which is incompatible with the national science, and
mathematics education communities who are more focused on understanding the nature
of science and mathematics in a holistic way. The back to basics mentality contradicts
reforms efforts that emphasize inquiry. One dean from a University in California saw the
conﬂict between political and academic interests as a challenge to the science education
community since faculty efforts are normally overlooked by the legislature.

In keeping with the previous dean’s concerns, a faculty member from a University
in a southwestern state also sees a problem with too much politics in education as a
challenge to the ﬁeld, and she went on to say; “Everyone thinks they know how to teach
and how students should learn. There is a lack of respect for expertise in the field. ” The
deans were highlighting how policies are getting in the way of reforms. Such policies
have led to a tension for example the NO Child Left behind Policy that emphasizes Math
and Reading, leading to marginalization of subjects such as Science and Social studies.
Responding to standards and educational policies that affect teaching and learning of

science therefore becomes a constraint to the science educators. Such concerns from the

11

deans and faculty could be an indication of why the science education community is
failing to achieve the national goal of achieving science literacy for all despite the
educators’ advocacy for reform-based teaching. Whereas academics see themselves as
committed to facilitating achievement of the national goal, they see external policies
interfering with their work and hindering their efforts.

The deans and science education faculty also viewed issue of standards and
testing as highly contentious. A faculty member from a university on the east coast
speciﬁcally pointed out that policies such as “NO Child left behind” emphasize testing at
the expense of teaching for understanding, something that faculty have invested in for a
long time. This policy impacts student graduation and teacher evaluation, which poses a
challenge to educators as teachers are forced to teach to the test as opposed to teaching
for understanding. Again, the most recent policies are seen as hindrances to any progress
that acaderrrics have achieved.

Related to these issues, a faculty member from a Midwestern university
mentioned that government prescription of how research should be conducted, or "the
battle of research methods ", as he called it, restricts the type of research that can produce
useful information in education. The federal government is investing more money into
experimental methodology, which may not necessarily yield the best results needed to
improve science literacy for all. This poses a challenge for educators because they have
to choose between what one really wants to do and what gets funded. This is making it
hard to secure funding for research as well as getting research ﬁndings implemented in

the schools. Faculty from different institutions shared similar concerns that they may

12

have good ideas of how to improve science teaching and learning but these may never be
investigated due to restrictions on funding.

A faculty member from a southern university also felt that, even when faculty get
to do research, the biggest challenge is that ‘the pipeline gets stuck’, meaning that it is
hard to have research ideas implemented in schools. Resistance to change at different
levels ranging from stakeholders to academics and practitioners was mentioned as a
constraint by a faculty member from a midwestern university. These constraints have
worked against some university faculty’s efforts to bring reforms to the schools. Many
ideas have come from research on the best practices in education but they have not been
implemented in schools.

Teacher Quality, Diversity and Equity in Science Education

Several deans and faculty members identiﬁed getting scientiﬁcally literate
teachers in the schools as a constraint to achieving the goal of science literacy for all.
There was a general feeling among the interviewees that the science education
community is failing to recruit people with a deep understanding Of science. One reason
why it is hard to recruit people with strong content knowledge is because teachers are not
as well paid compared to other science related professions. A faculty member from a
midwestern university stated: “Teachers are not well paid and yet they are the ones who
are training scientists. As a result, there is a supply gap of science educators at all levels
from K-12 to university. ”

Similarly graduate schools are failing to recruit science education doctoral
students, and this is evidenced by a shortage of science educators graduating from

doctoral programs. According to a dean from a Southern University, there are other more

13

lucrative Opportunities for science graduates than teaching. The challenge being faced by
schools of education is how to recruit people into graduate school where the allowances
are low. A dean from a Western University gave an example of how their state has not
been friendly to the salary of faculty nor is it friendly to graduate education. Candidates
for graduate school have to give up their secure and well-paying jobs to join graduate
school, a risk that many are not willing to take. This challenge has led to the problem of a
shortage of science teachers especially in the urban areas where the need for science
literacy is high and where lack Of equity continuous to widen the achievement gap.

Several faculty mentioned content preparation of science teachers especially at the
elementary level as a major concern. Lanier and Little (1986) have outlined reasons why
the ﬁeld has continued to have this problem and one of the reasons is that the ﬁeld of
education is looked down on by bench scientists. Students who are good at science are
therefore encouraged to go into science professional ﬁelds like medicine and engineering
that have attractive remuneration. Lack of collaboration between natural sciences and
schools of education also contributes to the problem of not producing enough teachers
who have deep understanding Of science content. This lack of collaboration leads to
"weak programs, or programs that are not respected on campus and/or not well situated
to inﬂuence reforms in schools ” (Dean from a Southern University). Similarly “Bench
scientists are seen as more superior to the educators which leads to science education
being viewed as an inferior subject " (Dean from a Midwestern University).

A number of recent graduates who were interviewed for this study shared similar
sentiments about the way faculty in the natural sciences perceive science education

faculty. The recent graduates conﬁrmed that good science students are discouraged from

14

becoming teachers. According to one dean from a Midwestern University, there is need

to integrate education and the natural sciences courses in order to address the challenge of
scientiﬁc literacy among teachers. Agreeing with this idea, a dean from a North-Western
University said, There is need to build bridges between science education and the
colleges of science. ”

Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge inﬂuences the way students learn
science (Shulman, 1987). University science teaching promotes memorization, which has
contributed to production of teachers who are under-prepared to teach science, and this is
a big challenge for science educators. The other challenge constraining science teachers’
practice is a lack of understanding of the nature of science. According to a faculty
member from a Southern University, “Teachers do not possess a clear understanding of
the nature of science because it is not dealt with in detail. " This shows that there is the
challenge of ﬁguring out how to improve the quality Of teacher preparation. For teachers
who are already in schools, there is need for professional development in this area.
According to a faculty member from a Midwestern University this brings up another
challenge Of funding: "Huge quantities of money are being spent on curriculum
development and professional development of teachers who are mediocre to poor and
educators must figure out how to do these things better. " Several colleges of education
cannot fund professional development initiatives; hence this has negatively impacted
faculty efforts to address the reform goals of helping teachers to achieve ‘science literacy
for all’.

Professors of science education therefore feel that no matter how hard they are

working to produce good teachers, it is hard for them to do this because of other external

15

factors such as attraction of good science students to more prestigious and better paying
professions. This tension that exists in teacher preparation is also reﬂected in doctoral
preparation where some good teachers of science prefer to get PhDs in the sciences.
Teachers who have deeper understanding of science normally also end up teaching in
suburban schools that are better equipped, leaving urban schools with less qualiﬁed
teachers. Urban schools fail to attract good teachers and yet they are the ones that need
them most in order to close the achievement gap. Lack of equity in the schools has led to
lack of good teacher and makes it harder to close the achievement gap. The most recent
No Child Left Behind reform tries to address this issue by requiring that all teachers be
highly qualiﬁed, but from what has been discussed earlier, it is hard to achieve this if the
teachers do not have deep understanding of science. As long as there is no collaboration
between the sciences and education departments, preparing teachers with a deep
understanding of science content will remain a challenge.

Science education faculty mentioned under-representation Of minorities in science
education as a big issue that is posing a challenge to the science education community.
This issue has been a cause for concern among deans and faculty at different institutions.
The dean at a Southeastern University saw this as a crisis in the making as shown in the
quotation below:

According to the current demographic shift, by 2050 there is going to be 50%

minority and 50% white and this will lead to a crisis in science and math

personnel. One reason why schools are failing to produce more minority science
educators is because schools in urban areas do not have good facilities and they
do not have the best teachers.

Inequity in the K-12 education system has resulted in a lack of good teachers and

lack of resources in urban schools. This has resulted in fewer minority graduates who

16

specialize in science, and this has led to fewer role models for minority students. This
leads to a situation where fewer minority students become interested in science hence a
vicious cycle results where fewer minority students are attracted to science subjects
(Russel & Atwater, 2005; Lewis & Collins, 2001). This makes it difﬁcult to achieve
scientiﬁc literacy for all students. If some students continue to be deprived of resources
that enable them to learn the same quality of science as their counterparts in richer
schools, the goal of ‘science for all’ will never be achieved.

The challenges confronting the ﬁeld of science education as highlighted above are
multi-faceted and have been seen by science education faculty as constraints to achieving
the national goal of ‘science literacy for all’. In order to address these challenges, there is
need to include policymakers, academicians, education administrators, educators, parents
as well as the general community. The deans and science education faculty mentioned
that educators alone couldn’t address these challenges because; socioeconomic and
cultural factors also work to create inequity resulting in achievement gap among students.

Analysis of ﬁndings from this study shows that doctoral programs are failing to
respond decisively to issues highlighted in the reforms. According to Gallagher and
Gwekwerere (2003) the ﬁeld of science education risks becoming obsolete by failing to
respond decisively to such issues as diversity and technology. Minority under-
representation in science is also of major concern, considering the diverse student body in
the US schools. The fact that there are fewer minority role models in science education
could be a contributory factor. One other reason for minority under representation in

sciences is lack of equity in the education system. Urban schools where most minority

l7

students live do not have resources and the poor school districts cannot attract good
science teachers, hence these pOpulationS end up being marginalized.

Although doctoral programs are making changes in order to address these
challenges in the ﬁeld of science education, the deans at the different institutions that
were studied were more concerned about addressing policy issues than issues that are
related to equity and diversity. Issues that are critical to the ﬁeld of science education
were not on the deans’ radar screens. Since this study was a survey often doctoral
programs, it did not go into depth looking at how each Of the doctoral programs are
interpreting the current reforms in science and how they are addressing the reforms in the
coursework and research. Therefore, this current study is a follow up investigation of
three of those doctoral programs. I take an in-depth study of the three programs and the
views of faculty, doctoral students and recent graduates. An interpretive theoretical
approach was used to infer how the three doctoral programs are interpreting the current
reforms from analysis of the course documents and interview data.

Why Study Doctoral Programs

Doctoral programs play a significant role in preparing future leaders. Science
Education doctoral programs play an even more signiﬁcant role preparing leaders in a
ﬁeld that is critical to maintaining superiority in the face of global competition.

Doctoral graduates therefore ﬁnd themselves confronted with the reform issues in several
areas of their jobs, for example: a) preparing teachers for reform-based teaching, b)
research on reform-based best practices; c) teacher professional development related to
reform-based teaching; and d) research related to curriculum development. By choosing

to teach other students following graduation, doctoral graduates can make a contribution

18

to future generations by participating in this form of knowledge transfer. Doctoral
graduates also go on to become researchers, curriculum developers and K-12 science
education administration and teaching. All these areas are directly or indirectly related to
K-12 science teaching. Doctoral programs in science education therefore play a
signiﬁcant role in knowledge creation as well as addressing the challenges facing K-12
science education, especially those related to the current reforms.

The scarcity of research on the work of teacher educators at universities gives the
impression that their work does not warrant studying like that Of schoolteachers.
However, it is Russell and Korthagen’s (1995) view that teacher educators at universities
have lived too long in a world that pretends they are not teachers when contrasting
themselves with those whom the term teacher most readily suggests. Education faculty
are teachers and are Often expected to be “super-teachers”, because they have risen into
the academic world to a School or Faculty of Education (Russell & Korthagen, 1995). In
this work, I therefore view science educators as teachers whose practice needs to be
understood through research, just like the practice Of schoolteachers is studied and
understood. According to Project 2061 (2006) science educators need to be
knowledgeable about science content and how to teach it well before they can help

teachers to practice reform-based teaching:

19

Support continues to grow for the science literacy goals in Project 2061’s Science
for all Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Research
Council’s National Science Education Standards. Yet much remains to be done
before teachers and students across the country can reach those goals. For
example, educators must themselves be literate in science, mathematics,
technology, and their interconnections. They must know how to teach in ways that
will help students understand and retain the most important concepts. And they
must be able to select curriculum materials that meet benchmarks and standards.
Project 2061 website
This clearly shows that there is need for research that focuses on understanding and
improving the work of teacher educators and preparation of doctorates.
Although literature on how teacher educators are addressing issues related to K-
12 education is limited, there is evidence that teacher educators have identiﬁed three
main constrains to preparing teachers and these are well known by those in the profession
(Russell and Korthagen, 1995). First, teacher educators face an uphill battle due to
tensions that exist between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. Second, teacher educators also ﬁnd
themselves having too much work to cover over a short period of time that preservice
teachers have to complete as coursework. Third, a tension exists between balancing
teaching and research especially at large research institutions where tenure and
promotions are based more on research than on teaching. Because of these constraints,
teacher educators have always struggled to ﬁnd time to demonstrate the “super skills”
that they are expected to exhibit. Although these constraints are known and documented
(Gallagher et. al., 2003), their impact on the quality Of teachers is not known.
Recent studies have shown that science education doctoral programs do not seem
to be responding decisively to the challenges confronting K-12 science education

(Gallagher & Gwekwerere, 2003; J ablon, 2003). However, there is no data to show

exactly what doctoral programs are doing or not doing to respond to the challenges

20

confronting the ﬁeld. One well-known factor in academia is that research is valued more
than teaching and that the PhD seems to be resistant to change (Russell & Korthagen,
1995). Other factors inﬂuencing response to the challenges in the ﬁeld are related to
faculty values, beliefs, knowledge, skills, and inertia, which normally drive the doctoral
programs. Interpretation of the reform can also inﬂuence how science educators respond
to the reforms. Limited resources could also determine level of response to challenges in
the ﬁeld by faculty at different places.

This study will partially ﬁll a gap in literature on preparation of science education
doctorates. I also see this study as providing a missing link in the studies that inform us
about how excellence in science teaching and learning can be achieved. The challenges
confronting K-12 science teaching and learning are complex, and as a result, there is need
to conduct studies that provide a holistic picture of how educators are being prepared at
all levels. A holistic understanding of the preparation of science educators is a necessary
step to addressing the national reform concepts more appropriately. Most importantly,
this study served as a reﬂection for science education faculty who were able to articulate
what their programs are doing and are failing to do in response to the current reforms and
how they plan to better prepare their graduates.

My interest in studying science education doctoral programs emanated ﬁom my
experience working on the Leadership Development Project (2003). I had the opportunity
of interviewing new science education professors about their experiences during doctoral
studies and how they were prepared for their careers. Findings from the study indicated
that implementation of current reforms in science education was posing a major challenge

to the science education community. Since my goal is to teach graduate courses in

21

science education, I became curious to know what science educators are doing to address
the challenges posed by the current reforms and how they are interpreting the goals of the
reforms and enacting them as they prepare future leaders through doctoral studies.

This document has 8 chapters. In chapter 2, I provided an analysis of literature
that speciﬁcally relates to science education reforms and studies of doctoral programs. In
the analysis I highlighted the goals of science literacy for all and the emphasis that is
placed on research efforts related to the reforms by different authors. I also provided a
theoretical framework that is based on literature that focuses on the reforms. In chapter 3,
I presented the methodology, study design and methods used in this study. I described the
cases in this study and how I am going to use an interpretive approach to analyzing data
from each of the cases. In chapters 4, 5, and 6 I provided a description and within case
analysis of ﬁndings from each of the three institutions. Within each case I compared the
views of faculty, doctoral students and recent graduates. In chapter 7, I presented a cross-
case analysis of the three cases and I showed the patterns that exist across the three cases.
In chapter 8, I provided what I found to be implications for practice, policy, and research.

I also presented my plans for future research.

22

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This Nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientiﬁc

literacy. The National science education standards are designed to enable the

nation to achieve that goal. They spell out a vision of science education that will

make scientific literacy for all a reality in the 21" century

(National Research Council, 1996p. ix)

Project 2061’s benchmarks are statements of what all students should know or be

able to do in science, mathematics, and technology by the end Of grades 2, 5, 8,

and 12. (AAAS, Benchmarks online, 1993)

The set of recommendations constitute a core of learning in science, mathematics

and technology for all young people, regardless of their social circumstances, and

career aspirations. In particular, the recommendations pertain to those who in the

past have largely been bypassed in science and mathematics education: ethnic and

language minorities and girls.

(Science for All Americans, Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990)

These three quotations were taken from the three current science education reform
documents to highlight the goals of the reforms. One common feature across the three
quotations is the reference to science literacy and all students. In the case of the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) the goal is that “All students should achieve
scientific literacy by the 21“ century. ” Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993) provides benchmarks
Of what “All students should know and be able to do ", and Science for All Americans
(Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990) provided recommendations for “a core of learning for all
young people regardless of their social circumstances, and career aspirations”. These
reform goals appear to be simple and straightforward because we know that all students
refers to all students enrolled in schools. Because schooling is compulsory for all school
age young people in the U. 8., there is no question about whom the goals refer to.

Although achieving scientiﬁc literacy for all students is the major goal of the

current reform efforts, there is limited consensus on the meaning of scientiﬁc literacy and

23

how it can be achieved or who ‘all students’ refers to (Malcolm, 2005). According to
Galosy (2005), science for all remains relatively unexplored territory and the problem
with slogans such as science for all is that they can be taken to mean many different
things (Brickhouse, 2005). Since the reform documents do not deﬁne the reform goal of
science for all in detail, some have viewed science literacy for all as referring to teaching
science for understanding to ‘everybody’ through improving pedagogy and a rigorous
curriculum as has been outlined in the reform documents. This way of interpreting
‘science for all’ has been seen by other science educators as ‘one size ﬁts all’ (Lemke
2001, Lynch 2001). According to Lynch (2001), this is unlikely to address adequately the
diversity of identities among school age children.

Since the reform goals entail both achieving scientiﬁc literacy by all children and
achieving equity for all children, I will discuss how scientific literacy has been deﬁned
ﬁrst, and then I will discuss how science for all children has been deﬁned. I have divided
the literature into three different ways that science literacy for all and science for all have
been deﬁned in the existing literature.

How Science Literacy for all has Been Interpreted in Literature
Achieving Science Literacy for all through Authentic Science Experiences

In the 19503, scientiﬁc literacy was a rallying symbol with no deﬁnition and by
mid 1963 the term had numerous interpretations (Roberts, 1983). The American
Association for the Advancement in Science (1998) deﬁned a scientiﬁcally literate
person as one who:

a) Is familiar with the natural world

b) Understands some of the key concepts and principles of science

24

c) Has a capacity for scientiﬁc ways Of thinking
d) Is aware of some of the important ways in which mathematics, technology, and
science depend on one another
e) Knows that science, mathematics, and technology are human enterprises, and
what that implies about their strengths and weaknesses
f) Is able to use scientiﬁc knowledge and ways of thinking for personal and social
purposes
The National Science Education Standard’s deﬁnition Of a scientiﬁcally literate
person is in agreement with this deﬁnition. Similarly, Mitman, Mergendoller, Marchman
and Packer (1987) noted that no single deﬁnition of scientiﬁc literacy prevails, but the
many existing deﬁnitions share the following several features: a) all the deﬁnitions are
motivated by the concern that schools prepare all students to function well in an
increasingly technologically oriented society, one where they also face important
decisions as citizens about use of scientiﬁc research and its application; b) all deﬁnitions
reﬂect the notion that students should become acquainted with a fundamental set of
science facts and concepts for example, this is explicit in the National Science Education
Standards (1996) and the Michigan Curriculum Frameworks, 1996; Benchmarks for
Scientiﬁc Literacy, 1993); 0) understanding the importance and meaningfulness of
science in connection with other broader contexts of human endeavor reﬂected by terms
such as nature of science, science and society. This is also clearly shown in the
benchmarks and the national standards.
Since the 1980S, science educators have advocated for teaching science for

understanding and teaching science to all students. By focusing on all students the aim

25

was to move away from the idea that science should only be taught to students who were
going to become scientists. Efforts have been made to teach science for understanding
and deﬁning what it means to understand science. (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998; Wiske,
1998; White & Gunstone, 1992). Understanding science is different from rote
memorization where the focus is on remembering facts that are soon forgotten after a test.
In order to prepare all students to become scientiﬁcally literate, science educators have
researched on and suggested models of teaching science to achieve a deeper
understanding Of the content. Earlier, conceptual change models were brought forward as
a way of helping to address the naive conceptions or misconceptions that students bring
to learning science (Strike & Posner, 1982).

The reforms were built on the ideas of teaching science for understanding and
teaching science to all students. Following introduction of the reforms, models of
teaching for understanding focused more on engaging students in doing science mostly
through inquiry (NRC, 2000; Haury, 2001; and Llewellyn, 2002). The National Science
Education Standards (1998) emphasized the importance of inquiry in science teaching as
a way of achieving science literacy for all. Martin, Sexton, & Gerlovich, (1998) view
inquiry as the cornerstone of the standards for teaching. The National Science Education
Standards outline speciﬁc teaching standards that are necessary for teachers to produce
scientiﬁcally literate students. Among the teaching standards (NRC, 2006 p 32), there are
several points that encourage teachers to:

0 Focus and support inquiries while interacting with students
- Orchestrate discourse among students about scientiﬁc ideas

0 Challenge students to accept and share responsibility for their own learning

26

o Recognize and respond to student diversity and encourage all students to
participate fully in science learning
0 Encourage and model the skills of scientiﬁc inquiry, as well as the curiosity,
Openness to new ideas and data, and skepticism that characterizes science
Following up on the standards deﬁnitions of scientiﬁc inquiry, several science
educators have come up with instructional models that show how inquiry can be
conducted in the classroom. Examples are the 4 Es model (Martin, Sexton, & Gerlovich,
(1998), and the 5 Es model (Bybee, 1997) that show the process Of doing inquiry step by
step. Other models of teaching science inquiry have since been suggested. For example
Anderson (personal communication) proposed a model that shows the connections
between students’ experiences, patterns in their experiences and explanation of the
experiences. All these efforts are targeted at producing scientiﬁcally literate students. The
concept of science inquiry is based on the constructivist theory of learning that view
learners as capable of constructing their own understanding and connecting their ideas
into a fabric of concepts, attitudes and skills that carries meaning to them personally and
academically (Martin, Sexton, & Gerlovich, 1998).
Open-ended inquiry in science has been deﬁned as ‘authentic science’ (Roth,
1995); or ‘real science’ (Woolnough, 2000). Authentic science has been seen as a way to
engage all students in doing science regardless of their ability. Woolnough, (2000)
showed how students’ research projects are effective in developing core Skills in students,
especially problem solving, communication and interpersonal skills that improve
students’ attitudes towards science. Using his own experience as a graduate student, Roth

(1995) showed how exciting it was to see patterns emerging from the data plotted as he

27

read measurements from many hours of experimenting. He therefore viewed going
beyond the textbook and doing authentic science the way it was practiced by scientists as
a way to motivate all students to learn and understand science. Researchers who are
focusing on authentic science and using technology in science teaching are realizing the
complexity of learning and instruction (Clarebout & Elen, 2006). Over the past century,
researchers have tried to reduce complexity of instructional processes by breaking them
down into simpler pieces, which resulted in simplistic solutions for complex instructional
processes (Clarebout & Elen, (2006).

Scientiﬁc models are essential tools for productive scientiﬁc reasoning in children
and adults. Science instruction focused around scientiﬁc modeling can help learners
develop deep understanding of subject matter, powerful scientiﬁc skills, and a strong
understanding of the nature of science (Carey & Smith, 1993; F eurzeig & Roberts, 1999;
Lehrer & Schauble, 2000; NRC, 2000). Scientists and science educators agree that such
Skills and understanding are essential for all citizens. While inquiry has again become an
important focus in the science classroom (NRC, 2000), modeling is not routinely
practiced in schools. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the K-12 curriculum that
emphasizes complex forms of reasoning only for older and more capable students
(Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989; Schauble, Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John, 1995;
Bruer, 1993). Schwarz & Gwekwerere, (2006), came up with an instructional model that
promotes the use Of model-centered scientiﬁc inquiry among K-8 preservice teachers.

The literature discussed above shows an effort buy science educators to develop
pedagogical methods that focus on ensuring that every child learned science with

understanding. Science inquiry, authentic science experiences and model-based reasoning

28

 

are ways that motivate all students to learn and understand science. These methods are
used in an effort to achieve equity in science teaching (NRC, 1986) by engaging all
students in doing science, not just those students who are going to become scientists.
Students in any school can engage in inquiry, model-based reasoning and different forms
of authentic science, provided they have the resources.

Achieving Science Literacy for all Through Equity in Science Teaching

The diverse nature of students in school warrants the efforts being taken to
achieve scientiﬁc literacy for all to take a more global view that takes the needs of all
students into consideration. Researchers who are concerned about this lack of attention
on all students in the efforts to achieve scientiﬁc literacy have taken a critical approach to
deﬁning what science for all means and suggesting how science literacy for all students
can be achieved. Using words from Fenshem; Brickhouse (2005) deﬁned science for all
as a call to addressing the needs of all children, not just the ones who will become
scientists:

Fenshem has long advocated science for all. His use of this slogan has generally

been intended to claim that science classes must address the needs of all students,

not just the ones who take up identities as professional scientists. . .science classes
have been too strongly inﬂuenced by the needs of few students who will go on to
become professionals, qualiﬁed scientists. The needs of the majority are largely
ignored (p93)

This deﬁnition of science for all shows that mandating a curriculum or using
pedagogy that does not address the needs of all students does not lead to achieving
science literacy for all students. Racial/ethnic, cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic
variability are factors that have been found to affect science achievement among K-12

students who have traditionally been underserved by the education system (Barton, 2003;

Lee, 2005). According to Barton (2003), achievement differences among subgroups of
29

the population have deep roots. These roots are embedded in the social fabric of the
nation; “they arrive early and stay late, beginning before the cradle, continuing through to
graduation, if that outcome happens (Barton, 2003, p1).

Malcolm, (2003) for example has shown how science for all is contrary to
achieving science literacy for some students. He goes on to say that, Offering all students
narrowly deﬁned programs focused on preparation and selection for tertiary science study
is not science for all. According to Malcolm, exclusion occurs through university-
required pre-requisites, tracking, stereotyping and counseling in high schools. He
therefore deﬁnes science for all as a plea to provide access to science for all students. By
access he refers both to physical access and access to pedagogy that enables students
from different backgrounds to learn science as shown in the quotation below:

0 Physical access to teachers, facilities, and courses is a basic requirement.
Exclusion occurs through university required pre-requisites, tracking and
counseling in high school, stereotyping, curriculum and assessment

0 “Science for all” is contrary to “Science for some”. Offering all students
narrowly deﬁned programs focused on preparation and selection for
tertiary science study is not “Science for All”

0 Access is partly about pedagogy-enabling different students to learn
efﬁciently taking into account their backgrounds, contexts, learning styles,
and aspirations.

0 Access is also about outcome. TO what should students have access?
Access stretches beyond effective learning to meaningful learning, and

issues of purpose and content: Which science? Whose science? Why?

30

Similarly Brickhouse (1994) took a critical look at who has access to science
learning and she deﬁned outsiders to science as Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and
girls. In her paper entitled ‘Bringing in the Outsider’ she showed the need to make
science accessible to these groups of students by valuing the knowledge they bring to
science learning, hence helping them to identify with science. Although Lee, (1998)
acknowledged the value of standards and benchmarks in science as an important ﬁrst step
in articulating what every students should know and be able to do to become
scientiﬁcally literate and to achieve science literacy for all, she critically analyzed how
the standards are not addressing the needs of linguistic minority students. According to
Lee (1998), efforts should be focused on how to make reform-based assessments and how
to ensure access and achievement for all students. She saw the alignments of assessment
with the content standards as well as the attainment of standards by all students as key
challenges to standards-based reform and systemic reforms in large education systems.

Several educators share the critical perspective that it is hard to achieve both
excellence and equity without making resources available to all students. According to
Kahle (1977) and Porter (1995), without resources and opportunities, setting high
academic standards may pose additional challenges and learning difﬁculties to
disadvantaged students. Similar efforts to deﬁne what constitutes the inﬂuence of
standards on student achievement showed that it hard to separate the inﬂuence of
standards from investment in schools (Anderson, 2003). In agreement, Biddle (1997)

argued that:

31

If you want to know what inﬂuences student achievement, don’t follow the
standards follow the money. Improving achievement is about making resources
available to children and to their teachers, not about setting standards. (p 9)

Biddle (1997) argued that the inﬂuence of standards is insigniﬁcant in comparison
with variables such as school funding and child poverty. Using evidence from the Third
lntemational Mathematics and Science Study, Biddle showed that the United States has
greater disparities in school funding and higher levels of child poverty than any other
developed countries participating in the study. Anderson (2003) agreed with Biddle’s
basic premise that factors such as school funding and child poverty do affect student
learning and that they will continue to do so whether we have standards or not. Anderson
(2003) argued that it is hard to separate the inﬂuence of standards from the inﬂuence Of
other factors in a complex system where student learning is affected by many factors”.
Anderson (2003) goes on to wonder whether the focus on standards is a distraction from
the issues that really matter.

Taking a more critical look at the implementation of the reforms, Thomson,
Spillane and Cohen, (1994) viewed the standards as demanding and complex and posing
challenges for teachers. According to these authors, the current practice of many teachers
does not match what is called for in the national standards: “TO teach in a manner
consistent with the new vision, a teacher would not only have to be extraordinarily
knowledgeable, but would also need to have a certain sort of motivation or will.” (NRC,
1998, p.27). Hence the teaching and learning envisioned in the national standards would

require new resources and long-term support in the form of professional development,

new curricula, and new assessment systems. According to Anderson (2003), there is need

32

to ask what will be the payoff for investing in the standards and what effect this
investment will have on student learning.

Along the discussion Of achieving science literacy for all, some scholars believe
that schools have the capacity to close the achievement gap (Themstron & Themstron
(2003), yet others strongly believe that schools alone cannot close this achievement gap
because the gap is widened more by sociO-cultural factors (Rothstein, 2004). Rothstein
(2004) argues that Schools lack the capacity to reduce the achievement gap and that a
range of social policies has more profound effects but these policies cannot gain political
support. He believes that achievement gaps between black and white, afﬂuent and poor
are deeply rooted in the social realities Of race and class and that no evidence suggests
that improvements in quality of schooling alone can do much to signiﬁcantly reduce the
achievement gap.

On the other hand Themstron & Themstron (2003) argue that racial inequality
should be addressed by improving academic performance of black children. They believe
that good schools can help close the achievement gap through high expectations,
discipline, order, good teaching, and core academic skills. They go on to say that
addressing the race gap requires change in behavior of black parents as well as
educational policy and practice. They see the social gap as not being caused by socio-
economic or social class but by culture, hence according to these authors, given purpose,
discipline and support, disadvantaged minority children will commit to their schools.

It is clear from the different views of these authors that reforming science to
achieve scientiﬁc literacy for all is complex and the issues are multi-faceted. Besides the

need to improve pedagogy and make resources and ﬁnances available to all schools, there

33

is need tO address sociO-economic, cultural and racial issues that inﬂuence student
learning.
Achieving Science Literacy for all Through Teaching Science for Social Justice

Recently, some science educators realized that science literacy for all is a social
justice issue. In order to address these issues, some science educators are taking a social
justice approach to science teaching. Literature shows that poor children and minority
children, mostly African American, and Hispanic who live in urban areas have not
received good science education compared to fellow students, mostly white who live in
suburban areas (Barton, 2003). The education system has not provided a ‘just’ science
education to all students (Connell, 2003). Achieving science literacy for all students
means providing ‘just’ science education to all students.

However, according to Griffiths (2003), social justice and education are both
complex and have many interconnections. No one teacher can claim to know what is
going on for mixed-race children, refugees, Aﬁican Americans and immigrants. Grifﬁths
(2003) went on to advise teachers and other school administrators that they need not
worry that they cannot know everything about the learners. He came up with three
strategies that can be used to understand the learners in order to serve them better; a) to
listen and talk; and then, b) to consult and cooperate; and c) to take action. She came up
with a model of action for social justice in education (Figure 2.1) that can be used as a

lens for thinking about how social justice can be enacted in education.

34

 

Respecting and valuing self

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and others
Meeting together and A Mode] of Listening and
acting together Social Justice
Conversing and
Taking action 4 _ consulting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. 1: Model of action for social justice in education (Grifﬁths, 2003)

According tO Connell (2003), teaching cannot be separated from social justice
because teaching is a moral tool that involves questions about criteria for action,
application of resources and responsibility and consequences for action. In agreement
with this fact, Grifﬁths (2003) emphasized the fact that social justice matters for everyone
connected with the schools mainly because schools are social institutions and a public
asset and it is important to question who gets its beneﬁts (Connell, 1993). Many people
view education and social justice as separate entities and this is clearly shown by the
separate government departments that oversee these issues (Connell, 1993). By making
these departments separate, difﬁcult issues of social justice in education are avoided
rather than confronted. This claim has been conﬁrmed by the reform documents’ silence
on issues of social justice and the emphasis they place on the content that students need to
know and be able to do. According to Oakes (2003), learning is a social and cultural

activity, and social justice plays a role in multicultural education.
35

Minorities are not well represented in science and this is mainly because not many
minorities specialize in the sciences (Gallagher et. al., 2003). This is mainly because Of
inequities that exist in the schools as well as failure by minorities to identify with science
(Brickhouse, 1994). A science curriculum that only addresses the needs and interests of
one group in society is not a just curriculum and according to Brickhouse (1994), science
traditionally alienates racial, cultural and linguistic minorities as well as girls. Science
knowledge is culturally constructed (Lemke, 2001therefore those who belong to the
culture of power (Delpitt, 1998) identify better with science compared to minority
students and girls. Curricular justice can only be achieved when the interests Of the least
advantaged are taken into consideration (Connell, 2003; Brickhouse, 1994).

In order to achieve the goal of ‘excellence and equity’ in science education, there
is need to “think through science experiences from the standpoint of the poor and
minorities not the rich, we think through gender from the standpoint of women and we
think through race from the standpoint of indigenous and minority groups” (Connell,
2003). Barton (2003) showed how specialists in science education believe that the
knowledge students bring is less superior to that of teachers. Using the example of “the
picnic table”, she showed how the researchers thought the picnic table kits sold at Home
Depot would make more stable tables than the ones the students were to make. TO their
surprise they found that the Home Depot picnic table kits had been discontinued because
the tables were falling apart. Offering students the chance to construct their own picnic
tables showed the researchers that the students were capable designers and who exhibited

science knowledge and skills in the process.

36

According to Barton, (2003) there is need to move beyond the deﬁcit model that
views urban students as having no prior science knowledge or ideas if we are to achieve
science literacy for all. Poor urban students bring a wealth of knowledge to learning
science. When making a science curriculum that enacts social justice, educators need to
ask themselves “what science means to the disadvantaged students in society” and “what
science is relevant to students who are less advantaged” (Connell, 2003). A curriculum
for social justice therefore entails that the teacher develops an understanding of the urban
youth and know what science knowledge they are bringing to the classroom (Burton,
2003). Only by doing so can science literacy for all students be achieved for all students.

Literature shows that science literacy for all should be viewed from a social
justice perspective. This is mainly because not all students have had equal access to
science education because of inequitable funding in schools. Brickhouse argued that
minority students and those from cultural backgrounds that are different from the culture
of power have found it difﬁcult to identify with science. Grifﬁths and Connell argue that
education and social justice should not be separated and that in order to achieve curricular
justice there is need to think from the viewpoint of the least advantaged in society. The
national goal Of achieving science literacy for all is therefore a social justice issue.
Studies of Doctoral Programs

It is imperative to continue evaluating the signiﬁcance of the Ph.D. lts complex
nature deﬁes simple explanation, and its continued value as capstone to American

higher education only makes its presence more enigmatic (Buchanan & Herubel,

1995)

37

Traditionally, research on doctoral programs has focused on ranking them in
terms of reputation of the program and its faculty (Hughes, 1925). In 1960, Allan Carter
used qualitative judgments such as quality of graduate faculty, effectiveness of doctoral
program and the expected change in the next 5-10 years to rank doctoral programs. His
study is seen as the pioneer to the modern approaches to assessing doctoral programs. In
1990, the National Research Council conducted a more comprehensive survey that
included 41 speciﬁc ﬁelds in 274 institutions and 3, 634 doctoral programs. The program
rankings in this study were based on the names of “star” faculty without considering
program quality (Osteriker & Kuh, 2003).

Criticisms have also been leveled against the US News and World Report ratings.
For example the 1992 US News and World Report rankings were criticized for their
narrow focus that led to bias where bigger programs got better ratings just because they
are large, and for perpetuating a mythology about “excellence” that is misleading because
they measure the number of stars” on the graduate faculty (Greenberg, Astin, Webster, &
Massey, 1992). J ackman and Silverson, (1996) also viewed the 1990 NRC rankings as
controversial since some interpret them as an indicator of relative program quality while
others view them as a gauge of age and size of a program and yet still others view them
simply as a popularity barometer.

These assessments of doctoral programs provided students and the society with
information on which doctoral programs were the best, but they only focused on
reputation of programs and faculty, and they did not provide information on the quality
and nature of the academic and professional courses offered. Neither did these studies

consider the outcomes of the doctoral programs. Programs within well-known large

38

universities were rated higher than equivalent programs in lesser-known smaller
institutions (Osteriker & Kuh, 2003). These authors went on to show how these ratings
did not recognize the excellence or the role each program played within its community
and how they overlooked some small programs that may have focused their resources on
achieving excellence. These studies also rated scholarly achievement as if it were
separate from educational effectiveness, for example by placing emphasis on research
productivity and scholarly achievement of faculty without consideration of the program
outcomes (Osteriker &Kuh, 2003). These criticisms point to the need for studies of
doctoral programs that focus on the nature and quality of doctoral programs, outcomes of
doctoral preparation and the role the programs play in their communities.

There have been limited studies of science education doctoral programs. The
pioneering research of science education doctoral programs was conducted to determine
the extent to which doctoral programs reﬂected adoption of the guidelines for doctoral
studies that were proposed by the Association for Education of Teachers of Science in
1966 and 1974 (Butts, 1977). Studies that followed consisted of surveys of graduate
centers (Yager, 1980), and evaluation of educators’ perceptions of the graduate
preparation programs of science teachers (Butts and Yager (1980). This led to
documentation of the following recommendations that science education doctoral
programs needed to improve on: a) in-service training of teachers as a key to improving
science teaching; b) creation Of new curricula in order for science to focus on scientiﬁc
and technological needs of society; and c) collaboration between science educators and

teachers in order to address the problems in science education (Kahle & Yager, 1981).

39

Earlier studies of science education doctoral programs also showed the trend in
enrollments and doctoral production from the 19603 to the 1980s. Yager and Zehr (1981)
found that the number of institutions with major science education programs and
graduates peaked in 1975 and declined in 1980, reﬂecting the disappearance of programs
at Stanford and Harvard University. They also found that doctoral production increased
by a factor of 5 from 1960 to 1970, and decreased between 1970 and 1980, and that
stafﬁng declined but program features such as number of semester hours required have
remained fairly constant. Other major trends in their ﬁndings were that the science
education discipline grew swiftly from 1960 to] 970 and slowly from 1970 to 1975 in
terms of number of institutions, faculty and graduates. This was mainly due to increase in
ﬁnancial support during 1960 to 1970 and a major decline especially with respect to
externally funded projects and internal funding for graduate students after 1970. They
also found out that little attention was paid to goals of science education; with few
attempts at deﬁning science education in any other way other than the science that is
taught in schools and the preparation of teachers for such efforts.

Later studies focused on trends in the evolution of doctoral programs. Yager and
Butts (1982) described the doctoral programs and contrasted them with those from the
past in order to identify relevant directions for future developments. Their comparison
reﬂected several trends: a) a decline in the number of students enrolled in doctoral
programs, b) constant faculty numbers, c) ﬂexibility in speciﬁc course requirements;
courses in general curriculum and instruction remained as required features; (I) research
design and statistics course requirements increased and research procedures became less

traditional and more ﬂexible in nature; e) emphasis in planning projects and writing grant

40

proposals for external funding; f) changes in employment, g) fewer graduates becoming
teachers of science, and more graduates returning to K-12 as department chairs,
consultants, directors of curriculum, evaluation and leadership roles including general
admin. Opportunity for employment as a college or university science educator had
declined, however it remained a major area of employment. More graduates were ﬁnding
employment in industry, health ﬁelds, public centers and govemment.

Yager, Bybee, Gallagher and Renner (1982) reported on the Crises in the
Discipline of Science Education, using data from ﬁve surveys conducted between 1978
and 1979 to determine perceptions and problems facing science education among science
educators representing 28 institutions in the US. Results from this study were in keeping
with Yager and Butts (1982) and some of these ﬁndings are consistent with the problems
faced by the science education community today. There was general lack of agreement
concerning goals and objectives that are relevant to contemporary priorities in science,
society, and education; lack of vision and leadership in schools and universities; lack Of
professional identity and legitimacy; and inappropriate testing which resulted in slavish
attention to factual recall. Other problems cited included organizational problems both in
schools and universities; teacher related problems; the nature of science and its
relationship to society; decline in number of students electing for upper level science
classes; lack of dialogue between university scientists and science educators and
practitioners in the schools; public and parental apathy toward science; impact of
government control on schools; and lack of ﬁnancial support for graduate students and

new faculty in science education.

41

These earlier studies provide a unique Opportunity to see the trends in the
evolution of science education doctoral programs. Most recently, Jablon (2002) Gallagher
et. al., 2003) conducted studies of science education doctoral programs. These studies
have provided a better insight into doctoral program structure, how graduates are
prepared, and the challenges that programs are faced with as they prepare future leaders.
For example, J ablon (2002) focused on the outcomes of the doctoral programs. He
conducted a survey eliciting data from 64 science education doctoral programs and
interviewed the deans and heads of schools and departments of education about the need
for and qualities expected of science education doctoral graduates. Findings from his
study showed a need for enrichment in areas of urban science teaching, nature of science,
and effective school change strategies in science education. These issues are related to the
current reforms in science education and the ﬁndings show that doctoral programs were
failing to address issues that are pertinent to achieving the reform goal of ‘science literacy
for all’.

Similarly an NSF funded Leadership development study that was described in the
introduction (Gallagher & Gwekwerere, 2003,) showed that science education doctoral
programs were failing to decisively respond to issues of national concern such as
diversity and technology. Additionally, programs were failing to respond decisively to
the reform agenda. The study also reported that there is minority under-representation in
science education—a general shortfall in the number of graduate enrollments. These most

recent studies of science education doctoral programs Show that the programs are not

addressing issues that are pertinent to K-12 science education as outlined in the standards.

42

There is need for research that focuses on how individual doctoral programs in science
education are addressing or failing to address issues related to the reform agenda.

This study aims to partially fulﬁll this need by studying how three science
education doctoral programs are responding to the current reforms in science education.
Since the ultimate objective of doctoral programs is that of “serving society”, failure to
respond seriously to the reform agenda could mean that they are failing to achieve their
objective.

Theoretical Framework

This study is based on a critical theory framework. Critical thinking has been looked at
from different perspectives. In this case I will look at critical thinking from a complex
critical thinking perspectives borrowed ﬁ'om Kincheloe & Well (2004). According to
Kincheloe & Wei] (2004), simplistic critical thinking looks for a set of solutions to neatly
outlined problems where one “enters a virtual world without rough edges, where all
relationships are in place and easily discerned and inquiries into the disjunction between
the virtual world and complex lived world are ignored” (Kincheloe and Weil, 2004. P. 3)
In contrast, complex critical thinking takes into account a wide variety of

social, cultural, political, cognitive, and pedagogical discourses (Kincheloe and Weil,
2004).

Whereas critical thinking places emphasis on logic, conceptual analysis, and
epistemological insight, complex critical thinking goes further to emphasize the existence
of unexplored domains of human consciousness and cognition. Kincheloe and Weil’s
(2004) conception of complex critical thinking therefore emphasizes the need to

respectfully understand the thinking of others and to be more hesitant to reject other

43

forms of knowledge production and meaning making. When applied to science education,
complex critical thinking includes a closer look at other factors that inﬂuence science
learning and diversity among learners in terms of social, cultural, linguistic and learning
disability. Contextual factors such as policies, funding, business, and the public, just to
name a few, inﬂuence schools and science learning. Therefore when looking at achieving
science literacy for all students, complex critical thinking places emphasis both good
pedagogy, diversity among learners and contextual factors that inﬂuence students’
learning.

I chose to use Kincheloe and Weil’s (2004) conception of critical thinking as a
framework for my study. This study is an investigation of how science educators are
responding to science education reforms as they prepare future leaders in the ﬁeld. As I
read literature around the issues of reforms and teaching science for all, I realized that
science educators are taking different stances on how science literacy for all can be
achieved, with some focusing on achieving science literacy for all through improving
pedagogy and teaching science for understanding. In this case the science educators are
responding to the prevailing deﬁnition of achieving science literacy for all as outlined in
the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1998) and the Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (AAAS, 1993).

Prevailing reform-based science teaching emphasizes the practice of inquiry,
model-based reasoning and authentic science experiences as teaching methods that
improve science teaching and ensuring that all students gain an understanding of science.
This practice of teaching science to all students is a departure from the traditional practice

where science was only accessible to a few students who were interested in becoming

44

scientists. Hence the prevailing practice of science ensures equity in science teaching in
the sense that everybody now has access to science. In addition to promoting reform-
based pedagogy, other science educators are also focusing on ﬁnding ways to address
inequity in science between afﬂuent suburban schools and other poorly funded schools in
cities and rural areas. Hence these science educators are going beyond thinking of
improving pedagogy in one classroom to improving pedagogy in multiple settings. The
bottom line is that all science educators are involved in the process of critically thinking
about how to achieve equity in science teaching and they are thinking about doing this at
different levels.

Achieving science literacy for all students is the national goal for the science
education reforms. The reform documents Show that policy makers have critically looked
at the state of science teaching and learning and they have realized that there is need to
change the way science has always been taught in order to improve scientiﬁc literacy
among all students including those who are not going to be scientists. In addition, the
way the reforms are neatly laid out into what students should know and be able to do, and
what teachers should do to achieve science literacy for all shows critical thinking as
deﬁned by Kincheloe (2004):

Critical thinking in education is an art form and goes beyond a Cartesian notion of

reasoned choices among available logical alternatives or a Piagetian notion of

formal operations where the linear procedures of the scientiﬁc method are
followed by individuals seeking higher forms of cognitive activity. It is what we
call post formal thinking-a form of cognition that contends that Piaget’s

Cartesian-based formal stages do not represent the apex of human cognitive

ability. (p.7).

In keeping with Kincheloe, the reforms include a broader vision of science than

there was before, and they advocate for use of inquiry in science teaching. This is

45

different from the traditional lecture methods where the teacher was seen as the one who
possessed knowledge and learners were believed to have no knowledge of science.
Science inquiry is also different from the traditional scientiﬁc method where students
followed a set of directions to ﬁnd some pre-determined answers. Science inquiry enable
students to actively engage in the process of doing science by asking questions,
conducting investigations to come up with answers, ﬁnding explanations to the answers
and applying the knowledge gained to everyday life.

The new paradigm acknowledges the fact that learning is an active process where
the learner actively creates his/her own knowledge by making connections between what
they know and the new knowledge they learn. Hence the reformers used knowledge from
research in different areas such as constructivist theories from cognitive science to
emphasize the need to use inquiry in science learning (NRC, 1996).

The simplistic critical thinking perspective can also be referred to as traditional
school science teaching and learning approach. From this approach, how teachers teach
depends on the knowledge, skills and commitments they bring to their teaching and
opportunities they have to continue learning from their practice. The following statement
from Feiman-Nemser (2001) emphasizes the critical role that teacher preparation plays in
producing powerful student learning:

If we want schools to produce more powerful learning on the part of students, we
have to offer more powerful learning opportunities to teachers. . .New courses, tests,
and curriculum reforms can be important starting points, but they are meaningless if
teachers cannot use them productively. (p2).

Consequently, the preparation of prospective teacher educators through doctoral

study plays a critical role in producing quality teachers. Therefore, the preparation of

doctoral students also impacts the quality of teachers’ practice either directly or indirectly

46

through the way the graduates are prepared for their roles as teacher educators,
curriculum developers, and researchers. Since the publication of the National Science
Education Standards and Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc literacy, teachers have been called
upon to change their ways of teaching and to teach in new ways (NRC, 1998; AAAS
1996). These reforms are aimed at improving student achievement and ensuring that all
students become scientiﬁcally literate. Numerous reports of successes at preparing new
teachers to teach in reformed ways have been presented at professional meetings such as
NARST and AERA.

Across the literature, I showed how science educators and researchers have
interpreted the goals of the reforms in different ways. Whereas there is an explicit effort
by science educators to teach science for understanding through inquiry, model-based
reasoning and authentic experiences, there have also been some efforts to ﬁnd ways to
bring equitable science experiences to minorities, urban students and students with
learning disabilities. There have also been some efforts to make connections between
education and social justice and teaching science for social justice. Looking at science
from a social justice perspective is a radical way of looking at science because science
has always been seen as a special and objective body of knowledge. However, viewing
science from a social justice perspective shows realization that science Should be
accessible to all students.

Making science accessible to all students is critical because science exists in our
daily lives and to keep science, as a preserve for only a few people who can learn it is to
deny the rest of humanity a right to understand their world. Therefore viewing science as

a social justice issue shows humility among science educators who empathize with the

47

least served in society (Kincheloe, 2004). Making science available to all students
including those who are not going to be scientists is radical indeed. The focus on reaching
out to students who have not been equally served previously has led to questioning why
schools are failing to address the needs of all students and how all students can get equal
access to science education.

From review of literature it can be concluded that that researchers and science
educators are all making efforts to address issues of equity in science teaching both at
classroom level and at national level. Science educators can therefore ﬂexibly interpret
the reforms in ways that best suit their abilities and needs. A critical theory framework
will help me to identify the way science educators are interpreting the reform goal of

science literacy for all using the deﬁnitions of critical thinking described in this section.

48

CHAPTER 3
STUDYING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
Methodology

My research question was “How are science education doctoral programs
interpreting the current reforms and how are they enacting these reforms as they prepare
future leaders in the ﬁeld?” Three science education doctoral programs were selected for
this study. Two faculty members, three doctoral students and threerecent graduates from
each of the three programs were selected to participate in the study. The faculty members
were purposely selected in order to get the views Of people who are actively involved in
science education doctoral preparation. Data for this study was collected through
telephone and face-to-face interviews, surveys (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000) and
analysis of course documents (Yin, 2003).

I entered this study with the aim of gaining an in-depth perspective of how a
selected set of doctoral programs were preparing their doctoral students for leadership in
the ﬁeld of science education. As a science educator, my study needed to have a focus
that relates to issues that are relevant to the ﬁeld, which is why I chose to investigate how
the doctoral programs are responding to current reforms. As an outsider, I was introduced
to reforms during my ﬁrst year of doctoral study in the United States. I found the reforms
to be consistent with the way I thought about science teaching and learning. I have come
to realize that reform issues occupy a signiﬁcant part of the research literature in science
education. I got exposed to research and literature that showed how the reforms have
been addressed and the different ways science educators are trying to address issues of

equity in science education. AS I analyzed ﬁndings from the leadership development

49

2'9 ”V
In ...\

I i
lh.‘b

”Al-ll

l'

f .
(Yr
>—¢

P
Jr

study realized that there is not much literature on how science education doctoral
programs were addressing issues related to the reforms. I therefore decided to focus my
study on ﬁnding out how doctoral programs were interpreting the reforms and how they
are incorporating them in their programs.

I would like to acknowledge right from the beginning of this study that I am
looking at science education doctoral programs in the US as an outsider. However, I am
also looking at these programs with an insider perspective. I am not an American citizen,
which makes me an outsider to the American education system. However, I have lived in
the United States for 6 years and I have knowledge of US science education doctoral
programs that I gained as a participant in a doctoral program and in supervising
prospective teachers as they worked in American secondary schools. I was also involved
in a study of science education doctoral programs as a research assistant for 3 years,
which also provided me with a better understanding of the nature and variations among
doctoral programs in the US. My role in this study as a research assistant was to collect
and analyze data and to write up the manuscript. I conducted interviews with recent
graduates and analyzed data from the surveys. The conversations with recent graduates
made me aware of issues in doctoral studies that need to be investigated, hence my
interest in conducting this study.

As an outsider, I do not claim to have an understanding of the epistemologies and
worldviews that shape American science educators’ thinking and acting. My cultural and
educational background inﬂuences my own worldviews and ways of thinking, which are
different from that of my subjects. My interpretation of ﬁndings from this study is

inﬂuenced by my own epistemology, which is deﬁned by my cultural background and

50

worldview. Being aware of this helped me to be more conscious as I conducted the
interviews. I asked the interviewees to deﬁne the meanings of phrases I was not sure we
shared common understanding. I also restated some of the responses to ensure that I
captured the interviewee’s views correctly. My analysis of the ﬁndings represents my
understanding of the data and what I made of conversations that I had with the
participants. As I interpreted the views of my participants, 1 was acutely aware that how I
interpret the data is often at variance with what the interviewees may want or expect
(Paine and DeLany, 2000). In order to ensure that 1 represented the doctoral programs
more accurately, I asked the faculty members from each institution to read my
transcriptions and descriptions of their programs. This enabled the interviewee to voice
their concerns about the way I had represented them. I included their feedback in my ﬁnal
analysis, ensuring a fair representation of the other.

At the time of this study I was a students at one of the doctoral programs in this
study. As a doctoral student I have been exposed to multiple perspectives in the ﬁeld of
science teacher education. My own perspectives as well as the perspectives from my
doctoral courses have shaped the way I think about issues in science education and as a
result inﬂuenced the way I interpreted the ﬁndings in this study. I therefore came to this
study with a set of particular opinions, abilities and Objectives, which shaped my ideas. I
was aware of having inside perspectives of my own program while being an outsider to
the other programs. In order to ensure that I presented a balanced analysis of the
programs, I used a framework (NRC, 2002) to analyze the interviews. This helped me to
look for similar issues in the interviews and this allowed be to do a cross-case analysis of

the programs.

51

Interpretive Approach

An interpretive research approach (Rowlands, 2005) was used in this study to
investigate how science education doctoral programs are interpreting the current reform
initiatives and incorporating them in their programs. The goal of the current reform
efforts is to achieve science literacy for all students. In my investigation I looked at the
focus of science education faculty’s research and coursework and how they are
addressing the reform goal of science literacy for all and issues of equity in science
learning among students in different situations and among students with different
learning abilities.

I chose to use the interpretive research method for three main reasons. First, the
nature of my research problem and how my interest to work on this study developed
inﬂuenced my choice of the research approach. An interpretive research approach was
appropriate for this study because my research question was broad. My research question
was inﬂuenced by the way my research interests evolved from the Leadership
Development Study mentioned earlier on. Findings from the leadership development
study and other recent studies showed that doctoral programs were failing to address
national needs such as diversity and technology. I decided to investigate what individual
doctoral programs were doing to address the current reforms, how the professors
interpreted the reform goals, and how they arrived at decisions on what courses to teach
and what to include in the coursework. I did not have any measurable values and what I
wanted to learn shaped the research questions (Klein, & Myers, 1999). I conceptualized

this study to be exploratory in nature.

52

Secondly, my choice of interpretive approach was inﬂuenced by the assumptions 1
made about the theoretical lens that emerged (Klein, & Myers, 1999) from literature on
how different science educators think about reforms and how to address them. This kind
of literature revealed knowledge about how reforms can be addressed in K-12 schools but
there is no literature that showed the way science educators think about the reforms and
how they enacted them through doctoral study. The interpretive research approach is
consistent and compatible with the epistemological and ontological assumption that the
world and reality are interpreted by people in the context of historical and social practices
(Klein, & Myers, 1999). In this case, the meaning and goals of the reforms is subjective
and the way science education Professors think about them can at best be understood in
terms of their subjective meanings rather than my objective deﬁnitions as a researcher.

Third, I chose the interpretive research approach because of its ﬂexible nature
(Klein, & Myers, 1999). Since I was uncertain about the topic, I did not have speciﬁc
variables that I was measuring. Coupled with this is the fact that there is little prior
research done in this area, hence there was need for more participation from the
participants in the form of interviews, which necessitated a qualitative study. There is
also need to develop theory that explains the science educators’ way of thinking about
issues in the ﬁeld, how they interpret these issues and how they enact their interpretations
through doctoral programs. An interpretive research approach therefore enabled me to

explore the issues of greatest salience within the doctoral programs (Tobin, 2000).

53

Research Methods

I used a multi-site instrumental case study design (Creswell, 1998) in this study.
The cases I used were three science education doctoral programs in different parts of the
United States. I decided to use three doctoral programs instead of one because I was
aware of the variation among science education doctoral programs in the United States.
Looking at three doctoral programs enabled me to come up with ﬁndings that can be
applied to some extend to doctoral program in the US. These cases provided the context
for understanding ‘how’ science education doctoral programs are responding to the
current reforms as they prepare their graduates. The doctoral programs provided
boundaries for my study and each of the doctoral programs was considered as a self-
contained system (Creswell, 1998). The three cases played a supportive role, facilitating
my understanding of the how doctoral programs in science education prepare their
graduates. Initially I did not want to study my own program because I was afraid that I
bring in some bias because of my familiarity with the program. My committee
recommended that I study my own program because this would enable me not just to talk
about the “other” and what they are doing but also to talk about my own program and
what it was doing.

The case study design was suitable for this study because of several reasons. First,
the research intended to answer a ‘how’ question (Yin, 2003), and I did not have any
measurable variables, therefore I needed to collect several sources of data ﬁom each
institution. Second, collecting information about different doctoral programs necessitated
a case study. This allowed me to provide holistic and meaningful characteristics of each

program and at the same time make a comparison of the different programs.

54

This study is an instrumental case study (Creswell, 1998) because the focus was
on the issue of how science education doctoral programs responding to the current reform
initiatives. Tellis (1997) describes a case study as instrumental when the case is used to
understand more than what is obvious to the observer. Creswell (1998) also classiﬁed
cases according to their focus. If the focus is on an issue with the case used
instrumentally to illustrate the issue, it is referred to as an instrumental case study. The
instrumental case study was appropriate in this case because, although literature supports
the fact that teacher educators are promoting standards-based science teaching among
teacher candidates, there exists some skepticism among educators on whether the current
reforms in science education will lead to the goal of achieving ‘scientiﬁc literacy for all’.
Much still needs to be known about what different science educators’ views, ideas or
doubts are about the current reform initiatives. An instrumental case study will be useful
in understanding what science educators think about the reforms and how this is
manifested in preparing their graduates.

Study Sites

In order to get a good representation of ideas about the content of doctoral
preparation, I chose doctoral programs that I knew were producing a sizeable number of
doctorates. My choice of doctoral programs was inﬂuenced by my experience working on
the Leadership Development Study. I selected three out of the ten-science education
programs previously studied in the 2001-2003 Leadership Development Study in Science
and Mathematics Education (Gallagher et. al., 2003) so that 1 could do an in-depth study
of these programs. My decision to choose some programs and leave out others inﬂuences

the ﬁndings 1 got. Whereas there are many other science education doctoral programs that

55

are the same size as the ones I chose, my intentions and objectives played a signiﬁcant
role in the choices I made. Since I already had demographic data and information
pertaining to the general features of these programs from the previous study, I did not
need to commit a lot of resources and time collecting this data. This allowed me time to
focus more on open-ended interviews and analyzing course documents.

The doctoral programs that I selected for the study had some features in common,
but they also had some distinguishing characteristics, which made them unique. These
programs represented the range of science education doctoral programs in the US. in
terms of size, geographic location, funding, and location within the university. In this
study selected 3 of the medium to large programs. I selected the science education
doctoral programs located in different geographic regions of the United States. One of the
programs is at City Ville University, which is located in a large city in the East coast. The
second program is at Midwestern University, which in the Midwestern part of the United
States. The third program is Southern Valley University, which is located in the
Southwestern part of the United States.

I purposely selected programs that are actively producing about 2-3 or more
doctorates per year. I used data from the Leadership Development Study (Gallagher et.
al., 2003) to select the doctoral programs for this study. The science education program at
Midwestern University is part of the Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy
department and between 1990 and 2000 it produced 2-3 graduates a year. The science
education doctoral program at Southern Valley University is part of the Teaching,
Learning and Culture department and it produced about 1-2 doctorates a year between

1990 and 2000. Finally, the science education doctoral program at City Ville University

56

is within the Science, Mathematics and Technology Education department and it
produced about 3-4 doctorates per year between 1990 and 2000.

Other considerations 1 made were the program focus and funding availability for
doctoral programs. Again I used information from the Leadership Development Study
(Gallagher, F loden, F erini-Mundi & Anderson, 2003) that provided information about
program focus and funding structure. Whereas the science education doctoral programs at
Southern Valley University and Midwestern University are publicly ﬁrnded, the program
at City Ville University is privately funded. The programs at Midwestern and Southern
Valley have Teaching and Learning centers that are substantially funded by the National
Science Foundation. On the other hand, the program at City Ville University has an
Urban Science Education Center that is funded by several private foundations. A
comparison with a privately funded program was meant to see if funding is a factor in the
way doctoral programs prepare future leaders. It is important to highlight the fact that the
Center for Learning and Teaching at Midwestern and Southern Valley are not a
permanent feature of the programs and have a 5-year term. Similarly Urban Science
Education Center at City Ville is also not permanent and funding from various
foundations runs for speciﬁc limited time. Therefore all the Centers run by the three
science education programs are temporary features, but nonetheless important to consider
because the funding plays a signiﬁcant role in what a program can and cannot do.
However, the temporary nature of the Center for Learning and Teaching means that the
data pertaining to the centers will only be a short-term feature of the programs. Besides
the limited generalizability of the data from the Centers, the ﬁndings will serve a critical

role of showing the role of funding in improving doctoral programs.

57

In selecting the three programs, I also considered where the graduates go to work
on completion of their programs. Data collected ﬁom the [2001-03] Leadership
development study provided a better understanding of these programs. Findings from a
survey of recent graduates showed that the program at Midwestern University is
preparing its graduates for jobs at both teaching and research universities. Graduates from
City Ville also go on to ﬁnd jobs both at research and teaching universities but a majority
of the Southern Valley graduates go on to ﬁnd different jobs within their state either at
the university or school district level. Finally, I considered the representation of the
programs in terms of geographic and physical location. Whereas City Ville University is
located in a large city, Midwestern University is located in a medium size suburban area,
and Southern Valley University is located in a rural setting. These were important
considerations in selecting these programs, and they ensured collection of data that would
be representative of different science education doctoral programs.

Because I wanted to have a representation of doctoral programs in different parts
of the country, this meant that two of the sites I chose to study were far away from where
I was located and only one of the sites was in close proximity. Because of ﬁnancial
constraints, I could not physically go to the other two institutions to collect data; thus I
communicated with the participants via email. I conducted telephone interviews with
faculty, doctoral students, and recent graduates from the three institutions. I was aware of
the differences in the data I was going to collect among the three programs due to the
differences in proximity. To avoid a big difference between the data collected from
Midwestern and the other two institutions, I used the same protocol for collecting

program documents and for interviewing.

58

The study Participants

In order to ﬁnd out how the selected doctoral programs in science education are
responding to the current reform initiatives as they prepare their graduates, I interviewed
faculty, graduate students and recent graduates and I also analyzed course documents
from these programs. I contacted senior faculty members from the three programs and
asked them for names and contact information of other faculty members who I could
interview. Since I had no access to students and recent graduates, I also asked the faculty
leaders from the three programs to provide the names of advanced doctoral students in
their 4th or 5th year and recent graduates from the past 5 years who could be contacted to
participate in this study.

I purposefully selected the faculty members on the following basis: they were
either coordinating the science education doctoral programs, a senior member who had
been on the institution for more than 10 years and a junior faculty who was actively
involved in teaching or mentoring doctoral students. For example, at Midwestern I
selected a senior faculty and a junior faculty who are both actively involved in teaching
and mentoring doctoral students. At Southern Valley I selected two senior faculty
members who are both actively involved in teaching and mentoring doctoral students. At
City Ville I selected two senior faculty members who are both actively involved in
teaching and mentoring doctoral students. I randomly selected three doctoral candidates
and three recent graduates from the lists provided by the faculty. A total of 6 faculty

members, 9 doctoral students and 9 recent graduates participated in the study.

59

Data Collection

Yin (2003) recommended six types of information to be collected in a case study,
namely: documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant
observations and physical artifacts. In this study I collected data through; a) faculty
surveys (Appendix A), b) telephone interviews with faculty (Appendix B), c) telephone
interviews with doctoral candidates (Appendix C) and (1) interviews with recent graduates
(Appendix D). I also conducted extra interviews with faculty who are principal
investigators in the Centers for Learning and Teaching at Midwestern and Southern
Valley and the Urban Science Center at City Ville (Appendix E). I collected and analyzed
program documents such as course syllabi and course descriptions. These multiple
sources of data were used to get a better understanding of ‘how’ science educators are
interpreting the reforms and ‘how’ they are preparing their graduates in response to the
reforms.

All communication with the participants was done through email. Initially I sent
letters inviting the senior faculty (Appendix F) to participate in the study. The invitation
letter contained a detailed description of the study and a consent form (Appendix G).
After the senior faculty agreed to participate in the study and gave their consent I emailed
requests for names of other faculty members I could interview. I selected the second
faculty member based on their experiences on the doctoral program. I then emailed them
invitation letters and consent forms. At the beginning of the study I sent questionnaires
(appendix A) to senior faculty members at each of the three programs and asked them to
complete the questionnaire. In the questionnaire I requested for names of 5 doctoral

candidates who have passed their candidacy examinations as well as names of 5 recent

60

graduates who graduated from their programs within the past 5 years. I also requested for
program documents such as course syllabi, program descriptions, program requirements
and reading lists. I emailed all the participants requesting for their curriculum vita. I also
requested for program plans, dissertation topics and completions dates from recent
graduates.

After I got back all the information from faculty I emailed them to schedule a
time for a telephone interview for those who I could not interview face to face. I also sent
invitation letters and consent forms to recent graduates and doctoral candidates
(Appendices H & J). After I got their consent, I emailed them to schedule a time for a
telephone interview for those I could not interview face to face. For the telephone
interviews I initiated the telephone call and for face-to-face interviews I arranged a quiet
venue for the interview. All interviews were audio recorded using a manual tape recorder
and each interview lasted about forty-ﬁve to sixty minutes.

One other advantage of the case study design is that it enabled ﬂexibility in the
choice of interviewees. Although I had initially planned to interview only two faculty
members at each of the institutions, I chose to interview one more faculty member from
Midwestern University. The reason why I decided to interview an extra faculty member
is because as I made progress with my data collection, I realized that at least one of the
faculty members I had interviewed at the other two institutions was either a principal
investigator (P1) or co-PI in the Centers for Learning and Teaching). They provided
detailed information about the science education centers and how they were mentoring

doctoral students. This detailed information was missing from Midwestern, therefore I

61

decided to interview the Science Education Center cO-PI. This enabled me to compare the
roles of the Science Education Centers at the three institutions.

As I made this change, I was aware of the fact that I needed to balance adaptive
ness with rigor. I had to modify the interview protocol in order to ask questions about the
role of the Science Education Centers at the other two institutions. The interview protocol
1 used for the additional faculty member only focused on the Science Education Center. I
added these same questions to my original protocol and requested a second interview
with the other two faculty members who worked with the Science Education Centers in
order to get comparable in-depth information. Table 3.1 shows the different types of

research that were asked and how the data was collected.

62

Table 3.1: Research questions and how data was collected

 

Research Question

Data to be collected

 

1. How are science education doctoral
programs responding to current reforms in
science education in their coursework and
other mentoring experiences Offered to

doctoral students?

a) Analysis of program documents
b) Interviews with faculty (appendix 1),
doctoral students and recent graduates

(appendices ii, iii and iv)

 

2. What are the perceptions of science
education faculty, recent graduates and
doctoral candidates, about the challenges
confronting K-12 science education and
how are these challenges related to the way

the programs are preparing their graduates?

Interviews with faculty, doctoral
students and recent graduates

(Appendices. . .)

 

 

3 What are the perceptions of doctoral
candidates and recent graduates about their
preparation in relation to challenges in the

ﬁeld?

 

a) Interviews with doctoral

candidates and recent graduates

 

63

 

The Interview Process

I designed three sets Of parallel questions that I asked faculty members, doctoral
candidates and recent graduates (Appendices B, C, D). These questions were reminders
regarding the information I needed to collect and why (Yin, 2003). The questions were
also meant to serve as prompts in asking questions during the interview, but mostly they
helped to keep me on track as data collection proceeded (Yin, 2003). Having parallel sets
of questions for the three groups of interviewees on each program enabled me to collect
data that I could use to do within case as well as cross-case analysis.

At the beginning of each interview I asked the interviewee for personal
information if I did not receive it prior to the interview. I then started the interview by
asking the ﬁrst question: “What are your views about the most important issues in the last
5 years.” This was an open ended question that was meant to get individual views from
science educators and what issues they strongly felt about. I decided to ask what the
science educators and doctoral students thought instead of asking them what they think
about particular issues because gathering information on the issues they think are
important was one of the goals of this study. Since there is limited literature on what
science educators think about issues in their ﬁeld, asking an open-ended question was
meant to collect data that would contribute to literature in this area. I also used this type
of question to avoid bias that I already have about issues in the ﬁeld, hence I this allowed
me to hear some issues I may not have thought of as important. After the respondents
talked about their views, the next question asked them to provide more details on each of

the issues mentioned. As the interviewees talked about their views, I asked follow-up

64

questions and clariﬁcations if I sensed that there was some useful information between
the lines (Yin, 2003).

The type of questions in interview protocol were asking interviewees about their
views about different issues such as leadership in the ﬁeld of science education, reforms
in science education and how science should best be taught in K-12. I also asked
questions related to the doctoral programs such as how doctoral students are mentored,
how reforms are incorporated into the framework of the courses and how doctoral
programs can be improved. The questions were therefore meant to gather peoples’ views
as well as facts about the doctoral program. One of my goals was to investigate the
intersection of science educator’s views and actions. For example, a) “Do faculty’s views
inﬂuence the content and nature of doctoral programs?” b) “Do faculty’s views inﬂuence
those of recent graduates and doctoral candidates or vice-versa?” c) “Does the way
faculty interpret the reforms reﬂected in the way they incorporate them in the
coursework?”

As I asked the questions during telephone phone interviews, I was aware of the
physical distance between the interviewee and interviewer and that this would have an
inﬂuence on how much information the interviewee was willing to give. To reduce the
distance between the interviewee and interviewer I was also actively involved in the
interview process by volunteering my own experiences and gave examples, which helped
to create a more interactive environment. I also created a situation where the interviewees
found it easier to speak ﬁ'eely and more in-depth by afﬁrming their responses to show
that I was actively listening. I also followed up on what they had said in order to get

clariﬁcation and more information. All this helped create a rich dialogue (Yin 2003).

65

As I moved from one question to another, I made sure that I connected to what they had
said in relationship to that question. This helped to reduce repetition of responses. In
some instances, a number of the questions were answered during the ﬁrst open-ended
ﬁrst question since one question led on to a host of other questions; hence I did not
repeated questions that were already answered.

Data Analysis

An embedded analysis of the cases was conducted, starting with a within-case
analysis followed by a thematic analysis across the cases (Creswell, 1997). In the process,
I established patterns, and looked for a correspondence between two or more categories.
In this case, faculty, doctoral students and recent graduates were considered as different
categories. In the end I presented the lessons learned from the cases. From the emerging
patterns I provided a detailed description of the cases both within the programs and
across the categories.

By situating the current science education reforms within the doctoral programs
and in the science education ﬁeld as a whole, my goal was to provide a rich context for
understanding how science educators think about and interpret the reforms and how this
gets translated into their doctoral programs. Basically I expected three stories to emerge
from each of the interviewees, that is; a) a story about their views of issues in Science
Education; b) a story about how their doctoral programs are preparing leaders for the
broader view of science teaching and learning; and c) a story about how science
educators are interpreting the current reform initiatives in the ﬁeld of science education.

As planned this study, I was aware that the story that will ﬁnally be told would

depend on a number of factors: a) What I would choose to include and what I would

66

choose to leave out would be mostly inﬂuenced by my own perspective, knowledge and
experience in the ﬁeld. Issues that I would consider being more important than others
would ﬁnd their way into to the story and those I consider to be trivial could be left out.
This does not mean that the latter are less important in reality, but in terms of my
priorities and biases. In the analysis, I decided to include what I thought was necessary to
understand the case. The story that emerged was the case’s own story but I as the
researcher was responsible for dressing the story (Stake, 1995). Dressing the case cannot
be seen as necessarily bad because knowledge is socially constructed and by choosing
what goes into the story, thus shaping it, I assisted the reader in the construction of
knowledge. Although I entered the study expecting or even knowing that certain events,
problems, or relationships were important, the real case content evolved in the act of
writing itself (Stake, 1995).

I analyzed two sets of data; namely program documents and interview data. In
both cases, I interpreted the data to show how the science educators interpreted the
reforms, how they viewed the reforms and how these are enacted in the doctoral
programs. I analyzed each case separately ﬁrst, then I did a cross case analysis in the ﬁnal
chapter. In each case I analyzed course documents and interview data separately.
Analysis of Course Documents

Although I did not have a speciﬁc framework or strategy for analyzing the course
documents, I analyzed the course documents using the theoretical proposition that I
described in the ﬁrst chapter. For each program the purpose of the case study was to
show how faculty interpreted the science education reforms and how this inﬂuenced

doctoral preparation. This framework helped me to focus attention on certain data and

67

ignore other data (Yin, 2003). I chose to do an in-depth analysis of courses whose content
either implicitly or explicitly addressed the science education reforms and I ignored
courses that did not speciﬁcally address the reforms. For example I focused on courses
such as ‘Curriculum and instruction’ or ‘Exploring scientiﬁc literacy’, and ignored such
courses as ‘Research methods’ or ‘Philosophy of Science’.

As a way of identifying how the reforms were incorporated in each of the selected
courses, I examined the course outline, course goals and reading lists. However, I did not
read through the course literature, hence I did not include it in my bibliography. I used
passages from the course documents to justify my claims about how the reforms were
addressed in each of the courses. I also used quotations from interviews with faculty,
doctoral students and recent graduates about how the reforms were incorporated in the
course. I then used the theoretical framework to identify which of the following
approaches deﬁned the way faculty are interpreting the reforms: a) science literacy for
all as Plea for Achieving Excellence in Science Teaching and Learning: A Simplistic
Critical Thinking Perspective; b) science literacy for all as a plea for Equity and Social
Justice: A Complex Critical Perspective. Using both the course content analysis and
interview data I developed a description of how each program is incorporating the
reforms in its courses, how the faculty are interpreting the reforms and how the reforms
are enacted in the doctoral program through coursework and research.

Analysis Interview Data

For the analysis of interviews I used the framework for investigating the Inﬂuence

of the Nationally Developed Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology (NRC,

2002) shown in Fig. l. The National Research Council’s framework identiﬁes “three

68

channels of inﬂuence” that inﬂuence the practice of teaching and learning outcomes in
schools, namely: 1) teacher development, 2) the curriculum, and 3) assessment and
accountability. Besides these factors, it also identiﬁes contextual factors such as
politicians, the public, business and industry and professional organizations. I chose to
use this framework because it helped me identify issues that were considered to be most
important in the ﬁeld by the interviewees. Identifying the issues that were considered
most important by interviewees helped me to match the faculty’s views with the nature of
the program. In other words I was looking to see whether faculty’s views and interests
inﬂuenced doctoral preparation. Using the NRC framework also enabled me to do a more
in-depth within case analysis. I compared the views of the faculty, doctoral students and
recent graduates.

In order to classify the views of interviewees into the different orientations
identiﬁed in the NRC framework, I entered the transcribed data for each applicant into a

matrix as shown below:

 

Question Response from Response from Response from
interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 interviewee 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had three different matrices, one for faculty, one for recent graduates and one for
doctoral students. For each of these groups I entered the interviewees’ responses to each
of the interview questions. I then read each of the transcribed data to see whether their
views were related to teaching, teacher development, cuniculum, assessment and
accountability or to contextual factors. I used different color highlights to indicate these
categories. For categories that did not neatly ﬁt into these categories I decide which

category best ﬁts. For example issues of teacher shortage, lack of resources, issues of
69

 

equity etc, are more of contextual than any of the other categories so I grouped them
under contextual factors. I then counted the number of respondents who emphasized each
of these categories in response to the different questions.

I used excel spreadsheet to graph the number of responses and this way I was able
to see which category was emphasized by most respondents as an important issue in the
ﬁeld. Although the different categories were not used directly to describe the nature of
the program, they helped me to ﬁnd patterns of how science educators think about issues
in science education within cases and across cases. The categories also helped me to
deﬁne the contextual factors that were emphasized by the interviewees. Below is a
description of the National research council with a detailed description of each of the
categories I used.

The NRC Framework

The National Research Council’s framework for Investigating Inﬂuence Of the
Nationally Developed Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology (2002),
shown in Fig. 1 as a lens for analyzing the content and intentions of Science Education
doctoral preparation. This framework was developed to provide guidance to answering
questions related to how the education system has responded to the introduction of the
nationally developed standards their consequences for student learning? The National
Research Council’s framework identiﬁes channels through which nationally developed
standards may inﬂuence teaching practice and learning outcomes. According to the NRC
(2002), the argument implied by the framework can be summarized in these interrelated

propositions:

70

Nationally developed standards in Mathematics Science, and technology represent a
set of fundamental changes in the way these subjects have traditionally been taught,
placing new demands on teachers and students.

The inﬂuence of the nationally developed standards on teaching practice and
student learning is likely to be: a) direct taking place through proximate effects on
other parts of the education system; b) entangled (and sometimes confused) with
other inﬂuential forces and conditions, such as broader state standards-based
reforms; and c) slowly realized and long term.

Three core channels exist within the education system through which nationally
developed standards can inﬂuence teaching and learning; these channels of
inﬂuence are complex, interactive, and differ across subject-matter communities.
Variability within the education system implies that students and teachers are likely
to experience different inﬂuences, depending on locality, resources, participant
background, and other factors.

Nationally developed standards will eventually be judged effective if resources,
requirements, and practices throughout the system align with the standards and if
students in standards-based classrooms demonstrate high achievement in knowledge

and skills deemed important.

The NRC framework offers four key questions to guide inquiry into the inﬂuence of

standards on various parts of the education system: a) How are nationally developed

standards being received and interpreted? b) What actions have been taken? c) What has

changed as a result? And (I) Who has been affected and how? (NRC, 2002). The

71

following sections provide a detailed description of each of the identiﬁed channels
through which reform ideas may ﬂow to inﬂuence students learning:
Curriculum

The inﬂuence of the standards is ﬁltered through the forces and conditions that
determine the curriculum and instructional materials. What is taught in the classroom is
inﬂuenced by decisions made at the National, State District and classroom levels. What is
taught in the classroom is inﬂuenced by certain policy decisions that affect curriculum
materials and other resources, the developing of curriculum materials and the processes
and criteria for selecting cuniculum materials which determines what students learn in
any one classroom. The nationally developed standards provide a comprehensive picture
of what students should know and be able to do, which can inﬂuence the development
and adoption of curriculum materials that embody the standards vision. State content
standards are increasingly aligned with the national content standards; textbooks reﬂect
the content standards and teachers have resources for teaching standards-based lessons.
Teacher Development

The National Research Council’s framework is based on the idea that, what
teachers know and can do makes the crucial difference in what they can accomplish (The
National Commission on Teaching and America’s ﬁiture; In Feiman-Nemser, 1996).
However, what and how teachers teach depends on the knowledge, skills and
commitments they bring to their teaching and opportunities they have to continue
learning from their practice. Teacher preparation and development within the education
system provide channels through which the nationally developed standards might

inﬂuence how the teacher learns to teach initially and throughout their careers. The

72

policies and programs at national, state and federal levels determine investments made in
teaching prospective teachers and mold the way they continue to develop as classroom
practitioners. Teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge is inﬂuenced by the way the
subjects are taught both prior to and during the certiﬁcation programs. Teachers’
professional development is determined by the policies and resources available in the
school district and within the school they teach. If nationally developed standards are
inﬂuencing the preparation of new teachers, would require prospective teachers to gain
knowledge and skills needed to help students meet standards based learning.
Postsecondary institutions would create systems that would enable teachers to practice
standards-based teaching.
Assessment and Accountability

Assessment and accountability constitute the third channel through which
reform might ﬂow. As the standards movement gains momentum, assessment and
accountability are being used to realize the standards. Assessments are a way Of showing
students, teachers, parents and the general public how students are performing.
Accountability mechanisms linked to assessment provides incentives to make changes.
Assessments are a vital component of the standards as they specify expectations of the
knowledge students need to have and what they should be able to do. The developments
of assessments to support instruction, to drive educational improvement and to support
accountability are possible inﬂuences attributable to the national standards. If nationally
developed standards are inﬂuencing assessment policies and practices, assessments
would be aligned with learning outcomes embodied in the national standards.

Accountability policies would support schools and teachers by providing professional

73

development Opportunities, instructional materials, and appropriate resources to enhance
their efforts to raise performance levels of their students.

Contextual Forces as a Source of Inﬂuence

Decision making in education is a political process, involving legislators,

government Ofﬁcials, and citizen groups, in addition to educators. Educational concerns
may lead different groups to lobby for certain decisions and educational policy decisions
may be inﬂuenced by the media. If standards are inﬂuencing groups external to the
education system, decisions made by elected ofﬁcials should support policies that
enhance standards- based teaching and learning. On the other hand standards may
generate resistance and opposition from people within and outside the system. In this
case, opponents to the standards would work to affect the decisions and actions within the
education system. Opponents would support decisions that work against funding of

programs that are related to the national standards.

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How has the system responded to the What are the
Introduction of nationally developed consequences for
Standards? Student learning?
Channels of influence
Contextual within the Education
Forces System
Curriculum Teachers
-Politicians & -State/district decisions and Student
Policy makers -Instructional material Teaching Learnin
' Development .::> Practice in :> 8
-Publrc -Text material selection ‘ classrooms
Teacher Development and SChOOl
-Business and -Initial preparation context
Industry -Certiﬁcation
-Prof.development
Professional Assessment and Among students
Organizations Accountability who have been
_ Accountability systems Among teachers who have exposed to
-Classroom assessment Been exposed to nationally standards based
-State/district assessment Developed standards- practices-
-College entrance, -How have they received -How has
“1909mm, “mm-mg and interpreted these student
standards? achievement
-Within the education system & context -What actions have they changed?
-How are nationally developed standards taken in response? -Who has been
being received and interpreted? ~What if anything about affected and-
What actions have been taken in response? their classroom practice how?
-What has changed as a result? ~has changed?
-What components of the system have -Who has been affected and how
been affected and how?

 

 

 

Figure 3. 1 Framework for Investigating Influence of the Nationally Developed

Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology (NRC, 2002 p. 114)

75

Problems encountered

I did not manage to interview one recent graduate from Southern Valley
University because She backed out of the study at the last minute. I also had problems
with data from one of the faculty members from Southern Valley who was busy during
the time I collected data and I only managed to interview her for a short time. Hence I do

not have as much data from her as the other professor as you will see in chapter 6.

76

CHAPTER 4
THE STORY OF CITY VILLE SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL
PROGRAM
Introduction

Even in the welter of alarm and misjudgment, malice and racial spite, cultural

obtuse-ness and official coldness of heart, all is not lost. The battle, though

already joined, is far from over. Ayers & Ford (1996)

In the introduction I described how the leadership development study I worked
with as a graduate assistant inﬂuenced my interest to conduct an in-depth investigation of
science education doctoral programs. The most surprising ﬁnding from the Leadership
Development Study was the variation that exists among science education doctoral
programs. I kept wondering how the different professors at the different institutions make
decisions on choosing to focus on certain courses and areas of research and not others
and why they mentor their students the way they do. I also wondered whether doctoral
graduates from the different doctoral programs had similar experiences. I asked myself
the following question several times, “If I had all this knowledge about science education
doctoral programs before coming to US, would it have inﬂuenced my choice of
institution to pursue my studies? Probably I would have ended up at City Ville, an
institution that is located in a large city in the United States, but most probably I would
have ended up at Southern Valley located in the warmer southern part of the US. If I had
chosen City Ville a large metropolitan urban area of more than 8 million people, what
kind of experiences would I have had? Would the experiences be different from the
experiences I got from a Midwestern University in a small town of about 50 000 people?

This and the next two chapters partly answered these questions.

77

This chapter speciﬁcally focused on the science education doctoral program at
City Ville. I provided a description the science education doctoral program and the
mentoring that doctoral students receive. Alongside the description of courses and
research programs, I provided an analysis of the course documents, providing my
interpretation of how the courses address the current reform goals of science literacy for
all. The ﬁndings discussed in this chapter aimed to answer the following question, “How
are science education doctoral programs interpreting the current reforms and how are
they enacting them in preparing future leaders in the ﬁeld?”

The following speciﬁc research questions will be addressed.

1. How are science education doctoral programs responding to current reforms in
science education in their coursework and other mentoring experiences
offered to doctoral students?

2. What are the perceptions of science education faculty, recent graduates and
doctoral candidates, about the challenges confronting K-12 science education
and how are these challenges related to the way the programs are preparing
their graduates?

3. What are the perceptions of doctoral candidates and recent graduates about
their preparation in relation to challenges in the ﬁeld?

In this chapter 1 presented a description and analysis of ﬁndings from the Science
Education doctoral program at City Ville. I interviewed two faculty members, three
recent graduates and three doctoral candidates. I also analyzed program documents such
as syllabi and course descriptions as well as program descriptions in order to get a better

understanding of the program and how it is preparing its graduates. In my analysis I

78

looked for evidence of how the courses and other experiences as well as faculty
dispositions are addressing the reform goals of “Science literacy for all” as they prepare
ﬁiture leaders in the ﬁeld. I used an interpretive approach that enabled me to assign
meaning both to written and verbal text.

I used the National Research Council’s Framework for assessing the inﬂuence of
standards in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education that I described in chapter
3 as a framework for analyzing data from the telephone interviews. Key features of this
framework include channels through which policies and reform impact student learning
in K-12 education. The channels include: 1) teacher development, 2) teaching, 3)
assessment and accountability, 4) curriculum, and 5) contextual factors such as
politicians, the public, business and industry and professional organizations. In my
analysis I also coded issues related to student learning such as school funding, school
administration and teacher salaries as contextual factors. I used the channels of inﬂuence
described above to identify aspects of the K-12 education system that the Science
Education doctoral program in this study mostly focuses on. I used this lens to make
connections between the doctoral programs’ interpretation of the reform goals and how
they are preparing their graduates to address these challenges.

This chapter is made up of 4 sections. In the ﬁrst section I presented background
information that provided a context for understanding the nature of the Science Education
doctoral program at City Ville. In the second section I provided a description and analysis
of courses offered, program focus, faculty research, and mentoring provided to doctoral
students. I used examples to Show how the course content implicitly or explicitly

addresses the current science education reforms. In the third section I presented the views

79

and perceptions of the program’s faculty, recent graduates, and advanced doctoral
candidates and compared their perceptions about reforms in science education and
doctoral preparation. Finally, in the conclusion, I provided a summary of the patterns that
exist and what implications this has for Science Education doctoral programs.
Geographic Location

City Ville University is a large research intensive university located in the heart of
one of the largest cities in the United States. The city has a very diverse population both
culturally and socio-economically and has a population of about 8 million. The City Ville
graduate school was established more than 100 years ago with the mission of preparing
professional educators and leaders in the ﬁeld of education. City Ville is a privately
funded university and it serves students from diverse backgrounds both from the city,
state, national and international populations. The Science Education Doctoral program at
City Ville is housed in the Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology. Most of
City Ville’s doctoral students are self-funded hence a majority of them study part-time
and continue to teach full time in the schools. The students who manage to study full time
at City Ville are funded either through fellowships, teaching or research assistantships, or
the university employs them either as adjunct faculty or instructors.
Program Description

The Science Education doctoral program at City Ville offers both Ed.D. and PhD.
degrees. The Ed.D places emphasis on breath of professional education coursework with
a focus on educational practice. On the other hand, the PhD degree program places
emphasis on advanced preparation in science to develop both breadth and depth in

science subject matter background and research expertise. According to the program

80

website, candidates are required to “be competent in both quantitative and qualitative
research methodology and to have knowledge of the epistemology of science and of
psychology sufﬁcient to be an informed scholar practitioner”.

The science education doctoral program at City Ville produced at least 30
doctoral graduates in the last ﬁve years. The department has 5 faculty members and an
enrollment of about eighty students. Half of the students are female and 75% are part-
time. About one quarter of the students are white Caucasian and approximately one third
of the student population is international. Minority racial groups such as Aﬁican
Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans have limited
representation in City Ville’s science education doctoral program. This reﬂects the
situation at several other science education doctoral programs in the US (according to
ﬁndings from the Leadership Development Study, 2003).

Participant Profiles
Professors

The two professors who were interviewed from City Ville have been at this
institution for at least 5 years and they have been science educators for at least 10 years.
They have held leadership positions in science education professional organizations and
have published widely in professional journals. Both professors teach science education
courses but they are engaged in different types of research.

Professor Luke Macarth ur

Professor Luke Macarthur has been a professor of science and education at City

Ville University for about 39 years, and he will be retiring within the next 5 years.

Professor Macarthur’s scholarly interests are in the areas of knowledge acquisition in

81

science learning and physiological studies of Eukaryotic micro biota. Professor
Macarthur has published widely in the areas of teaching and learning of Biology,
Comparative Zoology, and Neuro-cognitive Models. He has held leadership positions in
several national organizations, and he has been a consultant to numerous science and
education organizations and projects. Professor Macarthur has a doctorate in Biology and
education and he has a joint appointment in the Departments of Natural Science and
Science Education. Currently he is teaching courses in microbial ecology, guided study in
science education and research and independent study in science education.
Professor Marilyn Gordon

Professor Marilyn Gordon is an associate professor of science education and has
been a science educator for more than 10 years. She has a bachelor’s degree in chemistry
and a doctorate in science education. Her research interests are in the areas of urban
science education, feminist and critical theories, and science education. Professor Gordon
has published widely in the areas of teaching science for social justice, critical pedagogy
and urban science education. She has served on several university committees. Professor
Gordon runs the Urban Science Education Center at City Ville that is funded by grant
money from several corporations. She currently teaches the following Science Education
courses: Teaching and Learning Science in Urban Settings, Science Professional
Seminar, and the Dissertation Seminar.
Recent Graduates

Three recent graduates who were interviewed for this study graduated had been at
City Ville for at least two years or more. One of the recent graduates, Michael was an

international student, Courtney is an American citizen and Kathy is an American

82

permanent resident who is originally from Malaysia. All three recent graduates were full
time students, Michael and Courtney had funding from the Urban Science Education
Center as well as teaching assistantships, and Kathy paid her own tuition with help from
her parents-in-law.
Michael

Michael is an international graduate of 2002 and graduated with PhD in Science
Education. He has since gone back to his home country where he is Assistant professor of
Science Education. Upon graduation from City Ville, Michael got a job as assistant
professor at a research university in the United States where he worked for 8 months
before going back to his home country. During his tenure as doctoral student, Michael
worked at City Ville as an adjunct faculty teaching physics education and environmental
education. He also worked as a research assistant with the Urban Science Center. Michael
has a bachelor’s degree in Physics and a teaching qualiﬁcation. He did not have extensive
teaching experience when he started the PhD program but had taught as part of
undergraduate teacher education for 2 years both at primary and secondary levels. His
dissertation investigated the effects of computer-based interactive simulations prior to
performing a laboratory-based inquiry experiment on science teachers’ conceptual
understanding of physics.
Kathy

Kathy graduated from City Ville in 1999 with an Ed.D. in Science Education. She
is currently employed as a part time instructor of science education at a research
University in the Southern part of the United States. Upon graduation Kathy worked two

years as assistant professor at a research University in the United States. Kathy completed

83

her doctoral program in two years. During her doctoral program tenure Kathy studied full
time and her family paid her college tuition. She taught elementary science methods
courses and supervised lab instructors and teachers in schools for a required graduate
course. Kathy taught high school science for 7 years before starting her doctoral program.
Her dissertation was an ethnographic Study Of the Construction of Science on Television.
Courtney

Courtney graduated from City Ville in 2004 with an Ed.D. Currently she is a post
doctoral fellow at a Center for Learning and Teaching the United States. During her
doctoral study, Courtney focused on higher education. She is planning to move into
teaching non-majors chemistry courses and chemistry for pre-service teachers on a
faculty level. During her tenure as doctoral student, Courtney co-instructed Chemistry
content and methods classes, taught organic chemistry labs and worked as a research
assistant on several research projects. She did not have extensive K-12 teaching
experience before her doctoral studies.
Doctoral Candidates

The doctoral students interviewed for this study are either in their fourth or ﬁfth
year. They are all at the dissertation writing stage. Two of the doctoral candidates worked
as teaching and research assistants and assistants. One doctoral candidate taught in the
city schools and is planning to continue teaching.
Amanda

Amanda is a ﬁfth year doctoral candidate and she is at the dissertation writing
stage. Amanda worked as adjunct instructor teaching graduate courses in physics and

chemistry content and pedagogical strategies. She also worked as a graduate research

84

assistant on several projects. Amanda is a licensed physical science teacher but she did
not have teaching experience when she started on program. She taught high school for 4
years during her doctoral studies.
June

June is a fourth year doctoral candidate and she is at the dissertation writing stage.
Her dissertation research is entitled Understanding How Low-Income, Minority Students
Express Agency in a 9th Grade Physics Classroom Developed with Expectations of
Curricular Rigor and Student Engagement.” During her doctoral program June has been
teaching science in the city schools and is working towards licensure for teaching in the
city.
Pamela

Pamela is a ﬁfth year doctoral candidate and she is at the dissertation stage. She is
an international student who also got her masters degree from City Ville. During her
doctoral studies, she co-taught science methods classes with her advisor and with other
doctoral students. She did not have teaching experience when she started her doctoral
studies and she does not wish to go into college teaching. She wants to work for non-
proﬁt organizations that work with children or educating the public.
The Urban Science Education Center

Professor Gordon runs the Urban Science Education Center at City Ville together
with one other science education professor. The center is funded through several grants
that were Obtained by the two faculty members after they wrote a proposal to start the

center. The goal of the Urban Science Education Center is to promote provision of equal

85

opportunities in science learning to students in urban schools. The following goal of the
center can be clearly seen in the mission statement on the center’s website:

All urban students ought to have equitable and just opportunities to develop the

kinds of literacies (knowledges, skills, ways of knowing, and discursive practices)

necessary to make informed decisions about the science, mathematics, and
technology related matters that they encounter in their daily lives.

To achieve this goal, the Urban Science Education Center conducts research in
four main areas namely: a) Developing deep understanding of empowering practices in
K-12 science, mathematics, and technology education, especially for students from
linguistic and racial/ethnic minority backgrounds and students living in poverty; b)
Preservice teacher education and the preparation and on-going professional development
of Science, Mathematics, and Technology teachers in urban school systems; c)
Understanding & actualizing relationships between urban communities, schools, and
universities, and (1) Equity issues surrounding science education in urban areas.

Professor Gordon and a colleague wrote grant proposals to start the urban science
education center in response to the problems faced by youth in urban youth. Urban
science teaching and learning is in jeopardy due to poor funding, lack of resources and
high staff turnover. The science educators at City Ville saw it as their duty to develop a
center whose mission was to support teachers as well as prepare doctorates who will
become urban science educators and researchers. There was need to provide fellowships
to doctoral students so that they could spend more time in schools and have more
extensive teacher education experiences. The job of the Urban Science Education Center
is therefore that of helping teachers to understand urban youth and to connect the

curriculum to them and understanding how urban school systems work. The Urban

Science Education Center also help teachers procure some resources that they can use in

86

their teaching and also help them identify resources available in the city that they can
utilize for science teaching. The urban science education center currently works with
eight partner schools, and the partner schools range in size from 200 students to 1200
students. The number of teachers in a school can also range from 1 teacher who is doing
all the science to 6. The center has 10 fellows that are a combination of 7 masters and 3
doctoral students and the fellows work with the teachers in the partner schools to do
participatory action research throughout the school year.
Findings

This section answers the following research questions: “How are science
education doctoral programs responding to current reforms in science education in their
coursework and other mentoring experiences offered to doctoral students?”
Courses Oﬂered

The course requirements for Science Education doctoral students at City Ville are
listed in table 4.1 below: PhD students are required to take a minimum of 75 points
(credits) in the following areas: disciplinary courses, science education courses,
specialization electives, technology, core professional courses, research methodologies,

non-specialization electives, and dissertation study.

Table 4.1: Selective and elective courses offered at City Ville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Reﬂred Points
Disgﬂinary 15 points
Science Education Courses 18
Specialization Electives 17

Technology 3

[subtotal =area of specialization] 50

Core Professional Concerns 12

Research Methodologies 9

Electives (Non-Specialization) 3-6

 

87

 

 

Dissertation Study 6

 

 

 

TOTAL 75 points

 

The disciplinary courses include Nature and Practice of Science, PCK course, and
Science, Technology and Society course (Table 4.2). The PhD students are also required
to take ﬁve Science Education courses listed on the right hand column in Table 4.2

below:

Table 4.2: Disciplinary courses and science education courses offered at City Ville

 

 

 

 

Disciplinary Courses Points Science Education Courses Points
PCK Course 3 History of Science Education 3
Science, Technology and 3 Curriculum and Pedagogy in 3
Society Science Education

Nature and Practice of 3 Science Teacher Education 3
Science

 

Urban Science Education OR 3
a class in equity/science
education

 

 

Science Professional 1 (x3)
Seminar

(1 point course taken 3
times)

 

 

 

 

Doctoral candidates are required to take a minimum of 15 points in science
content courses, 15 points in core science education courses, 12 points in professional
education courses, 12 points in research methodology, 3-6 points in methodology, and 6
dissertation points. This leaves 12-15 points of optional studies to be determined in
consultation with the advisor. Students are required to take three points of each of the
following core professional courses that are Offered outside their department: History and
Philosophy of Education, Sociology, Cultural Dimensions, Policy and Organization of

Education; Cognition and Psychological Foundations of Education; Curriculum,
88

 

 

Instruction and Teacher Education. Students also take a total of nine points of qualitative
and quantitative research methods courses and a minimum of six dissertation seminar
points with no speciﬁed maximum. Students must complete 55-65 points or complete
ﬁve science education courses to qualify for certiﬁcation examinations. A maximum of
30 graduate level credits may be transferred to meet the degree requirements in the
following areas: disciplinary courses, technology, core professional concerns, research
methodologies, and electives.

According to the faculty members at City Ville, the university as a whole has an
emphasis in Urban Science Education. They offer multicultural courses, develop teachers
for urban schools, and develop doctoral graduates to do research in urban areas as well as
prepare teachers for urban schools. The Science Education courses cover themes such as
Urban Science Education, Curriculum and Pedagogy in Science Education, History of
Science Education and Science Teacher Education. I chose three courses that I analyzed
to show how the coursework addresses some of the issues that are pertinent in the current
reform efforts and how the program is interpreting the national goals Of ‘teaching science
for understanding’ and science literacy for all. From the analysis of course materials and
interviews, it became apparent that the science education doctoral program at City Ville
interprets the goals of science literacy for all as referring to providing access to all
students including racial/ethnic minorities and students living in poverty. I will give
examples from courses, research and some interview data to support this claim in the
following sections.

One of the science education courses that all doctoral students are required to take

is entitled: “Teaching and Learning Science in Urban Settings”. My reading of the course

89

description showed that it focuses on issues Of science for all in terms of addressing
equity issues, teaching science for social justice, and curricular and pedagogical issues in
urban settings. Below is a quotation from the syllabus which shows how the course
focuses on what science educators should know and be able to do in order to achieve the
‘Egalitarian ideal’ of science literacy for all, which is outlined as the national goal in the
reform documents (NRC, 1998; Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy, 1996):

but many of us chose education because we wished to help it fulﬁll its

egalitarian promise. This course is meant to support you in enacting this ideal.

We will look into what is going on in terms of "science for all" in this City, as

well as think about and, importantly, act upon our ideas concerning what urban

science educators can do to make science education in urban settings, places rich

with opportunity for city kids.
From the above quotation, it is clear that this course explicitly incorporates the reform
agenda of achieving science literacy for all. However, the course probes into how science
educators can provide opportunities for city kids speciﬁcally in order to achieve the goal
of science literacy for all. This way of looking at the reform goals is evidence that the
program at City Ville interprets the national reforms goal to be a plea for access to
science education by all students. In this case ‘all students’ means paying more attention
to those students who do not have equal access to science education as a way of
equalizing opportunities.

The course engages students in discussions of scholarship in the area of urban
education through reading books such as: “Improving urban science education " by Ken
Tobin, “Teaching science for social justice” by Angela Calabrese Barton, “Connecting
School and Community with Science Learning” by Bouillon and Gomez, and “Science

Education as a Civil Right” by W. Tate among other authors. Group assignment themes

such as “Developing an A nti-deficit perspective”, and “City as Laboratory” clearly Show

90

that the intent of the course is also to engage students in a discourse that helps them
change their way of thinking about urban teaching and learning from the long accepted
deﬁcit model that pre-determines failure of city youth who live in poverty and attend
poor schools to a social justice approach that emphasizes what ideas students from
different socio-cultural backgrounds bring to learning science and what they are able to
do. The course gives doctoral students the opportunity to understand the root causes of
inequalities in the city schools as shown by the following quote from the syllabus: “As
one delves deeply into the issues, one may begin to realize that our urban schools are a
reﬂection of our deeply inequitable society.” The course also helps them to consider the
strengths that urban youths bring to learning as well as realize the rich resources that the
city has to offer for science teaching and learning.

This course explicitly addresses the idea of how “Science literacy for all” can be
achieved. Focusing on the possibilities and affordances in the city schools is one way of
bridging the gap between the “haves” and “have not”; between the “rich suburban
schools” and “poor urban schools.” Without a careful look at the inequity that exists
among the schools it would be impossible to achieve the egalitarian ideal of science
literacy for all. The program at City Ville therefore focuses on improving urban science
education as critical to achieving this goal.

Another required Science Education course is entitled “Curriculum and Pedagogy
in Science Education.” This course provides some historical perspectives on science
curriculum and pedagogy. It also explores some key ideas in learning and teaching that
have had a profound inﬂuence on the development of science curriculum, including

conceptual change, situated learning, and social constructivism. The course also

91

considers several current science curriculum efforts to systematically evaluate curriculum
projects and the role of science curriculum in the current climate of educational reform.
This course explicitly addresses the reform documents and it implicitly addresses the
issues Of “Science for all” in terms of multiculturalism and gender in teaching science.
The following quote from the syllabus clearly shows this:
These themes include issues of multiculturalism and gender in the teaching of
science, research on teaching, learning, and curriculum, subject-speciﬁc teaching,
transfer, and professional development. Although these themes will not be

addressed explicitly, they will be central to our class discussions and may serve as
the focus for class papers.

The course syllabus is explicit in its aim to engage students in a discourse on the
development Of the science curriculum through readings such as: “Creating usable
innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science
in urban schools ” by Blumenfeld, et. al., “Research towards an expanded understanding
of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard " by Songer, et.al, and “T 0013 for
bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking” by Hawkins and Pea. The
readings for this course emphasize issues such as inquiry, which is at the heart of the
National Science Education Standards. Science for All Americans (Rutherford &
Ahlgren, 1990), Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1996) and the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1998) all emphasize what every student should know
and be able to do in order to become scientiﬁcally literate and they also emphasize that
understanding can only be achieved through doing science as opposed to rote
memorization. By emphasizing inquiry, this course therefore addressed the reform goal
of ‘teaching science for understanding’.

The two courses described above are just two of many courses that science

education students are required to take but they give us an idea of how the program at
92

City Ville is engaging its doctoral students in a discussion and discourse about the goals
of the current reforms in Science Education. What makes these courses more appealing is
the fact that they are not just focusing on teaching and learning of science in the
traditional way, but they are taking a critical look at the complex education system and
considering contextual factors that inﬂuence students’ learning such as school funding,
resource availability, teacher development, and the students’ backgrounds and
experiences. The science education curriculum is also being looked at with consideration
to all these other issues. The program is bringing together the content of the reforms and
the context within which education is happening as a way of ensuring achievement of the
reform goals of ‘teaching for understanding and achieving science literacy for all.
Addressing the Current Science Education Reforms: Analysis of Interview Data

The reforms are incorporated in the discourse of the courses and one speciﬁc
course called “History of Science Education” exposes students to documents such as the
National Science Education Standards and Project 2061 Benchmarks. The following
quote from Professor Gordon clearly demonstrates this claim:

The ﬁrst course our students take is a history of science education where they are

exposed to all these documents because they are part of the history. They study

not only the content of those documents but how and why these documents came

to be and how they form the debate within the ﬁeld. (Interview, 9/21/2005)

The standards are looked at ﬁ'om a critical standpoint and policy. According to
Professor Macarthur, the doctoral curriculum at City Ville has not been driven by the
standards but that standards do get incorporated into the discourse of the courses.
However, Professor Gordon mentioned that she has used the reform documents to help

students understand what has happened in the ﬁeld and not what the ﬁeld must be. She

also emphasized the fact that when she teaches she helps students argue both sides of the
93

reforms that is the advantages and disadvantages of the way the reform documents are
written. In the following quotation Professor Gordon shows how the reforms have been
used in two speciﬁc courses:

They also take a class in ‘Equity issues in science education’ and they use those

documents as reference for looking at how the ﬁeld has established policy around

issues of equity and to see how the ﬁeld has responded to the ways in which

equity issues play out implicitly and explicitly. They are also required to take a

class on ‘Curriculum and pedagogy in science education’ and they look at how

different curricular and pedagogical issues both have informed the writing and
implementation of these documents and subsequent policies that led to these
documents. We use the documents as a way to position what has happened in the
ﬁeld but not to say this is what the ﬁeld is and must be. When I teach I help

students argue both sides. (Interview, 9/21/2005)

Here Professor Gordon shows that the focus on urban education and achieving science
literacy for all take precedence I the way she addresses her courses. She uses the reform
documents to help students to see how people have interpreted the policy and what other
ways of interpreting the policy are.

Although the faculty members at City Ville agreed that they are addressing the
reforms in their courses, this does not seem to be apparent to all the students. According
to the doctoral candidates interviewed, some felt that only part of the reforms was
addressed and that it was left to the students to make sense of the rest of the reforms.
These students also noted that how the reforms were covered depended on the professor
teaching the courses. At least two of the doctoral candidates were in agreement with the
faculty that the ﬁrst course they took on “History Of Science Education” exposed them to
the reform documents. The following quote from Amanda, a doctoral candidate,

illustrates this point and the fact that, besides the one class mentioned above, there was

not much talk about the standards:

94

The ﬁrst class I took at City Ville the standards were the required reading. The
presentation was mainly pro-standards. I started my masters program in 1998 and
I guess they were still new then. But was certainly presented as a model on which
science teaching should be based. During the doctoral study there wasn’t much
discussion about the reforms. In my certiﬁcation exams you have to quote the
National standards. I think they need to see ways that standards can be
incorporated into the classroom and they need to study the standards ﬁrst to see
what’s in there.

Amanda felt that there is a need for the program to really look into the standards in terms
of how they can be applied to the classroom. Since Angela took the “History of science
course a long time ago, it looks like this has changed because June a doctoral candidate
was in agreement with the faculty that they explore the reforms in more depth in the
doctoral courses. She however still highlighted the fact that the discussion about reforms
depended on who was teaching the courses:

We talked about project 2061 and we have talked about science education reform
efforts, I would say that its very uneven what gets discussed in different classes, I
think its more at the whim of the professors, and maybe there is a larger scale
model in which the professors sit down and discuss that we should discuss the
reform efforts here and this initiative there. With the National Standards we have
done a unit in Evolution focused on the standards in Evolution or do a unit on
redox reactions then you focus on the standards but as an overall coverage I don’t
know that we have done that and I don’t know how practical it is to look at the
different standards in all the different sciences. But I am aware of them and
realized that I should be looking towards them as a guide when I am designing
lessons. (Interview, 7/28/2005)

Pamela, the third doctoral candidate had conﬂicting views to these other two. She
felt that she was not well informed about the reforms and she mentioned the fact that
there seemed to be an implicit requirement to know the standards even if they were not
discussed that much in class:

I learned about standards a little bit more through teaching than through being a

student. I did not ﬁnd it easy to explore them. If I had a class that talked about it I

would have been more informed about it. Project 2061, the only time I heard

about that was when I took History of science education. People talk about that in
passing but I have never had an entire course or somebody sit down with me and

95

explain to me what those things are. It’s something you are expected to know

what it is but nobody teaches it to you so you are expected to learn it on your own

or you learn about it by talking to other people. (Interview, 9/12/2005)

The doctoral candidates show conﬂicting ideas about the incorporation of the reforms in
their coursework. They all agree that the reforms were covered to some extent in class,
but they differ in their satisfaction with understanding what the reforms entail. One
explanation for this discrepancy could be due to the fact that different professors dealt
with the issues differently. Some professors may have directly addressed the reforms and
took a closer look at examples like the ones mentioned by June and yet others could have
just mentioned them in passing. The differences between the doctoral candidates’
expectations are interesting to note. Whereas Amanda seemed comfortable with knowing
that the standards are there and that she is expected to use them when designing lessons.
Pamela felt that since they were expected to use the standards, she expected them to be
taught to directly.

Similarly, the recent graduates also had conﬂicting views about how the reforms
were addressed in their courses. Only one Of the three recent graduates, Michael vividly
remembered taking the mandatory course that addressed the reforms and the nature of the
coursework as shown in the quotation below:

Yes they were part of a mandatory course. It was one of the courses we had to

take the very ﬁrst semester when we got in. We had to read all these books and

had to write papers on advantages or drawbacks they bring in science education.

There were quite a few discussions during class time looking more like a debating

with some people supporting the pro aspect and other people supporting the con

aspect. In other courses we talked about the standards but we did not have to read
the books. Most of the science education courses had something to do with the

reforms. (Interview, 7/22/2005)

Michael is the only recent graduate who seemed to reﬂect the faculty’s position

about how the reforms are incorporated in the coursework. The other two graduates

96

included in this study did not agree with this. Courtney for example did not seem to agree
with Michael about the depth of coverage Of the reforms and she had this to say about the
reforms:

I don’t think there was discussion really. It was more sort of they are there and if

part of the project you are doing is designing some curricula unit where you are

talking about some issue then you better be prepared to relate to what the
standards say about it and if its goanna be relevant for the schools. (Interview,

7/22/2005)

Her response shows that she engaged with the reforms only through working on
projects. Again, these discrepancies may be partly due to the fact that some graduates
who came earlier than Michael were not required to take the History of Science
Education course. Courtney a 2004 graduate shows that she did not take this course,
which may be why she does not Share views with Michael. On the other hand, Michael
graduated two years earlier than Courtney and one would expect that Courtney should
have had experiences that are closer to what the faculty said.

From analysis of course materials, faculty views, doctoral candidates’, and recent
graduates’ experiences, it is clear that the science education doctoral program at City
Ville is incorporating the current science education reforms in the framework for their
courses as well as addressing the goal of achieving science literacy for all. In this section
I provided evidence to show how the doctoral program is addressing the current reforms.
In the next section I am going to Show the focus of doctoral students’ mentoring.
Mentoring of Graduates Students Through Research and Teaching

The science education department at City Ville is comprised of ﬁve faculty

members. All are involved in different areas of research. The type of experience and

mentoring different doctoral students get depends on the faculty advisor and the type of

97

research they are involved in. For example, one professor’s research focuses on neuro-
cognitive models of student learning; another professor focuses on Urban Science
Education, feminist studies in science education, science in the community; yet another
professor focuses on curriculum reform and two faculty members focus on teacher
education. All the professors use qualitative research methods except for the professor
working on neuro-cognitive models of student learning. The faculty members at City
Ville mentor their doctoral students through working with them on research and teaching.
Research assistantships are mostly grounded in a research grant that a professor has, so
not every doctoral student gets a research assistantship. A smaller percentage of doctoral
students get research assistantships since City Ville is a privately funded University,
hence it does not receive state or federal funds to support students through assistantships.

Seven students teach in the teacher preparation program while 12 students have
research assistantships and work primarily in the Urban Science Education Center, as
well as on collaborative projects with the College of Science and the College of
Engineering. A few students assist with science lab courses. Ten students who are
studying to be urban science educators have fellowships in the Urban Science Education
Center. All the assistantships and fellowships have a Science Education focus either on
preparing doctoral candidates to do research in urban schools, to prepare teachers for
urban schools, or to prepare them to become urban science teachers.

The mentoring level for doctoral students who teach varies from working closely
with the faculty to being highly independent. However, one of the faculty members
mentioned that the university requires that a mentor be assigned to a teaching assistant

who observes them teach once or twice a semester and provide feedback. Students have

98

formal research preparation through a required research practicum but there is no
required teaching practicum.

Both Professor Gordon and Professor Macarthur have research grants that are
currently supporting graduate research assistants. Professor Macarthur highlighted the
formal mentoring that his research assistants receive in the following quotation:

Right now we have a Spencer grant to bring together PhD students from science
education together with technology education and cognitive sciences all in one
interdisciplinary seminar to help them understand the multi-dimensional approach
to research to bear on some issues of learning. Thinking how students come to
develop some conceptualizations of experiences in science and technology and
how we look at it from the different perspectives that involve cognitive and socio-
cultural. There is a form of mentoring where we meet every week for at least one
hour, that is the big group and individuals meet with their mentors on a regular
basis. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Professor Gordon also mentioned that her students are mentored formally through the
Urban Science Center. She highlights the nature of the mentoring for her students:

Another formal structure we have is the urban science education fellowship that I
mentioned. This provides students with paid opportunity to conduct action
research in schools under the guidance of faculty and it gives them a chance to be
mentored into how do you work in collaborative relationships with schools so that
that if they want to do something like that for the dissertation or when they move
on to academic positions or a school based position they will have had that
experience ...... The urban science education center runs weekly seminars for the
folks who are doing a cognate area in urban science education and in that weekly
seminar readings are discussed and each week a different student is in the
spotlight and is asked to present a question or dilemma related to the research or a
piece of their data they want to talk about so it mentors students into being a part
of a scholarly community. (Interview, 9/21/2005)

The above quotes show that both Professor Macarthur and Professor Gordon
mentor their students to engage in collaborative research. In both cases the students have
the opportunity to meet with other researchers and share ideas. In the case of Professor
Gordon the meetings involve engaging in the discourse of science education and

presentations. The students who are exposed to this type of mentoring acknowledged that
99

they are being well-prepared for the job.

The formal mentoring all doctoral students receive is through taking a one credit
graduate level course where graduate students are exposed to different faculty. Students
also take a series of courses that deal with the nature and practice of science. A quotation
from Professor Gordon below illustrates part of the formal mentoring process of doctoral
students:

For the formal mentoring we have actual program structures in place which

include professional development seminars, a one credit class that meets every

fall and every spring and students have to take at least 3 semesters of that and that
covers lots of topics such as what are the different career options available to
science education graduates, what are the current issues in science education etc?

The professional development class they take for one credit is one way they are

mentored. The cluster is small and it brings in a variety Of faculty to speak and

expose them to different faculty. (Interview, 9/21/2005)

Whereas some doctoral candidates and recent graduates are generally happy and
satisﬁed with their mentoring experiences, others who have not had similar mentoring
experiences as their colleagues in the Science Education Center or on the Spencer
fellowship feel that they did not get as much mentoring as their colleagues. June a
doctoral candidate who is happy with the mentoring from her advisor said this about her
experience:

I worked with Professor Gordon for a couple of two years through the group

called urban science education and interactive technology and since then I have

been doing research on my dissertation. I am very happy with Professor Gordon. 1

am always impressed by her diligence and her commitment to producing quality

work. (Interview, 7/25/2005)

On the other hand, a recent graduate, Kathy did not feel that she received good
mentoring and she did not feel well prepared when she started working. She felt that she

did not get good advice on what she needed to do. She went through her program in two

years, so she that felt she could have been advised to slow down and take more time to

100

get mentoring and preparation for the job. Below is a quote that shows what Kathy felt
about her mentoring:

I did not have any formal mentoring when I was teaching. I had my advisor for

my dissertation, technically he was my mentor but unfortunately we just talked

about the content-- that was it. We did not discuss about my teaching. I think
there should be more sort of group mentoring. Its nice also to talk to your peers
and have informal discussions of issues in science education. I know Prof. . .. put
up an informal discussion once a week. It became more scholarly and looking at
current research, I really enjoyed that. You could even have online discussions for

people who have family commitments etc. (Interview, 6/22/2005)

Kathy graduated from the program 5 years ago and she mentioned that things
have changed since she graduated and that students were receiving more formal
mentoring than they did in the past. Although the doctoral candidates are generally happy
with the mentoring they are getting in research, some felt that they are not getting good
mentoring in teaching because they either get to teach a required syllabus with not much
feedback or they just use the knowledge from having taken the course earlier. There was
a general feeling among recent graduates and doctoral candidates that teaching
assistantships should be made compulsory so that everyone gets to learn to teach. Some
recent graduates like Kathy found that it was hard to learn to teach on the job.

Roles Doctoral Candidates are Being Prepared for

According to faculty at City Ville, the doctoral students are prepared for
university teaching, research and teaching in urban schools (See ﬁgure 4.1 below).
Almost all the interviewees felt that they were well-prepared in the areas of teaching,

teacher development, and understanding contextual factors inﬂuencing teaching and

learning in schools.

101

 

 

 

.4 I Faculty n=2
I —I - I Recent Gradts n=3
I? ...4 D Doctoral Candts n=3
C] Total n=8

#1 l l I
w
I

 

1*:
l

respondents
Oi—‘N DJ-hUION \l 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LDL'II

 

 

 

Teacher
Development
Teaching
Student learning
untability
Curriculum

Contextual Factors
Assessment/Acco

channels ofinﬂuence

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Roles doctorates are prepared for

Although the recent graduates and doctoral candidates were in agreement with
their faculty that they were well prepared for future careers in teaching, teacher
development and understanding contextual factors, non of them talked about how the
program prepared them in areas of student learning, assessment and accountability and
curriculum. Even faculty members did not mention how doctoral students were prepared
in these areas.

There was a general feeling among some doctoral candidates and recent graduates
that faculty were pushing them into academia whereas they were interested in doing other
things. In the quotation below Pamela a doctoral candidate clearly articulated how she
and her colleagues a were thinking of working outside of academe in sectors like non-
Governmental organizations:

I want to go and work for a non-proﬁt organization. The push from my advisor

and other professors is to go into academia. Eventually I want to work for a non-

governmental organization, but I don’t know when. I want to work for an
organization that works with children or works with the public, like the Center for

102

Science in the Public Interest. Something like that where you educate the public

about what is happening and making them scientiﬁcally literate. Both PhD and

Ed.D candidates are not interested in academia. (Interview, 9/12/2005)

This statement from the doctoral candidate shows a disconnection between the
faculty intentions and efforts and doctoral students’ aspirations and needs. It is however
surprising why these doctoral candidates seem not to be interested to pursuing careers in
academia. One hypothesis could be that maybe they feel overwhelmed by the problems
they see in the urban schools as they work with teachers. Although I did not ask Pamela
to elaborate on the reasons of this seeming apathy towards working in the academy
among doctoral candidates, it is something worth following up in ﬁiture studies.

Views and Perceptions about Challenges in Science Education

This next section answers my second research question: “What are the
perceptions of science education faculty, recent graduates and doctoral candidates, about
the challenges confronting K-12 science education and how are these challenges related
to the way the programs are preparing the graduates? In this part of the study, my goal
was to establish what faculty, doctoral candidates and recent graduates from the science
education doctoral program at City Ville consider being the most important issues in the
ﬁeld of science education and how these issues relate to the current science education
reforms. I asked the interviewees to tell me what they see as the most important issues
that the science education community should focus on in terms of researching, funding,
and as they prepare new leaders in the ﬁeld. I asked an open-ended question asking about
their views and follow up probing questions were used to get more information about the

issues that the interviewees raised. 1 analyzed the responses to the above question using

the framework for assessing the impact of National Standards on student learning

103

(described in chapter 3). The framework identiﬁes ﬁve channels through which reforms
are enacted in the education system to inﬂuence student learning. These channels include
contextual factors, teacher development, teaching practice, curriculum, and assessment
and accountability. As part of my analysis, I paid particular attention to which factors the
interviewees emphasized. I also looked for matches between what the science educators
think are important issues in the ﬁeld and what the National Research Council considers
to be important issues that inﬂuence student learning (or channels of inﬂuence). After
reporting on this analysis in the pages that follow, I then continue with a discussion of the
ﬁndings, ﬁrst looking at how faculty are interpreting the reforms and then comparing
faculty concerns to those of recent graduates and doctoral candidates.

I categorized the interview responses using the ﬁve channels of inﬂuence from the
National research Council namely: contextual factors, teacher learning, teaching, student
learning, assessment and accountability and curriculum. Generally, the interviewees
identiﬁed all the six channels of inﬂuence listed above to be important issues that the
science education community should be focusing on, but some areas where emphasized
more than others. The interviewees identiﬁed the areas of urban science education,
student performance, teacher quality and what knowledge is worthwhile as the most
important issues in the ﬁeld.

The area that was emphasized by most interviewees was contextual factors.
Figure 2, shows that six out of the nine respondents placed emphasis on factors that I
categorized as contextual factors as the most important issues confronting the ﬁeld of
science education. The issues they mentioned include issues of inequity, social justice,

school funding, high staff turnover and low teacher salaries. This was double the number

104

of respondents who placed emphasis on each of the other ﬁve factors, namely: teacher
development, teaching, students learning, curriculum, and assessment and accountability
as signiﬁcant issues in the ﬁeld of science education. Another issue that respondents from
all the three groups emphasized was student learning (Figure 4.2). At least one faculty
member, one doctoral candidate and one recent graduate identiﬁed student learning as an
issue that deserves attention.

Although faculty and recent graduates emphasized teacher development as an
issue that required attention, recent graduates did not talk much about this issue. The
remaining three issues namely: teaching practice, curriculum, and assessment and
accountability were emphasized by doctoral candidates and recent graduates and not so
much by faculty. Therefore the two faculty members only emphasized the contextual

factors, teacher development and student learning (Figure 4.2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§s~ ~-~— - -----
4 ... ....EA“. W- -___..,z-__..,___-. ,_ ..-,.._._....,.z_c."
C
8. g ‘ “ jg ‘‘‘‘‘‘ I
m *1 ~-~ I.” ‘ —~— ~~ ‘
32 (1)1 - 45-1 ~~v_ CIT-“:7 II: IFaculty n=2 1
Tu' E T w 7 on ' T E IRecent Grads n=3
3 z: ,_ a) .E .E 8 2.
:5 o 2 E '5 E <3 3‘ 3 CIDoctoralCandts n=3
... "‘ CL co 2 2.: .
8 E ii 7‘? {1:3 E 5 '4; E 51 Total n=8 I
o I— > r: g E o
a a ,v; =
E’. g o
m <

Channels of inﬂuence

 

 

 

Figure 4.2: Views about the most important issues in science education at City Ville

105

Contextual factors

Issues that I categorized as contextual factors included talk about urban science
education; speciﬁcally issues of inequity, social justice, teacher salaries, lack of resources
and the quality of education urban students get compared to their peers in suburban
schools. The quotations below show some examples of what the faculty, recent graduates
and doctoral candidates see as contextual issues that inﬂuence student learning in science
education: Both Science Education faculty members from City Ville considered
contextual factors to be issues that require the attention of science educators. Professor
Gordon for example, views issues of equity and social justice as major challenges
confronting the Science Education community. She thinks these issues should be
confronted in order to close the achievement gap that exists between the rich suburban
schools and poor urban schools as shown in the following quote from the interview with
her:

As a ﬁeld we have to confront issues of equity, in terms of looking at the

achievement gap, looking at differential access to resources that is how well

equipped the school is to teach science both materially and in terms of quality Of

teachers. (Interview, 9/21/2005)
Professor Gordon is highlighting a problem of science teaching in urban schools that has
existed for a long time. There has been a ripple effect where lack of resources leads to
shortage of qualiﬁed science teachers in urban schools because good science teachers
choose to go and teach in schools that are well equipped. Speciﬁcally, Professor Gordon
attributed the problem of science teacher shortage to two major factors namely,
inadequate resources in the schools and lack of preparedness by the teachers to teach in

urban schools which results in burnout. This is highlighted in the quotation below from

an interview with her:

106

.....in urban centers, the teacher turn over and teacher burn out rate is high and the
number of teachers teaching science in urban centers in high poverty areas
especially certiﬁed teachers is below 50%. I think the reason why teachers leave
urban schools is because they don’t have the knowledge base and skills they need
to be effective in these settings so they burn out. I think there are other
complicated reasons like salaries are lower and the schools themselves are under-
resourced so it is difﬁcult to do things they want to do. (Interview, 9/21/2005)
Because most teachers were not prepared to teach in urban schools, they do not
understand urban youth and they ﬁnd the job overwhelming and eventually leave for
better schools. Professor Gordon sees the need for the science education community to
focus on preparing teachers for the job of teaching in urban schools. According to
Professor Gordon, understanding urban youth and what science means to them as well as
knowledge of how to use available resources in the city to teach science are two key
assets that are required for a science teacher to be successful in teaching science in urban
schools.

One recent graduate Amanda agreed with Professor Gordon and she attributed the
shortage of qualiﬁed science teachers to salaries that are uncompetitive compared to
teacher qualiﬁcations. According to Amanda, science teachers are highly qualiﬁed in
sciences and they could get better pay in other jobs. The fact that science is a skilled
subject means that science teachers deserve professional salaries for them to stay on the
job. Amanda highlighted the issue of teacher low pay and how this is exacerbating the
problem of science teachers in urban schools in the quotation below:

One of the reasons is, these teachers are paid on the same scale as all content

teachers but I think those days are over. Realistically, its basic market economics,

you cannot expect these teachers to give up more paying jobs in industry and
other ﬁelds to become teachers, secondly its because teaching science is a very
skilled thing to be able to teach science effectively, so you are asking teachers to
have two highly professional skills, one is how to teach the content successfully

and one is to have the content knowledge which is in and itself difﬁcult.
(Interview, 7/28/2005)

107

Amanda’s point about teacher pay shows how difﬁcult it is to attract scientists to science
teaching as well as attracting good science students to education. Although this does not
directly explain why teachers who do not have professional science qualiﬁcations leave
their jobs in urban schools, it shows that shortage of qualiﬁed science teachers has led to
science being taught by teachers who did not specialize in science.

Pamela a doctoral candidate from City Ville also shared similar concerns about
the problems of science teaching in urban schools. Speciﬁcally she talked about how
socio-economic status and lack of resources play a major role in inﬂuencing accessibility
to quality science education in urban schools as shown in the following quotation from an
interview with her:

Depending on socio-economic status the kind of education you get is different

from the kind of education rich students get. From my experience teaching, I run a

couple of after school programs in high poverty schools where 90% of the

children are living in poverty. There are three science teachers who quit in the
middle of the year, they didn’t have a lab, they didn’t have any equipment, all the
three science teachers were doing different things in their science classrooms, and
it was a big mess. I also did a lot of research in the city schools, which are
wealthy and mostly white, and it was very different although they are all public

schools. (Interview, 9/12/2005)

Again this reinforces the existence of inequity in schools. Although efforts are being
made by some educators to address the issues of equity and social justice, this
interviewee sees these issues as challenges that are going to be there for the next 10 years
or more. Below Michael, a recent graduate from City Ville express similar sentiments:

I don’t think there is going to be a change, within a decade or two we won’t be in

a position to tell people that the afﬁrmative issues have been addressed. I think we

will still be striving to achieve science literacy for all. The people in research right

now dealing with these issues are not making that much progress as it was
supposed to be. There aren’t many that are working on this. Mostly people are

focusing on the problem, they are not offering ways of overcoming the problem,
so what people need now are ways of overcoming this problem and being able to

108

(u

is

 

Ls

offer science literacy for all. I think it’s going to take so much time. (Interview,
7/22/2005)

The faculty, doctoral candidates and recent graduates from City Ville view these issues of
inequity, teacher shortage and lack of resources as the most important issues that need to
be addressed in order to achieve the science education reform goal of “science literacy for
all”. The views shown above conﬁrm the doctoral program’s commitment to urban
science education. According to these views, it is clear that without social justice in the
school system urban youth will continue to face the challenges highlighted above.
Professor Gordon and the doctoral students are taking a critical look at the education
system in their quest to achieve science literacy for all. In this case, “all” in “science
literacy for all’ is interpreted to mean all students including those in urban schools. They
see issues of inequality in science learning among schools as the biggest hurdle to
achieving science literacy for all. Social justice is therefore seen as a pre-requisite to
achieving the national goal of “science literacy for all”.
Student Learning

The issues I classiﬁed as student learning included talk about what it means to be
a scientiﬁcally literate person, the role of media in urban science education, science not
being taught in a way that is relevant to the lives of students, US students’ performance
on international tests and effectiveness of elementary science education. Professor
Gordon for example, expressed her concern that the science education community does
not seem to have a deﬁnition for what it means to be scientiﬁcally literate and what that
means for what should be happening in the schools. For Professor Gordon, a
scientiﬁcally literate person is one who is able to use the science knowledge they learn in

school. She is concerned about what science means for urban youth and how it can be

109

made relevant to their lives. The work that Professor Gordon is doing in the Urban
Science Education Center focuses on helping teachers understand who the urban youth
are, what science means to them and how science can be made relevant to them so that
they can use it in their lives:

We take a social justice approach to our work, which means we have an insider’s
perspective on what kids and teachers bring to the classroom. We work really
hard to understand and build upon the forms of knowledge that teachers and kids
bring to the classroom and we also work really hard to help the teachers and kids
to use the science that they are teaching and learning in the classroom to take
action in their lives and their community. With the work that we are doing around
building stronger community connections within the curriculum, that could be
something as simple as reﬁning the lesson so that kids can bring in their
perspectives but it can be something more complicated where the kids design a
panel of community experts to come and talk about an issue that they are
exploring. We are working on a curriculum that actually teaches urban ecology,
we are looking at what happens to food we buy from the grocery stores, so that’s
the content. We are using a variety of curricula resources that the City Board of
Education has adopted for the middle schools in the city. The idea of community
connections is really broad and I think it embraces this idea of social justice and
by getting at that community connections research that our teachers and fellows
are working on they are also asking the question what do teachers need to know in
order to do this. (Interview, 9/21/2005)

Professor Gordon is making science meaningful to urban youth by establishing better
linkages between what goes on in the schools and what goes on in the home and the
community and what goes on in places where informal science learning occurs. She is
also focusing on curricular justice by looking at science curriculum from the perspective
of what knowledge students and teachers bring to the classroom. This way science
becomes more relevant to the students’ lives. By so doing the students can identify with
science and they can ﬁnd science to be a meaningful. So Professor Gordon sees both
social justice and curricular justice as prerequisite to achieving science literacy for all.
Kathy, a recent graduate from City Ville shared similar concerns with Professor

Gordon about the relevance of science being taught in schools. She strongly felt that the

110

science being taught in schools is not being made relevant to students’ lives. She feels
that people experience science in their daily lives and yet these experiences are not
connected to science teaching in the schools. Her ideas were shaped by her dissertation
research that focused on informal science as shown in the quotation below:

My research has been on informal science, museums and television; the Internet

now is very powerful. When I say TV I don’t just mean science documentaries, I

mean the X-ﬁles, CSI, ER, News, CNN, cartoons, and children’s programs. I am

really looking at Citizen Science — stuff we learn in science that impacts human
life. I looked at mediated science but as a researcher and a scholar in a big city

these are issues that I think may become more important. (Interview, 6/22/2005)
Kathy feels that science education should be related to the way people lead their lives.
She thinks that the way we do research and think about it should be in relation to the way
the communities lead their lives rather than trying to create these artiﬁcial constructs.
Kathy strongly feels that external factors such as the media play a more critical role in
science education and hence there is need to understand how what we learn in science
impacts the individual’s life especially in the city. Kathy is taking a critical look at how
science can become more accessible to all students and how students can identify
themselves with science.

On the other hand, Professor Macarthur expressed his concerns about student
learning from a different angle. His is concerned about the lack of rigor in K-12 science
education. Among other things, he decried the quality of science education that all
American students are getting in K-12 education. Professor Macarthur talked at length
about how lack of rigor in science education has created an achievement gap that is
evident on international standardized tests. He highlights his point:

One major concern in the ﬁeld is the International science education gap - from

the TIMSS studies and the National Education Association studies on student
performance in the last 10 years have strong political and professional

lll

implications.- The ranking of US students’ performance vis-a vis the other
developed countries. I think this is a very critical issue that needs much more
intensive analysis. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Professor Macarthur also attributed the problems of poor scores to the science education
community’s lack of a deeper understanding of individual differences that come into play
in science learning. He sees the need for more in-depth research into the area of diversity
among learners. Diversity in this case refers to individual genetic differences and
capacities in science learning among different individuals especially as they mature. He
feels that there is need to understand the intersection between individual capacities as
people mature and their cultural experiences and how this inﬂuences science learning.
The quotation below shows Professor Macarthur’s explicit clariﬁcation of his view about
the importance of a cognitive approach to achieving science literacy for all students:

I have a feeling that the productive research and insights you gain from this
epistemological and psychological approach will soon come to a limit unless we
get at what I would call the genetic neurO-cognitive basis of learning and by
genetic I mean something broader than Piaget’s developmental genetic
epistemology. I don’t think we fully appreciate what we mean when we talk about
diversity, how people differ in terms of their capacities to deal with the processing
of some of the information we want people to learn in science based on their
genetic capabilities. I am talking about human individual differences, so people
vary in their capacities. We don’t take that into consideration. We think every
person is keen about science and that every person is naturally a scientist. That
may be true but as people mature I think we need to know how their hereditary
propensity and competencies and potential interact with their cultural experiences
to determine how they really learn. Science is a more demanding and we are
scientists because we do well in the ﬁeld but not everyone maturing is going to
have the same propensities and competencies. We better know about that as
scientists and how best to reach people. This would help address the issue of
science for all. (Interview, 5/22/2005)

Professor Macarthur views a deeper understanding of the issues of diversity in
science learners to be the key to ﬁguring out how different people learn and help them

develop their potential. SO for Professor Macarthur science for all means teaching science

112

for diversity among learners, and he sees the need to look closely at how to reach out to
students who may not be as good at learning science as the average student.

It is clear that the two professors at City Ville are deﬁning diversity among
learners differently and they are ﬁnding different means to achieving the goal of science
literacy for all. Whereas Professor Gordon looks at diversity in terms of advantaged and
disadvantaged populations in society, Professor Macarthur talks of diversity in terms of
differences among individual learners. Both meanings of diversity are important to
consider when thinking about achieving science literacy for all, but for Professor Gordon
it is hard to imagine how one can separate the impact of poverty from individual learner
capability in poor urban schools. In this case, individual differences among “all” students,
can be studied after achieving equitable distribution of resources among all schools.

In agreement with Professor Macarthur’s concern about science teaching, June a
doctoral candidate also echoed similar concerns about lack of rigor in K—1 2 science
learning and poor student performance on international tests, especially as the students
grow older:

Rigor in American students leaming,. .. students are not being competitive. I think

a lot of reports in the last several years. . ., the TMSS report. . ., I particularly focus

on physics education, so the American institute of physics, the NCTM all those

suggested that American students compete, at younger ages they are competitive
with students around the world but as they get older their competitive ability

decreases. And then for the more anecdotal view I teach in inner city and have a

sense of the amount of science kids know and more visibly the amount of math

they can do coming into high school. We should certainly note that at the level I

learned math in high school was much lower and this does not really prepare them

for pursuing degrees in the sciences that involves math. To some degree they go
for biology and the physical sciences. Those students in school who are interested

in engineering in college haven’t had the ability to stay competitive in their
coursework. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

113

This lack of rigor is even more prominent in the urban schools where the graduates are
not prepared for careers in engineering or other careers that require math or physics.
Although June makes reference to general performance in the sciences, she also makes
speciﬁc reference to the amount of science and math students in the inner city gets and
how this limits their opportunities. June’s concerns are similar to those of Professor
Gordon whose focus is on the relevance of science taught to urban youth.

Michael talked about student performance. Even though Michael acknowledges
the low levels of student performance in international tests, he also sees these tests as
playing a signiﬁcant role in helping people to know which countries are doing better on
the tests and how these can lead to studies to see how the successful countries are
teaching their students. Michael shares his feelings about the importance of studies that
give a global perspective on student performance:

The effort to understand student science understanding in international research

studies such as TIMSS and PISA in order to get a global perspective in an attempt

to use these results to inform the local school system. SO you can see countries
doing well in science and checking out afterwards why they are successful in
science literacy so you go to study educational systems and you bring information
to your local school system. These are what I saw as the two big issues.

(Interview, 7/22/2005)

This lack of competitiveness by US students on an international scale is attributed to the
limited amount of math and science subjects that prepare students for such careers as
technology. This situation is worse in poor urban schools that do not Offer science
courses like physics. June also shows the impact of the lack of preparedness of students
to compete in the global economy:

I think that particularly the students for example in public schools have limited

access to pursue careers in technology, in computer science, in engineering. It’s

just not part of the curriculum at all in most schools. Many schools in this city
don’t even offer physics at all. They take Regency Biology as a requirement for

114

high school. I think in a world where there a lot of good jobs in engineering and
computer science, innovation and technology, I think that overall American
students become consumers of that so they purchase it but they lack the skills to
ever develop it. Graduate programs in physics are almost entirely foreign students
who go back to their countries because they get jobs in their home countries that
are comparable in quality of lifestyle that they provide and for most people if they
can be close to family and friends they are likely to do that. (Interview,
7/22/2005)
Again June attributes the lack of preparedness among students to limited access to
science, speciﬁcally physics by students. Mostly this is due to shortage of teachers who
are competent in that area. This again brings out the problem of teacher shortage in urban
schools, which Professor Gordon also highlighted.
Teacher Development
Issues I categorized as teacher development included talk about the need to deﬁne
a knowledge base for teaching, understanding the nature of science, and the need to
improve science knowledge among teachers. Both faculty members at City Ville and only
one recent graduate emphasized teacher development as an issue that science educators
need to address (see ﬁgure 4.2). Professor Gordon strongly felt that in order to improve
science teaching in the schools, the science education community should be clear on what
the knowledge base for teaching should be, as shown in the following quote from an
interview with her: “There is need to deﬁne what teachers need to know and be able to
do to teach science in a way we as afield define it
Professor Macarthur shared similar concerns with respect to preparing teachers to
teach elementary science as shown in the following quote: “We recognize the importance
of early education in other fields but especially in science we haven ’t clearly investigated

hard enough.” Science teaching in elementary schools has always posed a challenge to

the ﬁeld mainly due to teachers who lack an understanding of the science content. More

115

so now with the No Child Left Behind, science is being pushed to the margins since it is
not the focus of testing. Kathy, a recent graduate also shared similar sentiments to
Professor Macarthur with respect to the level of science knowledge among science
teachers:

The decreasing level of appropriate scientiﬁc knowledge among our teachers -— As

I teach teachers, more and more of them have minimal science backgrounds

among elementary teachers. Most of them take a few ed courses then they go and

teach. Unfortunately most of these people have prevented science experiences in
their own education and how much can you do in one science methods course.

This is my personal frustration, there is not so much you can do to change a whole

mind set in one semester. How do we make teaching more accessible to people

with stronger backgrounds in science. (Interview, 6/22/2005)

The frustration shown by the professors and one recent graduate show that achieving the
goal of scientiﬁc literacy for all may just be a “pie in the sky” if the teachers are not well
prepared for their job. Since teachers are the ones who have to make the goal real, they
need to know what to do and be able to do their job.

Professor Macarthur also emphasized the need for the science education
community to have an understanding of what we mean by the nature of science and how
that needs to be clearly communicated in order for the science education community to be
able to be successful at achieving the goal of producing scientiﬁcally literate citizens.
Professor Macarthur illustrates this point:

Understanding the Nature of science - If we are to teach people to be literate in

science we have to be deliberate about what we are going to do and we have to

understand what is the nature of what we are trying to communicate. In the

broader sense the epistemology, philosophy and nature of science is an important
issue. Although we have not reached much consensus we have only a few people
like Norman Lederman and a few other people working in these areas. I think we

clearly need to know what we mean by the nature of science for us to have any
effect. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

116

The two professors brought up an issue that all science educators may agree with. The
fact that there is no clear deﬁnition of what teachers need to know and able to do is a
challenge to the ﬁeld of science education. Different scholars emphasize different aspects
of what teachers should know and able to do. A similar thing happens with the nature of
science. Since there is no one deﬁnition, it is open to different interpretations by different
people. In a way these professors see this as a drawback to achieving the national goal of
achieving science literacy for all. If science educators are doing things differently, then
they are likely to ignore some aspects that are seen by others as important.
Teaching Practice

The issues I categorized as teaching practice included talk about supporting urban
science teaching, reforming teaching to reﬂect more constructivist approaches, helping
teachers align their teaching to the standards and higher education’s failure to teach all
students. One professor, one recent graduate, two doctoral candidates from City Ville
emphasized the need to support teaching practice as an issue that the science education
community should focus on (see ﬁgure 4.2). June a doctoral candidate mentioned the fact
that supporting teachers in urban schools both with curriculum and content could
signiﬁcantly help address the problem of lack of rigor in schools. She sees the need to
come up with more rigorous curriculum that involves higher order thinking and teaching
through inquiry as a way for students to develop a deeper understanding of science
concepts.

In terms of addressing those issues, the options are really vast, like everything

ranging ﬁom supporting elementary science and mathematics teachers much more

thoroughly in the areas of science and math to doing things at curriculum level

that are basic skills focused but also require higher order thinking, require inquiry

based approaches so students are synthesizing the content with the skills they are
learning. (Interview, 7/25/2005)

117

Considering the fact that the science curriculum materials that have long been used in the
schools have been found not to meet the requirements of teaching for understanding
(Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), it is imperative that science educators ﬁnd ways to make
available high quality materials that support teachers to practice inquiry and that teachers
use them effectively in order to achieve the goal of science literacy for all.

Amanda a recent graduate also emphasized the challenge of preparing teachers to
adopt a constructivist view of teaching science, which in most cases is different from the
way they learned in school. In the following quote, Amanda articulates the reasons why
adoption of reform based teaching remains a challenge:

There has been a whole lot published on constructivism and conceptual change in

terms of the way science should be taught to students. There is a big movement to

get away from lecture in the classroom, which

is how many of the American students were taught when they were in high
school. Many of the teachers were taught that way in high school. So we are
trying to move away from that and take a more constructivist approach where the
students are more actively engaged in learning in the classroom. (Interview,

7/28/2005)

As discussed earlier, most teachers have rarely seen teaching that is based on the
constructivist or conceptual change theories, namely inquiry in practice. From my
experience teaching pre-service teachers I have realized that they ﬁnd the idea of
teaching through inquiry to be very attractive and something that every teacher should do.
But they have many questions concerning how this can be done in real life because their
cooperating teachers are not teaching this way.

Professor Macarthur showed concern about lack of effective science instruction in

the schools, especially in lower elementary. He pointed to the fact that there has been a

wealth of research on constructivist theories of learning, but this has not been translated

118

into practices that improve scientiﬁc literacy among learners. He pointed to the fact that
the challenge facing the ﬁeld of science education today is how to make inquiry an
effective learning tool:

The major issues that emerge are how to make inquiry really effective from some

theoretical base. Constructivism has helped to formulate a theory of guided

inquiry learning other than making it more an issue of philosophy and policy.

(Interview, 5/20/2005)

Teaching science through inquiry is a challenge for most teachers and this is a
challenge that the interviewees think will remain for some years to come. The reason why
teachers are ﬁnding it difﬁcult to teach through inquiry is because they are being asked to
teach science in ways that are different from how they have always taught science. Most
teachers have never seen anyone practicing inquiry which makes it harder for them. Since
inquiry is at the heart of the National Science Education Standards, many see it as the
best method to teach science in order to achieve science literacy for all. If the science
education community does not come up with ways to make this an effective learning tool
for science, then it may be difﬁcult to achieve science literacy for all. Again here we see
that Professor Macarthur’s concern about inquiry science teaching refers to science
teaching in general and does not speciﬁcally address science teaching pertaining in urban
disadvantaged schools. This seems to be different than what Professor Gordon considers
to be critical issues in urban science education.

Courtney shared her experience of helping teachers align the content to the
standards and helping them teach for understanding and not for coverage as shown in the
quotation below:

But in the classes that I have been researching, that’s deﬁnitely where I have been

making sure that the content we were covering was aligned to the standards and
that teachers could see those connections and also could see how they could

119

approach the standards in creative ways and deeply get to the content rather than
just a checklist. (Interview, 7/17/2005)

Courtney also highlighted the challenge caused by the disconnection between the
teaching that is advocated for in K-12 education and college teaching. She showed her
concern for college professors who think college science is only meant for a small
percentage of the student population; hence they use introductory classes as a weeding
mechanism. This is totally opposite to the reforms in K-12 education that is advocating
for every student to learn science and be scientiﬁcally literate. In the following quote she
shows her concern for the need to have collaboration between scientists and science
educators as a way of achieving science literacy for all:
There is still a fairly big information difference and also a difference between
science faculty and science educators. A lot of the science faculty I talked to
deﬁnitely have these ideas that if they have a 600 person classroom for
introductory chemistry that they should design that class for the 6 people who are
going to become chemistry majors, what about the rest of the class. Introductory
science courses are gate keeping courses that keep people from seeing the
relevance of science in their lives. I think it’s a really big issue to try to have
science faculty to recognize the contribution of the science education faculty. We
really have to be equitable in higher education. Higher education needs to realize
that people have needs in these classes and that people have different preparations
than the traditional college prep. Its stuff that K-12 has been trying to
accommodate for a long time and higher education has to start to look into that.
(Interview, 7/ 17/2005)
Courtney shows the deﬁnite frustration shared by most educators who see college
teaching undoing the hard work that K-12 education worked so hard to achieve. There is
a growing need for college science professors to work closely with their education
colleagues in order for the goal of science literacy for all to become a reality.
Curriculum

The issues I classiﬁed as curriculum included talk about aligning the science

curriculum to the standards and to Science for All Americans and Project 2061

120

Benchmarks. Environmental awareness was also mentioned as an issue by one doctoral
candidate who sees this as becoming more important and hence she felt that
environmental education will in turn become more important in schools over the next 10
years. Two recent graduates and one doctoral candidate from City Ville (see ﬁgure 4.2)
considered issues of aligning the curriculum to the standards to be issues that are posing a
challenge to the ﬁeld of science education and hence require attention. They all agreed
that the standards documents were credible since they were written by educators and
teachers but that implementing student-centered and inquiry-based learning was a
challenge. Below is the example of a quote from an interview with Courtney, one Of the
recent graduates who shared her views about the challenges faced by teachers as they try
to align their teaching to the state standards:
The standards have been a big issue Of pushing student-centered learning.
Generally with the National Standards I think they are pretty positive because for
the most part they do go into depth versus breath. Some of the state standards start
to become more prescriptive and teachers ﬁnd it hard to ﬁgure out which
standards they should adhere to, which standards should take more precedence.
The National Science Education Standards do come from a perspective of the
education literature so in general the National Standards have been a good thing.
(Interview, 7/ 17/2005)
Courtney raised an issue that educators are struggling with. Even though the reform
documents specify what students need to know and be able to do, this does not
automatically transform into practice. Looking to the future, some interviewees think that
issues of curriculum will remain a challenge to the ﬁeld, especially with topics like
evolution where there is controversy on whether it should be in the school curriculum or

not. Pamela a doctoral candidate shows how interference by the government is likely to

inﬂuence what gets taught in science:

121

Other issues in science education, the issue about curriculum and what to teach

might become an issue, e. g. teaching evolution versus intelligent design. There is

such a big debate which for me it’s not even a debate. I think that the more

government has a say in what gets taught, I think that must be an issue like what

should be the content of science education, what should go in the curriculum,

what we should teach the kids. Maybe when the administration changes it will not

be the issue. (Interview, 9/12/2005)
This quote from Pamela is an added challenge to the ones that the ﬁeld has been
struggling to address. In addition to aligning teaching to the national and state standards,
educators are battling in courts to keep evolution in the school curriculum. Being such an
important subject that is at the heart of life sciences, removing evolution from the school
curriculum would create a void that would make it difﬁcult to fully achieve scientiﬁc
literacy for all. For example how do you explain patterns in nature without touching on
evolution?
Assessment and Accountability

Issues that I categorized as assessment and accountability include talk about the
No Child Left Behind policies and the move towards accountability. Two recent
graduates and one doctoral candidate voiced their concerns about the impact of the No
Child Left Behind policies on the schools (see ﬁgure 4.2). The interviewees felt that the
move towards accountability is not doing any good to urban schools where students
already do not have access to quality science education. Standardized tests are being used
to compare schools regardless of other contextual factors mentioned earlier. The
quotation below from Courtney a recent graduate illustrates this point:

The move towards greater accountability in science. . . .the No Child Left

Behind. . .. along with accountability goes the fact that many students don’t have

access to quality science education, so its difﬁcult to hold the students

accountable when they might not have been taught what they were supposed to

have been taught. So, many students suffer, they have no access. So I think
accountability is a big issue in science education as well.The poor urban schools

122

are being punished for failing students and many of them are losing students who
are moving to better schools in wealthier areas. The poor schools that need to be
rescued in order to achieve scientiﬁc literacy for all are becoming a target and are
punished for lack of student achievement. (Interview, 7/17/2005)

The No Child Left Behind policies also advocate for hiring of highly qualiﬁed
teachers which the interviewees ﬁnd to be problematic. Highly qualiﬁed people in the
sciences for example chemistry would rather go to work in a lab that pays more money
and offers less frustration such as that engendered by reluctant and under-prepared
students, or unsupportive administrators in schools. Policies that are not easy to
implement in reality are seen as challenges that will remain in the ﬁeld for some time.
Courtney also feels that the move towards greater accountability is forcing schools to
focus on getting high scores at the expense of student learning and professional
development:

In terms of K-12 there seems to be growing tension between what the science

education communities think should be good ways to go about changing schools.

The way that accountability is coming to the fore, like in NY there is a shortage of

highly qualiﬁed physics and chemistry teachers. The way the state wanted to ﬁx

this was, we will make it so harder to become a chemistry or physics teacher. So
now anyone who is to become a chemistry teacher has a strong chemistry
background but these are people who cannot even get into the certiﬁcation
program. To get around issues of accountability, schools are asking low achieving
students not to come to school the days the tests are written. They are more
focusing on how do I get these numbers up instead of how do I get professional
development in my school. We have to ﬁnd a way to ﬁnd a middle point. I don’
think the science education community wants to address these issues but its

something we need to do. (Interview, 7/17/2005)

Issues of policies and the No Child Left Behind that were highlighted by doctoral
candidates and recent graduates reﬂect a general ﬁ'ustration among science educators in
the ﬁeld. These interviewees did not talk about their own experiences with assessments in

their own practice or any other forms of assessment other than NCLB driven assessments

and the accountability that is attached to it.
123

Addressing Issues in Science Education

When asked how the issues in science education can be addressed, the faculty,
graduate students and recent graduates all agreed that there is needed for combined effort
between politicians, science educators and teachers. However, the interviewees felt that
the politicians and business people need to play a greater role working with science
educators and teachers to address these issues. The majority of interviewees identiﬁed
that solutions lie in the context of the educational setting (see Figure 4.3 below). The
context of educational settings in this case includes school funding, resource availability,
poor teacher salaries, and teacher quality. They felt that these issues need to be addressed
ﬁrst in order for other factors to improve. However, none of the interviewees mentioned

assessment and accountability as an area that needed attention ﬁom the leaders in the

ﬁeld.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONJBGOO

 

 

 

 

Respondents

 

 

“'“dﬂ I Faculty =2

I I Recent Gradts n=3
Cl Doctoral Candts n=3
[:1 Total n=8

 

 

 

 

Curriculum

 

Contextual
Factors
Teacher
Development

Assessment/A
ccountability

Channels of inﬂuence

 

 

 

Figure 4.3 Solutions to addressing issues in Science Education

Although the contextual issues do not directly impact student learning, they
impact the teacher’s job, hence inﬂuencing student learning. There was also a general

feeling among interviewees that the government should be involved in addressing these

124

issues as well as issues of policies that are counter-productive to effective teaching and
students’ learning. June a doctoral candidate captures these sentiments:

The political will is not there to do it. I guess you need more people in power that
know more science, that will be more helpful, and have worked in a scientiﬁc
ﬁeld and have a sense of developments. A lot of people in policy do not
understand that. Certainly the Bush administration, their questions about the type
of science inquiries and how science is used to pursue political agendas. It doesn’t
particularly strike me that the Bush administration is particularly well vested in
any kind of science and I think that very much affects their policy initiatives.
(Interview, 7/25/2005)

The above quotation highlights the general frustration among science educators that,
instead of bringing solutions, the current administration seems to be creating challenges
for the science education community. It would therefore be difﬁcult for any group to lead
in addressing the challenges if the federal government is not involved in the process.

Mobilizing people from different professions is seen by Professor Macarthur as
the best way to come up with a curriculum that addresses issues of diversity among
students. He thinks that the way science educators are currently writing curriculum does
not address the needs of Ieamers who have different learning abilities. Professor
Macarthur highlights the shortfalls of the current curriculum efforts, which he sees as
peace meal projects:

It’s going to take a lot of prominent action. Mobilizing a broader base - business
and politicians, industrialists and university people as well as resources to address
these issues. It would be naive for us to say that university people and science
educators can make this happen. I think this obviously is going to take a lot more
political action. For example the 19603 where the curriculum projects were started
by scientists alone, they designed what they thought was a good curriculum from
a scientiﬁc perspective and then brought in science educators and other people. I
think that top-down approach isn’t going to work in the future. There is need for
large scale, integrated, task oriented, research objective cuniculum projects where
we look at the relationship between cuniculum and learning. I think we are
wasting money in this piecemeal approach we have been taking over the years of
putting together a curriculum without understanding how the dynamics play out.
(Interview, 5/20/2005)

125

Professor Macarthur feels that for the science education community to fully address the
challenge of scientiﬁc literacy among all students there is need for a “Manhattan Project”.
He therefore thinks of reform in science education as a mammoth task that the whole
nation should be concerned about. He used the phrase Manhattan Project as a metaphor to
emphasize the magnitude of such a project. From the views of the interviewees at City
Ville, leadership in addressing the current challenges in the ﬁeld cannot be undertaken by
an individual or by one organization, but it should be collaboration between educators
from different ﬁelds, scientists, science educators, the community and the government.
Aspects of doctoral programs that need to change

The interviewees felt that there is need for the doctoral program at City Ville to
improve in the areas of teacher development and curriculum. The interviewees
unanimously agreed that doctoral students should be involved more in the process of
learning to teach through teaching assistantships. From student mentoring it was clearly
shown that the doctoral candidates at City Ville do not receive formal mentoring in
teaching and one recent graduate testiﬁed that she had to learn to teach on the job.
Although the assumption is that most education graduates have been teachers, the
doctoral candidates felt that college teaching is new and there is need for mentoring in
this area.

The recent graduates and faculty also agreed that the doctoral cuniculum needs to
address the current reforms more explicitly, especially with respect to aligning
curriculum to the reforms. Although a number of doctoral courses analyzed in this study
do explicitly address the reforms, what students get from their courses is greatly

inﬂuenced by the professor who teaches the course. Professors’ areas of interest and their

126

areas of specialization inﬂuence what they value, as worth knowing and emphasizing in a
doctoral course. One recent graduate felt that she could have beneﬁted more if there was
better collaboration among the courses. However, interviews with the recent graduates
showed that there seems to be better coordination of the coursework and research. It
seems that the coordination of the doctoral coursework seems to have changed since the
former candidate graduated. One important observation related to faculty at City Ville is
that Professor MacArthur will be retiring soon. This may be signiﬁcant in that new
faculty entering may bring different perspectives also and the nature of courses may
change, or provide yet another way of how to prepare doctoral students.
Discussion

In this section I am going to compare the views of faculty, doctoral students and
recent graduates. Data analysis showed that contextual issues such as equity and-social
justice and teacher preparation are the two issues that were commonly viewed by the
faculty members, their recent graduates, and their doctoral candidates as being important
challenges confronting the ﬁeld. Whereas faculty members placed more emphasis on
contextual issues, teacher development and student learning as issues that need to be
addressed in the ﬁeld, doctoral candidates and recent graduates emphasized all areas
including three other areas that were not emphasized by faculty, namely: teaching,
assessment, and accountability, and curriculum as issues that science education. There
could be several reasons why faculty did not highlight the other three issues as challenges
in the ﬁeld, one of which could be that these issues are not directly related to their job or

to their research interests.

127

All interviewees viewed the issues of equity and social justice as critical most
likely because of the program focus on urban science education and the emphasis placed
on equity and social justice research and outreach programs in the Urban Science
Education Center. Professor Gordon works with urban schools and ﬁnds that inequity
issues are real, hence the realization that ‘science literacy for all should be viewed as a
social justice issue. Issues of social justice are embedded in the social fabric and
addressing them would require multiple partners such as politicians, businesses and the
general public. In spite of these challenges, faculty members at City Ville view it as part
of their community service to address the issues of urban science education from a social
justice perspective Professor Gordon.

Schools are normally seen as places of learning, not places where people think
much about who is getting what kind of knowledge and teaching science for social justice
is a new discourse in the ﬁeld. Science knowledge has always been considered to be
neutral and value free and science educators have not thought much about the subjective
nature of scientiﬁc knowledge and how it is socially constructed. Professor Gordon and
her colleagues at City Ville are concerned about the lack of preparation of teacher
educators with an understanding of what social justice means in Science education.

Contrary to what faculty members emphasized as important issues in the ﬁeld of
science education, recent graduates, and doctoral candidates emphasized some issues that
faculty did not emphasize. These issues include teaching, curriculum, and assessment and
accountability. The faculty members seemed to focus more on issues that are directly
related to their job of preparing teacher educators and doing research in their areas of

interest. Doctoral candidates and recent graduates on the other hand seemed to focus

128

more on all issues that inﬂuence student learning. This can partly be explained by the fact
that doctoral candidates and recent graduates have just been exposed to all these issues in
their courses and they view them as equally important and they may not have strongly
aligned with any one issue in particular. Another reason why doctoral candidates and
recent graduates tend to agree on all the issues that inﬂuence students learning is because
of the emphasis that their doctoral program places on issues of equity and social justice.
All the issues that inﬂuence student learning are major issues in urban schools because of
lack of ﬁrnding and lack of resources: hence they all need to be addressed.

From interviews with the faculty members at City Ville, it became clear that
science educators are taking great strides to work towards achieving ‘science literacy for
all students’ in urban schools. However, policies seem to be working against these
efforts. It is interesting though that only the doctoral candidates and recent graduates
highlighted policy issues such as the NO Child Left Behind as a challenge to the ﬁeld. Is
this because faculty members do not see these policies as a challenge? It may be that
faculty members are trying to ignore these challenges that are beyond their control and
instead focusing on what they can address. From informal discussions with colleagues in
the ﬁeld, it seems there is a general feeling that these policies are a short-lived phase that
will come to pass.

Although there is evidence that the faculty members at City Ville are concerned
about achieving science literacy for all, the two faculty members seem to have different
interpretations of what is needed to achieve the national goal. Whereas Professor Gordon
sees the need to address issues of equity, and social justice as a way of achieving science

literacy for all, Professor Macarthur sees the need to focus on addressing student learning

129

needs. Professor Gordon seems to believe the problems of teacher burn out and high staff
turnover in urban schools is due to inadequate preparation of science teachers to teach
urban youth. She also sees this as being directly related to the fact that poor urban schools
lack the resources that enables teachers to teach in the way that the science reforms
advocates for.

Professor Gordon therefore believes that in order for urban students to have
scientiﬁc literacy that is comparable to their suburban counterparts, there is need for
doctoral preparation to prepare future science educators with a deeper understanding of
urban issues and how to address them. .” Professor Gordon’s work in the Urban Science
Center focuses on helping teachers understand the urban youth in terms of what science
means to them and designing curriculum that is relevant to the students’ lives. One
example of units they came up with was built around the “food from the grocery store”.
Professor Gordon articulated this in the interview: “But the part that we know we can
work best on is preparing teachers to work best within the urban schools and
understanding better who urban youth are and relate to them how to connect the science
curriculum to them”.

On the other hand, Professor Macarthur sees the need to prepare doctoral students
with a deeper understanding of the challenges related to student learning and student
performance, such as cognitive differences among Ieamers, understanding the nature of
science, effective science instruction and translating constructivist theories into practice.
Professor Macarthur sees a direct relationship between the low performance of American
students and lack of effective science instruction in the schools. He believes that

implementation of constructivist theories into practice in the form of guided inquiry

130

especially in lower elementary is one way student learning can be improved. Professor
Macarthur’s views about the challenges facing science education that he mentioned in the
interview can be directly linked to his scholarly and research interests in neuro-cognitive
models for student learning. According to him, the problem of student learning will
remain a challenge in the next decade “unless we get to understand at what he calls the
genetic neuro-cognitive basis of learning”. By neuro-cognitive base, he was referring to
differences among individuals in terms of learning and intellectual development. He
emphasized the need to understand human individual differences and he showed his
belief that people vary in their mental capacities. In this regard Professor Macarthur feels
that it is wrong to assume that every student is keen to learn science.

It is clear that Professor Macarthur thinks research is science education should
focus on studying the relationship between individual attributes and science learning,
something that is silent in the national reform documents such as the National Science
Education Standards (1996) and the Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy (AAAS, 1993).
These reform documents outline what every student should know and be able to do at
every grade level, what teachers should know in order to be able to do their job and how
teacher education programs should prepare teachers for their job. The issue of student
learning and cognitive development is normally a ﬁeld that is studied by educational
psychologists or cognitive scientists. The standards and benchmarks are generic in terms
of learners’ cognitive differences, which Professor Macarthur ﬁnds to be problematic.
The National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks do not give any
indication of how teachers can accommodate Ieamers with different learning abilities or

the fact that some students may be functioning below grade level. The goal of the current

131

reforms in science education is “to achieve scientiﬁc literacy for all” regardless of the
differences among Ieamers.

Professor Macarthur speciﬁcally attributed the problem of student performance to
the current K-12 science standards and benchmarks that he feels were not informed by an
understanding of how children learn. His concern is therefore to prepare doctoral
graduates with a strong understanding of cognitive differences among Ieamers and
understanding how to address these issues. He thinks this is an important aspect of
curriculum development and he feels that lack of this knowledge in the ﬁeld has
negatively inﬂuenced the quality of the latest science curriculum. This is shown in the
following quotation ﬁom an interview with him:

We have had sporadic attempts at curriculum development even Project 2061, I

don’t think we have given a lot of thought to understanding the longitudinal

development of curriculum. We develop the cuniculums top down based on
philosophies and theories and designs, but I am worried about that because I don’t
think we know well enough the longitudinal issue of how children learn and

develop and to use this to guide us in curriculum development. Project 2061

created the strand maps informed by research, but we just don’t know how

children at different age levels interact with those conceptual ideas. In terms of
their learning and individual differences do we really understand that its
appropriate and how best to reach them. That in the next 10 years will be a very

important thing that we should be concerned about. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

In general, ﬁndings show that faculty and students share similar concerns about
issues that are emphasized in the program but students seem to pay attention to more
issues than faculty. Faculty members’ research and scholarly interests deﬁne what they
value most and what they consider to be important issues in the ﬁeld. Doctoral students
and recent graduates do not seem to have afﬁliated themselves with any one area but see

all the factors inﬂuencing student learning as important. This raises concerns for breath

versus depth in doctoral studies. The general trend shows that faculty is more concerned

132

about depth in their particular area of specialization whereas students are concerned about
breath of coverage of all areas. This raises the question of whether faculty expect doctoral
students to get all of it and piecemeal their learning into a coherent whole.

Conclusion

The science education doctoral program at City Ville University has an urban
science education focus. The program addresses the reforms through courses such as the
“History of Science Education” which directly addresses the standards. The urban science
education center strives to achieve the goal of “science literacy for all” by focusing on
teaching science for social justice. This is done through helping teachers and teacher
educators understand who the urban youth are, making science relevant to urban youth,
and providing resources for science teaching in urban schools. Although some doctoral
candidates and recent graduates agree with the faculty that the program is addressing the
current reforms, two of them did not agree and felt that the reforms have not been fully
addressed. This difference in opinion is mainly due to the different emphasis that the
professors place on reforms in the courses.

In response to the question that asked what they see as the most important issues
in science education, all interviewees agreed that issues of equity and social justice are
challenges that confront the ﬁeld of science education. Issues such as poor funding, high
staff turnover, and lack of resources were identiﬁed as inﬂuencing the quality of science
that urban youth receive. While faculty only identiﬁed three issues, namely contextual
factors, teacher education and teaching as most important, doctoral candidates and recent
graduates thought that that issues related to curriculum, student learning, assessment and

accountability were equally important.

133

Both formal and informal mentoring exists for doctoral students at City Ville, but
it’s not uniform for all students. Students who work on research projects in the urban
science education center were more satisﬁed by the mentoring they got compared to other
students who did not work in the center. Students who worked in the center had more
regular meetings with faculty, presented their research ﬁndings at conferences and had
the opportunity of working with teachers in the schools. Although most doctoral
candidates and recent graduate feel well prepared for the job, one student felt that she had
to learn on the job because she did not feel she was well prepared for the job. There was a
general feeling among doctoral students that there is need to improve the provision of
teaching and research assistantships as a way of preparing doctoral students for future

jobs as science educators.

134

CHAPTER 5
THE STORY OF MIDWESTERN SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL
PROGRAM

Introduction

We teach them how to read and write, how to vote and hold a job, but more than

that is required. We must teach them not only to think, but to criticize, to

conspire-if need —be against stupidity and arrogance, and against the non

democratic, inhuman ways our society sometimes governs.

Ayers and Ford (1 996)

In the previous chapter I described the science education doctoral program at City
Ville University. I showed how this program is addressing the current reforms through
coursework and research. I also showed how the doctoral candidates are being mentored
through working with faculty on research and professional development initiatives with
teachers. In the case of City Ville, doctoral graduates are prepared to have a deeper
understanding of urban science education and they get to work with teachers in urban
schools, supporting them in their teaching, helping them understand urban youth and
what science means to them and helping them to use resources at their disposal for
teaching science. The City Ville doctoral program has an urban science education focus,
and they are approaching science teaching from the social justice perspective.

In this chapter, I speciﬁcally focus on describing the science education doctoral
program at Midwestern, analyzing their courses and views ﬁom faculty, recent graduates
and doctoral candidates. I described the course of study, the mentoring doctoral students

receive, views about the most important issues in science education and how these views

inﬂuence the program structure. The ﬁndings discussed in this chapter will answer the

135

question, ““How are science education doctoral programs interpreting the current reforms
and how are they enacting them in preparing future leaders in the ﬁeld?”

In this chapter I describe and analyze ﬁndings from the study of Midwestern
science education doctoral program. I interviewed two faculty members, three recent
graduates and three doctoral candidates. I also analyzed program documents such as
syllabi and course descriptions as well as program descriptions in order to get a better
understanding of the program structure and how doctoral graduates are being prepared. In
my analysis I look for evidence of how the coursework and other experiences as well as
faculty dispositions are focusing on the reform goal of achieving “Science literacy for
all” as they prepare future leaders in the ﬁeld. I used an interpretive approach that
enabled me to assign meaning both to written and verbal text.

In keeping with the design of the study ﬁndings, in this chapter I will present the
case of Midwestern University. I will follow the same format of the City Ville case by
presenting the course requirements, doctoral mentoring and the views of faculty, recent
graduates, and doctoral candidates. For analyzing data on views of faculty, recent
graduates and doctoral candidates I used the National Research Council’s Framework for
assessing the inﬂuence of standards in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education
that I described in chapter 3. This chapter is made up of 4 sections that include analysis of
coursework, mentoring of doctoral students, views of faculty, recent graduates and

doctoral candidates, and a discussion that compares the views of the participants.

136

Geographic Location

Midwestern University is a large research intensive university located in a small
city in the Midwestern part of the United States. The city population is about 50,000. The
population is not very diverse both ethnically and socio-economically and mostly
comprises of white middle class families. However, there is an urban area adjacent to the
city where Midwestern is located. The urban population is very diverse both racially and
socio-culturally. The College of Education at Midwestern was established in 1952 with
the mission of preparing professional educators and leaders in the ﬁeld of education.
Midwestern is a State funded Land Grant University. The doctoral program at
Midwestern serves students from diverse backgrounds both from in state, out of state and
international. Doctoral funding for most of Midwestern students is through research and
teaching assistantships. The majority of science education doctoral students at
Midwestern engage in ﬁrll time studies.
Program Description

The science education doctoral program at Midwestern is a specialist area of
study under the Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy program. Generally
students in this PhD program are required to be competent in both quantitative and
qualitative research methodology and to be knowledgeable about teacher education. The
science education doctoral program at Midwestern produced about 22 doctoral graduates
in the last ten years. The department has 8 faculty members, and half of them hold joint
appointments with the Division of Mathematics and Science Education in the College of
Natural Sciences. The science education doctoral program at Midwestern has a current

enrollment of about 15 full time students. About two thirds of the students are white

137

Caucasian American citizens and approximately one third are international, mainly from
Africa and Asia. Minority racial groups such as Aﬁican Americans, Asian Americans,
Hispanics and Native Americans are poorly represented in the Midwestern science
education doctoral program.
Participant Proﬁles
Faculty

The two professors interviewed for this study have different years of experience
as science educators. Professor Atkinson has been at Midwestern University for almost
30 years and Professor Perry has only been there for three years. The two professors have
different research agendas but they both work with the Science Education Center.
Professor John Atkinson

Professor John Atkinson has been a professor of science education at Midwestern
University for about 30 years. He holds the position of Professor of Science Education.
Professor Atkinson’s scholarly interests are in the areas of science teaching and learning
in the classroom. He studies how students’ prior knowledge, language, and social
relationships affect their engagement in science learning and the development of
scientiﬁc literacy. He has expertise in the areas of science literacy, environmental
literacy, secondary science education, and science assessment. He has held leadership
positions in several national organizations and he has been a consultant to numerous

science and education organizations and projects.

Professor Meredith Perry

138

Professor Meredith Perry has been assistant professor of science education at
Midwestern University for three years. She has a joint appointment in the College of
Education and in the College of Natural Sciences. Her research interest is in the area of
teaching and learning of science, focusing on inquiry-oriented and model-centered
constructivist learning environments. Her current research involves developing students’
and teachers’ understanding of the Nature of Science through scientiﬁc modeling. She
has expertise in the areas of scientiﬁc literacy, elementary science teaching. Dr. Perry has
been a reviewer for six different education journals, and she has taught several courses
including; elementary science methods, science for elementary schools, online masters’
course on inquiry and the nature of science, and PhD science education courses focusing
on contemporary issues in science education, and teaching and learning science with
technology.

Recent Graduates

Three recent graduates from Midwestern who were interviewed for this study
graduated at least a year ago. One of the recent graduates, Joseph was an international
student, and the other two, Joshua and James are American citizens. All the recent
graduates were full time students during the tenure of their studies and their studies were
paid for through working as research and teaching assistants in the department of Teacher
Education.

Joseph

Joseph is an international graduate of 2004. He has since gone back to his home

country where he is an Assistant Professor of Science Education. Upon graduation from

Midwestern, Joseph got a job as a post-doctoral fellow at Midwestern and worked for 4

139

months before going back to his home country. During his tenure as doctoral student,
Joseph worked as a research assistant on several research projects and also taught science
methods courses for elementary teachers in the department of Teacher Education. Joseph
has a bachelor’s degree in science education and a teaching qualiﬁcation. He taught
elementary school for two years before starting the PhD program. His dissertation
investigated Teachers' scientiﬁc knowledge, teaching practice, and students' learning
activities.
James

James is an American citizen who graduated from Midwestern in 2003. He is
currently an Assistant Professor of science education at a university in the east coast.
During his tenure as doctoral student, James worked as a research assistant on several
research projects and also taught secondary science methods courses. James has a
bachelor’s degree in science education and a teaching qualiﬁcation. He taught secondary
school for three years before starting the PhD program. His dissertation investigated
Intems' narrative and paradigmatic ways of knowing science.
Joshua

Joshua is an American citizen who graduated from Midwestern in 2002. He is
currently an Assistant Professor of science education at a university in the Midwest. After
completing his studies he took up a position as assistant professor of science education at
a university in the Midwest and worked for two years before joining his current
university. During his tenure as doctoral studies, Joshua worked as a research assistant on
several research projects and also taught secondary science methods courses. He won a

teaching award. Joshua has a bachelor’s degree in science education and he taught

140

secondary school science for ﬁve years before starting the PhD program. His dissertation

investigated teachers learning from mentoring experience.

Doctoral Candidates

The three doctoral candidates interviewed in this study are either in their fourth or
ﬁfth year. Two of the doctoral candidates are international students and one is an
American citizen. They all have completed their coursework and at the time of the
interview they had completed their doctoral candidacy examinations. Only one of the
doctoral candidates was at the dissertation writing stage at the time of the interview.
Jennifer

Jennifer is a ﬁfth year doctoral candidate and she is at the dissertation research
stage. She is an international student who also got her masters degree ﬁom Midwestern
University. During her doctoral studies she taught a diversity course for elementary and
secondary pre-service teachers. She worked on several projects as a research assistant. At
the time of the interview she had not yet started working on her dissertation. Jennifer
taught secondary science for two years before she started her doctoral studies. She has
since gone back to her country where she is doing her dissertation research.

William

William is a ﬁfth year doctoral candidate and he is writing his dissertation. He is
an international student. During his doctoral studies he taught science methods courses
for elementary pre-service teachers. He has worked on several research projects as a
research assistant. He his dissertation research focused on Agency in science.

Diane

141

Diane is a fourth year doctoral candidate and she is at the dissertation proposal
writing stage. She is American citizen. During her doctoral studies she taught elementary
science education methods courses to pre-service teachers. Diane is a doctoral fellow in
the Center for Learning and teaching. She taught science for ﬁve years before she started
her doctoral studies. She plans to conduct her research in the Western part of the country.
Science Center
The Center for Learning and Teaching

At least four of the science education faculty members at Midwestern run the
Center for Learning and Teaching at Midwestern. The center focuses on critical research
and development issues related to improving curriculum materials for K-12 science. The
center’s aim is to foster a new generation of leadership with speciﬁc expertise in the
analysis of curriculum materials and in their development, evaluation, and
implementation. Midwestern is one of 3 institutions that are part of the center that is
coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Through this initiative, Midwestern and the other university partners have used this
opportunity to expand their graduate programs in science education by recruiting doctoral
and postdoctoral fellows who are funded by the center.

The center works closely with local school districts to inform the work of the
center and to share the knowledge that is gained with K-12 educators. The center focuses
on three main goals which are: (1) to develop the national leadership infrastructure at the
doctoral and postdoctoral level, (2) to provide relevant inservice and/or preservice
training to teachers and other professionals, and (3) to conduct research at the highest

level on questions of national importance relating to the center’s mission. The center has

142

also impact on preservice teacher education students through the modiﬁcation of science
methods courses. It also offers professional development to teachers and administrators
as well as to a select group of teacher leaders. The focus of all these activities will be the
design, analysis, and implementation of innovative curriculum materials.
Findings

This section answers the following research questions: “How are science
education doctoral programs responding to current reforms in science education in their
coursework and other mentoring experiences offered to doctoral students?”
Courses Oﬂered

The science education PhD program at Midwestern is an area of specialization
under the Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy Program. All doctoral students
have to fulﬁll the course requirements for the PhD in Curriculum, Teaching and
Educational Policy shown in Table 5.1 below. However, the program is ﬂexible and
enables students to tailor their program of study according to their interest. In addition to
the required courses, students with a science education focus can take science education
courses that are offered every other spring as part of their selective courses. Science

education students also attend a science education seminar every fall.

Table 5.1 Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy courses required at
Midwestern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Credit hours
2 Pro-seminar courses 6 credits

4 Educational inquiry and research courses 12 credits

3 selective courses 9 credits

6 electives 18 credits
Dissertation 24 credits
Total Credits 69 credits

 

 

143

 

Doctoral students are required to take a total of 15 courses, and each individual
student’s committee determines the speciﬁc number of credits they take depending on the
interests of the student. Six of the required courses include two pro-seminar and four
educational inquiry and research courses. The pro-seminar courses are offered during the
ﬁrst two semesters of the doctoral program. Beginning students take the pro-seminar
courses together as a cohort. This is meant to build a professional learning community
among the doctoral students. Three other required courses are selective, and these provide
doctoral students with a general background in the major areas represented in the
department, namely teacher learning, policy and the education context. The remaining Six
courses are elective courses, which deﬁne a student’s area of concentration.

In addition to the required PhD courses, science education doctoral students
attend a science seminar every fall where they meet with faculty to discuss contemporary
issues in science education (Table 5.2). They also have the opportunity of taking electives

on special topics in science education that are offered every other spring (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Science education focus courses offered at Midweatern

 

 

 

 

 

Science Education Electives Credits

Contemporary issues in science, 1-6 credits Every Fall

Curriculum and Teaching

Special topic in science Education 3 credits Offered every other year

 

Table 5.3 shows the special topics that were offered to science education doctoral
students in the past 5 years. It is important to note that these courses are electives and are
not required; therefore not all science education students took these courses when they

were offered.

144

 

Table 5. 3: Special Science Education courses offered during the past 5 years at
Midwestern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Topics in Science Education Credits
Teaching Science for Understanding 3 credits
Exploring scientiﬁc literacy 3 credits
Curriculum materials in science 3 credits
Technology in Science Education 3 credits

 

The science education doctoral program at Midwestern has a teacher education
focus. According to Professor Atkinson, the science education doctoral program at
Midwestern has a degree of ﬂexibility which enables students to shape their own program
of study depending on their interests, with the guidance of their advisor and guidance
committee. Professor Atkinson also highlighted the ﬂexible nature of the content in the
science education courses offered at Midwestern:

In terms of the science education part of the programs, we have such a ﬂexible

program that I think it can go in whatever kind of direction we want it to, both

955 and 991A are two main courses and each time we teach them we teach them a

little differently. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Therefore 955 and 991A are the only two courses that are totally devoted to
science education in the Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy program at
Midwestern. Since the main focus of the doctoral program is teacher education, doctoral
students are required take two pro-seminar courses at the beginning of their program. The
ﬁrst pro-seminar course draws on literature about teaching and learning in elementary

and secondary schools and the connection between classrooms and the larger social

context of the US education system, its structure, and how it has changed over time. The

145

 

course also takes a closer look at the complexity of the education system and why
reforms have failed to change it. The following quotation from the syllabus highlights the
structure of the pro-seminar course:
In this course, we will explore the educational enterprise and alternative ways of
describing, analyzing, and interpreting the K-12 system. It will ﬁrst explore the
history of changes in educational thought and practice that shaped the drive to
provide mass public schooling, and the consequent struggles faced in educating a
diverse population: the purposes of education and the consequent manifestations
or internal effects of competing purposes on knowledge, learning, teaching, and
structure. It will then turn more directly to the recent era of reform and analysis,
and will focus largely on shifts in the theoretical and interpretive perspectives that
scholars have used in explaining the relationship between schooling and larger
social and economic developments
The pro-seminar course provides doctoral students with an understanding of the complex
nature of the education system and its sociO-political context. Although the pro-seminar
course does not directly address issues related to the current science education reforms, it
addresses reforms in general and it provides science education doctoral candidates with
lenses that they later use to analyze and understand current reforms in science education.
The second pro-seminar course explores issues related to teaching as a profession
and the teachers’ work. The following quotation from the second pro-seminar syllabus
clearly describes what this course is about:
The course will introduce some major ﬁ'ameworks that have been used to guide
research, policy recommendations, and the work of teaching. Throughout the
term we will consider the question of what it means to think about teaching as a
practice from a variety of perspectives, drawing on a range of concepts and
theoretical frames, in order to examine teacher learning and teachers' work as
situated and embedded in multiple contexts.
Just like the ﬁrst pro-seminar, the second pro-seminar course does not speciﬁcally

address the current reforms in science, but it provides science education doctoral

candidates with a more sophisticated and critical lens to think about science education

146

reforms in terms of the job of teachers, and teacher preparation, the challenges facing the
teachers, and why the job of teaching has resisted change over time.

In addition to the two required pro-seminar courses, students are required to take
three selective courses. One of the selective courses entitled “Learning to teach,” focuses
on the intellectual, practical, and moral dimensions of teaching and learning to teach. It
also focuses on the impact of formal and informal inﬂuences on teacher’s knowledge,
skills, and attitudes. In this course, doctoral students take a critical look at the debates in
teacher education research using different lenses as shown in the following quotation
from one of the syllabus:

The themes explore many of the predicates that constitute various meanings of

learning to teach. The readings are designed to provide 1) an overview of current

debates in teacher education research about learning to teach, and 2) an array of
lenses through which to read the research critically.

This course focuses on different traditions of preparing teachers and different
views on teacher education using readings from critical theorists; for example Popkewitz,
“ How the alchemy makes inquiry, evidence, and exclusion”; Dembo, “Learning to teach
is not enough—future teachers also need to learn how to leam.”; Garmon, “Changing
Preservice Teachers' Attitudes/Beliefs About Diversity: What Are the Critical Factors?”;
Billings, “Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach Aﬁican American students”;
Britzman, “What will have been said about gayness in teacher education.”; Biesta,
Instruction or pedagogy: The need for a transfonnative conception of education; and
Foucault, “The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom”

This list of readings gives an idea of the critical nature of the doctoral preparation

at Midwestern. Again, like the pro-seminar courses, these readings do not address issues

related to the science education reforms directly, but they focus on questioning present

147

practices in teacher education and the quality of teacher education programs. Issues of
preparing teachers to teach diverse learners are also explored. These are issues that are at
the heart of the current science education reforms whose goals are to achieve ‘science
literacy for all students’. Garmon and Ladson-Billings for example, write on issues of
diversity and how to prepare teachers to teach children who are different from the
teacher. These readings provide science education doctoral students with frameworks or
lenses for thinking about the science education current reform goals of improving science
teaching and learning which is pre-requisite to achieving the goal of science literacy for
all.’

According to the faculty members at Midwestern, the science education doctoral
courses incorporate the reforms in several ways. I chose to analyze two science education
courses that were offered during the last three years to show how they addressed some Of
the issues that are pertinent to the current science education reform efforts. One of the
courses: “Exploring scientiﬁc literacy,” was offered in summer of 2003. This course was
speciﬁcally targeted at exploring issues and challenges that are related to achieving the
national reform goals of science literacy for all. The course highlighted the problems and
challenges of achieving science literacy for all students. It engages students in
discussions around literature that looks at the lack of clarity in what literacy means, how
it can be achieved and why it is difﬁcult to achieve it. The syllabus clearly captures the
course objectives:

The consensus about the desirability of scientiﬁc literacy as an outcome of

schooling conceals a diversity of ideas about what scientiﬁc literacy is, how it can

be described, and how it can be achieved. . .Researchers agree that our current
teaching practices in school science help only a small minority of students achieve

scientiﬁc literacy, and that our society is poorer as a result. In this course we will
investigate the explanations for the current state and the visions for improving

148

science education, including the following issues: Deﬁning scientiﬁc literacy; the
nature of science; the nature of science learners; current practices in science
teaching; visions of alternative practices. .

This course engaged students in discussions of scholarship in the areas of identity,
diversity, language and race, nature of science and current practices of science teaching
through readings such as: “Same School, Separate Worlds: A Socio-cultural Study of
Identity, Resistance, and Negotiation in a Rural, Lower Track Science Classroom ” by
Gilbert, & Yerrick; “Understanding Cultural Diversity and Learning” by Ogbu;
“Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power” by Halladay & Martin; “The
construction of scientific facts " by Latour & Wool gar; “Science for all Americans” by
American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061; “What is Literacy”
by Gee; and “Talking Science: Language, Learning and Value ” by Lemke and several
others.

These readings and the course description Show that this course had the intent of
engaging students to think critically about the way science knowledge is created, by
whom and for whom? Students are also engaged in critical thinking about the
implications of current teaching practices and how they relate to diverse science Ieamers,
who does the current practice beneﬁt and who is left out? The course raises questions
such as what should change in science teaching in order to achieve science literacy for
all. Other questions raised in this course include “who is represented in science and who
is left out? How does science teaching cater for those who have been left out? And how
can we teach science in a way that brings in the outsider? One doctoral student, Jennifer
who attended this course, found it to be relevant and practical. She described how popular
the course was among the doctoral students:

149

When I took the literacy course, to me that was a perfect class because it melded
interests that I had, you know it really dealt with what does that mean for all
students and we read some literature around that. I think that should be an
indicator to faculty in this department that that kind of class, that kind of melding
of issues of diversity and issues of teaching science, that kind of thing needs to be
offered to grad students. There were a lot of students in that class. (Interview,
5/17/2005)

This shows that doctoral students at Midwestern have generally developed a
critical thinking perspective and in the above quotation Jennifer speaks for her
colleagues. Her sentiments show how the nature of this and other courses at Midwestern
shapes and supports the way science education doctoral students and recent graduates
think about issues in the ﬁeld of science education. Joseph a recent graduate who also
took the ‘Exploring Scientiﬁc Literacy’ course shared similar sentiments with Jennifer.
He felt that he now understands socio-cultural issues from taking this class and from
other experiences:

These issues are mostly socio-cultural. When I teach these issues in my university

in the future wherever I go, I feel conﬁdent, conﬁdent about this issue because I

think I have learnt a lot about these issues from many faculty.

The science literacy course helped doctoral students to understand the two
research traditions in the area Of science literacy, namely: the science education tradition
and the socio-cultural tradition. According to the course syllabus, both traditions share an
understanding that science is much more than a body of knowledge or a set of methods
for developing new knowledge. The two traditions differ, however, in the kinds of
actions and meanings that they emphasize. On the one hand, the science education
tradition emphasizes the language of science as giving understanding and power with

respect to the material world, focusing on how the language of science mediates our

relationship with the material world. On the other hand the socio-cultural tradition

150

focuses more on how the language of science mediates relationships among people. Thus
scholars in a socio-cultural tradition are interested in how scientiﬁc communities have
developed their current prestige and power, how they include or exclude people, and how
Ieamers understand their relationships with the dominant discourse of science.

The critical approach taken in this course, just like the ones previously described,
provides a context and lens through which science education doctoral students analyze
and understand the current reform goal of science literacy for all - how it can be achieved
and the impediments to achieving it. In this case, doctoral students were able to
understand that science literacy for all does not just mean teaching content science to all
students. The complex nature of the education system and its socio-cultural context need
to be taken into consideration when thinking about addressing the goal of science literacy
for all. This course therefore directly addresses the current reform goal of ‘science
literacy for all.’

Another science education doctoral course that has been Offered to doctoral
students at Midwestern in the last three years is entitled “Curriculum Materials in
Science: Students, Teachers and Policy.” This course provided students with historical
perspectives on efforts that have been taken to reform science cuniculum materials by the
National Science Foundation and Project 2061. The course also considered several
current science curriculum reforms and efforts to systematically evaluate curriculum
materials by the Center for Curriculum Material and AAAS, and the role of science
curriculum in the current climate of educational reform. hnplicit in the discourse of this
course are issues of the current reforms, especially the efforts being made by the National

Science Foundation and AAAS to reform cuniculum materials as a way of supporting

151

reforms in teaching. These issues are clearly highlighted in the following quotation on the
course syllabus:

Science curriculum materials (textbooks, teacher’s guides, software, online

resources, etc.) are big! They play a big role in schools and classrooms. They are

a big focus of efforts of the National Science Foundation to “reform” science

teaching and learning, and they are big business. As the course title implies, we

will examine curriculum materials from the perspectives of the student and
student learning, the teacher, and the broader context of standards, accountability
and textbook publishing, marketing and adoption. We will examine core and
exemplary readings for each of these components of the course.

This course engaged students in discussions of scholarship in the areas of history
of science education, curriculum materials, professional knowledge for teaching,
curriculum materials and students, and teacher interpretation and use of curriculum
materials through readings such as: “ “T he Reforms of the Fifties and Sixties: A Historical
Look at the Near Past ” by McClure; “ Curriculum Reform " by DeBoer; "Research on
the Goals for the Science Curriculum, " by Bybee, and DeBoer; “Those who understand:
Knowledge growth in teaching” by Shulman, "150 different ways " of knowing:
Representations of knowledge in teaching” by Wilson, Shulman, and Richert; “Nature,
sources, and Developments of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching " by
Magnusson, Krajcik, Borko, Gess-Newsome; “ Examining Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education ” by Lederman;
"Reform by the Book: What Is--0r Might Be--the Role of Curriculum Materials in
Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform by Ball and Cohen.

According to the syllabus; “this course enabled students to take a critical look at
the curriculum materials in use in schools that are predominately developed and marketed

by commercial publishers.” Students were expected to think about these questions:

“How do materials come to be adopted? What roles do standards and accountability

152

systems play? “Why don’t better materials get developed and adopted?” This course
directly addressed the current reforms in science education. By focusing on the role of
standards in curriculum development, doctoral students got to think about the science
content reform efforts and how cuniculum materials need to address these. The course
looked at the reforms from a positive perspective and how the curriculum materials
should be used in a way that supports the reform goal of achieving “science literacy for
all’.

Addressing the Current Science Education Reforms

Analysis of views from faculty and recent graduates and doctoral candidates show
that the science education doctoral program at Midwestern is incorporating the current
science education reforms in the framework for their coursework. As has been
highlighted earlier, and as we shall see later in the chapter, the Curriculum, Teaching and
Educational Policy doctoral program coursework at Midwestern in general takes a critical
look at “teacher education”, namely teacher preparation; the “context of schooling”; the
education system; teaching diverse Ieamers and resource for teaching. This critical
approach directly inﬂuences the way doctoral students and recent graduates think about
issues related to science education reforms and what the ﬁeld should be focusing on in
order to achieve the national goal of science literacy for all.

From the interviews, it was clear that not many courses address the reforms
directly. This is mainly due to the fact that the science education courses are not required;
therefore not all science education students take them when they are offered. Several
doctoral candidates, recent graduates and faculty mentioned that the science education

seminar offered every fall Speciﬁcally incorporated current issues related to the science

153

education reforms. Professor Perry agreed that 955 addressed the reforms and showed
that there were plans to directly incorporate reforms in the science education courses:

[The course] 955 the year before last was focused on the standards ...... one

professor had mentioned incorporating standards as part of that three-sequence

course. We also talked about incorporating some historical viewpoints in the
courses.

Professor Perry showed that the faculty at Midwestern discusses what should be
in the content of the 955 and 991 A courses. The reforms are more explicitly incorporated
in the 991A science courses described earlier, in the “Exploring Science Literacy” and
the “Curriculum Materials” course. One other 991 A courses entitled “Teaching Science
for Understanding” that was offered 5 years ago also explicitly explored the reform
documents such as the National Science Education Standards and Project 2061
Benchmarks. Two recent graduates interviewed in this study had taken this course where
they explored the reform documents. The other students had the Opportunity of attending
the science literacy course and the curriculum materials course described earlier. Some
students felt that these courses prepared them to teach and they also used the standards as
teaching assistants:

Joshua, a recent graduate who took the 991A ‘Teaching Science for
Understanding’ course said that the reform documents were explicitly explored in this
course. For example Joshua commented about how the reforms were addressed in the
science seminar and how he incorporated them in his teaching:

There was one course in particular that was based on the science education

reforms. ...... and it was one of those special courses 991A. That was my ﬁrst

year at Midwestern, and we were 6 in the class and the special topic that this
course was centered around was reform documents. So we looked at the National

Standards, and the Benchmarks, and Science for all Americans and so on. So we

had discussions about the impact of standards and about the documents
themselves, how they were created, and some historical context. So that course

154

was probably the most related to the standards, of any course that I took. Every
once in a while when we had 955 class, we were talking about standards as well.

So those would probably be the 2 instances, other than when we were teaching

classes and teaching the teacher candidates about the standards. (Interview,

3/14/2005)

Joseph a doctoral candidate who also took this course reported that the course
discussions were pro-standards and benchmarks. The following quotation from an
interview with him supports this claim: “I learned about national documents only pro, not
con. Other conversations focused on negative effects.” Speciﬁcally he highlighted the
fact that there was a tension among science educators:

I know that there are also in the US, very serious tensions, conﬂict between the
ideas around the nature of curriculum materials and national standards. For
example people believe that national standards don’t matter, or some people
believe that national standards are very important. (Interview, 3/11/2005)
Although Joseph did not seem to align himself with any one of these views about
the reforms, interviews with faculty and some doctoral students at Midwestern showed
different views about the current reforms, speciﬁcally the National Science Education
Standards and Project 2061 reforms. Whereas some professors are in support of the
standards and take a positive spin whenever they incorporate them in their courses,
Professor Atkinson reported that he addresses standards in multiple ways depending on
the level of students. At the doctoral level he takes a more critical stance on the standards
as a way of helping to rewrite the standards, but at the undergraduate level he focuses on
helping teachers understand the standards and use them. Professor Atkinson leans more
towards revising the standards than adapting them:
I think that the way we use standards in the undergraduate courses is different
than in the graduate courses. In the doctoral courses we are preparing people to
question the standards and to revise the standards, probably to rewrite the

standards. So I think it’s important in the doctoral courses to help students to take
a stance towards the standards... The larger portion of doctoral study is to

155

introduce people top scholarship, in science education the national standards are
an important aspect of the scholarship and to some extent drives the scholarship,
but they shouldn’t drive the scholarship too much. It’s important for people to
know what limitations of the standards are, what should we be doing regardless of
what the standards say, and how can standards move us towards what we should
be doing and probably revise the standards so that they better support what we
should be doing. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

On the other hand Professor Perry highlighted her commitment to the standards
and using inquiry in science teaching. However, she feels that this is different from the
focus of her research group in the Center for Learning and Teaching:

So what happens is that in my research group for the Center we are doing a lot of

work around Project 2061 criteria, and we talk a lot about that especially because

it may not work well with the inquiry standards. Project 2061 does not talk about
inquiry so it’s not clear whether they oppose it or not. But there is need for them
to buy into the idea that the other standards are worth talking about. (Interview,

4/11/2005)

Similarly, Diane, a doctoral candidate who also works on the Center for
Curriculum Materials project, shared similar concerns about the tensions that exist in the
acknowledgement of different reform documents by different faculty. Diane feels that
although she realizes the existence of the tensions brought about by only emphasizing
one reform document in the research project, she does not align herself with any one of
the reforms:

...... some people like Project 2061 and others are a bit more critical —- I am not in

any one camp.- The Center does not emphasize some things, e. g. inquiry, diverse

learners, etc. (Interview, 3/8/2005)

As mentioned previously by Professor Atkinson, the doctoral program at
Midwestern addresses the reforms differently in the undergraduate courses and in the
doctoral courses. Both Professor Atkinson and Professor Perry indicated that they refer to

the standards in undergraduate courses, and the emphasis in these courses is on using

standards as a tool to guide teaching.

156

Most of the interviewed participants mentioned that they mostly incorporate the
reforms and discuss more about the reforms either in teaching assistantships or on
research projects. For example James a recent graduate from Midwestern did not take any
science education courses that addressed the reforms directly but he used the reforms as
an important part of the framework for his teaching as a graduate teaching assistant. He
taught secondary science methods courses for 8 semesters. He notes how he got to
understand the standards from using them in his teaching:

Most predominantly we used the standards extensively when I taught 401 , 402,

802 and 804. So I did that cycle two times for a total of 8 semesters where I was

trying to understand how these were benchmarks as well as (mumble). . .so I don’t

think I have formal research although I would consider this quite extensive
informal or practical experiences thinking about that research and stuff.

(Interview, 3/10/2005)

Similarly, William a doctoral candidate said that he did not encounter a course
where the reforms were addressed, but he learned about the reforms through discussions
as well as through his research assistantships. William also showed that the critical and
political nature of discussions in the courses was the typical nature of science education
at Midwestern:

Not so much about science education reforms because you don’t have many apart

from being in and one summer course that I did with some of the students, which

was open. We don’t have much focused on science education reforms but talking
of reforms in other places, so I don’t remember many discussions focused on
political issues in my courses, but yes in research and my assistantship there are
have been focused work. That’s a natural platform for science education.

(Interview, 5/13/2005)

From the faculty and student views, one can conclude that the science education

doctoral program at Midwestern does not only incorporate the reforms in the framework

of their courses, but also in the framework of their teacher education program, research

157

assistantships and in casual discussions. It is important to note that the way the current
reforms are incorporated in the courses is mostly in relation to teacher learning and
teacher knowledge. Professor Atkinson, Professor Perry and James for example showed
how they address the National Standards in their teacher preparation courses. Speciﬁcally
the pre-service teachers learn how to use reform documents to identify the teaching and
learning goals and to know what content they should be teaching at different grade levels.
The rest of the interviewees showed how the reforms were part of the framework for their
courses, the science education seminar, and research assistantships.
Mentoring of Graduate Students through Research and Teaching

The science education department at Midwestern is comprised of eight faculty
members who are all involved in different types of research. The type of experiences and
mentoring that doctoral students get depends on their faculty advisors’ mentoring and the
type of research and teaching experiences they get throughout their doctoral studies. One
other professor works with professional development schools and yet another professor
does research on curriculum reform focusing on environmental literacy, four professors
conduct research on science curriculum materials, and two faculty members’ research
work focuses on teacher education. All the science education professors at Midwestern
use qualitative research methods in their research work. The faculty members mentor
their doctoral students through working with them on research and teaching. Research
assistantships are mostly grounded in a research grants that individual professors have
obtained or in the Center activities. Apparently, every doctoral student has either a
research and/or teaching assistantship. Since Midwestern is a large research-intensive

state funded university, most faculty members have research grants that support doctoral

158

students by paying tuition, conference attendance and living allowances. Funds for
teaching assistantships are provided by the university.

The four science education Professors who are involved with research work in the
Center for Learning and Teaching conduct research on development and use of
curriculum materials. Doctoral students who are mentored by these professors in the
Center for Learning and Teaching are carrying out research that is preparing them to
become leaders in research on cuniculum materials development. From an informal
interview with a faculty member who is co-PI on the project, he stated:

The other thing the center is doing is preparing doctoral students and post-

doctoral students to work on these issues through their own research and

curriculum development as they leave and go out in the ﬁeld, and a key part of the
center’s mission is preparing researchers to carry out these kinds of work.

(Interview, 9/28/2005)

This professor also felt conﬁdent that the doctoral and post-doctoral fellows
working in the Center for Learning and Teaching will possess unique abilities to work on
research in curriculum development and that they will be more sensitive to the role of
curriculum materials in teaching. Funding for the Center for Learning and Teaching
helped to recruit people who will become specialists in research on curriculum materials:

The doctoral students who are fellows in the Center will be at least more sensitive

to the role of curriculum materials in improving science teaching. I think that

more of them will be more likely to be involved in curriculum development or
research in the context of cuniculum development than would have been the case
without the Center. So I think that bringing people into that area of work, just by
itself would be different. As teacher educators, I think they will pay more
attention to the role of curriculum materials for the teachers they are preparing
than they would have done had they not had the experience of working in the

Center. I think they will have speciﬁc tools and knowledge to use. I think they

will be more principled in their approach to curriculum development and be more

likely to contribute to the knowledge base than to just crank out curriculum
materials. Interview, 9/28/2005)

159

Although doctoral students who are being mentored through conducting research
on curriculum materials development are going to have unique qualiﬁcations in this area,
there is evidence that they are also getting multiple perspectives in terms of interpretation
and enactment of the reform. The professors who work with doctoral fellows interpret
and enact the reforms differently in their research projects as shown by their areas of
emphasis. This difference is mainly due to the challenges posed by having different
reform documents that have the same goal of achieving science literacy for all, and there
are no directions on how these documents can be used together. Whereas the National
Science Education Standards place emphasis on inquiry, the Benchmarks for Science
Literacy do not mention inquiry. As mentioned earlier, the lack of agreement on how
science literacy for all can be achieved gives science educators the ﬂexibility to interpret
and enact the reforms the best way they can. I will give examples of how two professors
think about the reforms and what they think need to be emphasized in order to achieve
the reform goals.

Professor Perry feels that inquiry is critical to reform-based teaching and should
be an essential part of research in curriculum materials. In her view, achieving science
literacy involves approaches that should come from both reform documents. She
highlighted how Project 2061 criteria that are used in curriculum analysis do not address
issues such as inquiry that she feels are critical for reform-based teaching. Professor Perry
shows her struggles with the two reforms and shows that she would like to see the
Standards and Benchmarks used together. Diane, a doctoral research fellow with the
Center for Curriculum Materials, share similar concerns with Professor Perry. Diane also

prefers that the two reforms be merged because she wouldn’t align herself with any one

160

of them.

Both Professor Perry and Diane show their struggles to align with any one of the
reform documents. On the other hand Professor Atkinson who also works with the
curriculum materials projects speciﬁcally focuses his research work on environmental
literacy. He is mentoring doctoral students who are working with him on this project to
take a more critical look at environmental issues and think of ways to develop curriculum
materials that reﬂect the current issues in this area. The quotation below shows the level
at which Professor Atkinson thinks about environmental issues:

The issue behind the environmental literacy project, the content of the curriculum

is gradually going out of date, and in particular worldwide we want human

populations to be better educated in environmental issues and the choices that we
face because every country is going to be facing those issues. (Interview,

5/20/2005)

Doctoral students who are mentored by Professor Atkinson are focusing on how
the National Science Education Standards or Benchmarks for Science Literacy can be re-
written to reﬂect the impact of humans on the environment and how the systems are
interconnected. Compared to the other two interviewees, Professor Atkinson does not
Show struggling with how to use the two reforms but his struggle is with changing the
reforms in the two documents that he thinks are outdated in some aspects. The following
quotation from an interview with him shows how he is thinking about environmental
literacy and the standards:

The environmental literacy project I think we are trying to hold two kinds of

conversations, one is at the national level, a conversation about standards.

Currently we are focusing on standards and assessment. We are interested in the

National Science Education Standards or Benchmarks or Atlas of Scientiﬁc

Literacy. Those National standards need to reﬂect recent research both in science

and in education. The research in science has to do with the development Of

understanding coupled human and natural systems, that is to say if you look at
any country today, the US, Zimbabwe or wherever, the vast majority of that

161

country has been greatly altered by humans, there are very few natural ecosystems

left, and we need to understand how those altered human ecosystems work and

how they can be managed, that is farms, factories and cities so the world can

continue to support the population. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Professor Atkinson is taking a critical look at the reforms in terms of how they are
dealing with interconnections between humans and the natural systems. In his view
science literacy means being able to see the whole picture, that is having a holistic
understanding of systems and how they are connected.

Two other professors in science education are working on professional
development projects in the schools. Not much detail will be provided about their
projects because they were not interviewed for this study. The doctoral students they are
working with on these projects are being mentored to work with teachers and are gaining
a better understanding Of the professional development models that are used in these
projects. In general, most doctoral students get to work with several faculty members on
different projects. The focus of the doctoral program on teacher education means that
there are more Opportunities for most doctoral students to work with teachers. Although
the doctoral fellows in the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science continue to work
in the Center throughout their doctoral studies, they also work on other research projects
as well as teach science methods classes.

In this section we saw that the research work of faculty at Midwestern is
inﬂuenced and shaped by the way they interpret and enact the reforms. On the one hand
there is a struggle to come up with ways to bring the different reforms together in
research on cuniculum materials, and on the other hand there is a critical look at the

standards and working at revising the reforms. The professors are deﬁnitely involved in

critically thinking about the reforms in terms of how they can be used and how they can

162

be changed. This is reﬂected in the research they do as well as in the doctoral
coursework. Professor Atkinson for example taught the ‘Exploring Literacy’ course that
focused on critically analyzing what science literacy for all means and what are the
obstacles to achieving it. Professor Perry on the other hand emphasizes inquiry and
reform-based teaching in the science methods courses. Doctoral students therefore gain
multiple perspectives from working with professors on the different research projects and
taking the different courses. Most of the courses expose and challenge students to think
critically about teacher education, teaching and the education context.
Roles Doctoral Candidates are being prepared for

The interviewees from Midwestern generally agreed that their program prepared
its graduates for research and teaching (Figure 5.1). The recent graduates and doctoral
candidates were satisﬁed with their preparation, which they feel gave them a broad base

in the areas of teacher preparation and research.

 

”I Faculty n=2
3 t I Docmtal candts n=3:
El chenr grads n=3 ‘
El Total n=8

 

No. of Respondents

 

Channels of inﬂuence

 

 

 

Figure 5. l: Roles doctoral candidates are being prepared for

163

According to Professor Perry the program at Midwestern is doing a good job of
preparing people for teaching. She contrasted this to other programs that are preparing
doctorates to teach at other universities, thus making a distinction between the critical
approach that the program at Midwestern is taking and the traditional methods courses
that are taught in other programs. The doctoral students and recent graduates also felt that
the program prepared them to have a critical understanding of issues in science education
as shown by Jennifer:

I think that’s a hard question to answer because if I’m not prepared, I might not

know I’m not prepared. Like if there’s stuff out there that I don’t know about, but

I don’t know about it, then I won’t know I don’t know about it. At least I’m in a

place where I feel like I have a lot to learn. I think that’s a good thing. At least

I’m aware there are lots of things I don’t know. I think the program in general

does a pretty good job of trying to give you a broad base. You don’t have to get

too super speciﬁc and a little bit of freedom which I think is a good thing. I think
it would be good if there were a few more things to learn, well I don’t know.

(Interview, 4/11/2005)

Jennifer pointed out that there is a bit of freedom which also deﬁnes the nature of
the doctoral program at Midwestern. Although Jennifer did not sound sure about her
preparation, she shows the critical and questioning nature of the program which makes
doctoral candidates question what they know and what they do not know and what is
important to know. She realizes that it is not possible to learn everything and that there
may be information out there she does not know. This is a great way of learning to teach
and becoming a life-long learner. In other words the program is developing life-long
Ieamers.

Another doctoral candidate, William, is happy about his preparation for a teaching

career and the Opportunities to do research in the ﬁeld with teachers:

I think we were being prepared for a resource in a teaching career. I am pleased to
see that the professors at Midwestern are working actively in schools. So, like

164

many of the professors here, [they] have programs going on in school districts and

schools. So, [they] are leaders in a sense, learning how to do research, learning

how to teach, and you learn how to work in schools. Those are the main focuses

on working with schools and teachers. (Interview, 5/13/2005)

Similarly, James showed his appreciation for the broad nature of classes at
Midwestern that prepared him for teaching and provided him with a strong research
foundation:

Broad nature of classes, teaching, and teacher education has a strong foundation.

I think Midwestern does an excellent job of preparing us for research. I think

especially from the broad nature of the program, the courses and that seminar and

range of classes that I have that focus on careful thinking about teaching are very

solid foundations. (Interview, 3/10/2005)

The ideas shared by Professor Perry, doctoral candidates, and recent graduates
conﬁrm the claim made earlier in that the program at Midwestern has a teacher education
focus; hence it provides science educators with a strong foundation in teaching. The
program also provides doctoral students a strong practical research foundation through
working on research in the schools as well as working on projects such as the curriculum
development projects run by the Center for Learning and Teaching. Although faculty,
doctoral candidates and recent graduates interviewed in this study did not mention that
the program prepares graduates to become leaders on curriculum materials, an interview
with the PI for the Center for Learning and Teaching showed that the Center doctoral
fellows are being prepared to become leaders in research on curriculum materials.

The professors at Midwestern and their doctoral students agree that the doctoral
students are being prepared for roles in teaching and research. The doctoral candidates
showed that they are ready to take up jobs in the academy, which is different from the

way the doctoral students from City Ville who preferred to work in non-proﬁt

organizations. Generally the faculty’s interests and goals align with the students, and

165

there seem to be no tensions between academic careers and something else, unlike the
City Ville students.
Views and Perceptions about Challenges Confronting Science Education

This section answers the second research question; “What are the perceptions of
science education faculty, recent graduates and doctoral candidates about the challenges
confronting K-12 science education and how are these challenges related to the way the
programs are preparing their graduates?” In this part of the study, my goal was to
establish what science education faculty, doctoral candidates and recent graduates from
the science education doctoral program at Midwestern consider being the most important
issues in the ﬁeld. In keeping with the data analysis described in chapters 3 and 4, I
analyzed the responses to the interviews using the framework for assessing the impact of
National Standards on student learning (described in chapter 3).

I categorized the responses from the interviewees using the following ﬁve
channels of inﬂuence that were identiﬁed by the National Research Council; contextual
factors, teacher learning, teaching, student learning, assessment and accountability and
curriculum (NRC 2002). According to the NRC, the contextual factors refer to external
factors that inﬂuence student learning such as policy, governance, business and research
groups. In my analysis, I also included issues of equity and research under contextual
factors. Generally, the interviewees identiﬁed issues that can be categorized into all the
six channels of inﬂuence listed above to be important issues that the science education
community should be focusing on. In their responses, the interviewees put more emphasis
on some factors than on others. Figure 5.2 below shows that all issues that inﬂuence

students’ learning directly and indirectly were considered to be important.

166

 

 

‘ I Faculty n= 2
- ‘ I Doctoral candt n=3
El Recent grads = 3

CI Total n=8 .

No. of. respondents
O —‘ N U) A ‘JI 0 \I

 

Channels of inﬂiencc

 

 

 

Figure 5.2: Views about the most important issues in Science Education at

Midwestern

However issues related to assessment and curriculum did not receive as much
attention in the interviews compared to issues such as contextual factors, teacher
development, teaching practice and student learning (Figure 5.2). I analyzed issues that
are related to each of the channels of inﬂuence and I provided some quotations to
substantiate the claims I made about the interviewees views.

Contextual Factors

Although the program at Midwestern focuses more on teacher development and
teaching, there is so much concern among stakeholders about the context within which
the school system operates. The views I categorized as contextual factors in this chapter
include talk about the challenges of achieving science for all and addressing issues Of
equity, paying attention to socio-cultural issues and poverty. There is evidence from
interviews with faculty, doctoral candidates, and recent graduates that they consider

issues of inequity in science education to be hindrances to addressing the goal of science

167

literacy for all. Professors Atkinson and Perry, all three doctoral candidates, and one
recent graduate showed how important the issue of inequity in science education is, and
they see this as an urgent need that needs to be addressed in order to achieve science
literacy for all.

Failure by the education system to achieve science literacy for all was sited by
Professor Atkinson as the most important issue in the ﬁeld of science education.
Speciﬁcally, Professor Atkinson talked about lack of understanding of science among
students as well as the achievement gap that exists between the richer students and poorer
students:

Certainly the most important issue is the abundant evidence that our science

education system is not being very effective. That takes two forms, a) general

evidence that even the most successful students are retaining their misconceptions
not learning important science and b) the achievement gap between richer
students and poor students, and we haven’t done much to improve neither of

those. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Interviews with Professor Perry and the recent graduates at Midwestern showed
that they attribute the ineffectiveness of schools and the achievement gap to issues of
inequity, poverty and socio-economic issues. Professor Perry elaborates on the collective
views of the science education community at Midwestern about how the issues of poverty
and inequity in science education are critical to achieving the goal of science literacy for

all:

Another huge issue is’ science for all’. I remember talking to other folk about 3
years ago thinking about what were the most pressing problems. I went to a talk at
AERA about the role of poverty in education and how poverty was at the root of
lots and lots of fundamental foundational problems that we deal with in schools
and in education in general and science for all. So we are dealing with a lot of
hard issues that are not de—contextualized from the life of adults and children in
society. Equity is a huge issue and hugely problematic. I think one of the reasons
we talked about it three years ago is because someone from the UK had asked
what the biggest issues in science education in the US are and poverty is one issue

168

that kept coming up. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

In agreement with Professor Perry, the three doctoral candidates interviewed in
this study also highlighted the importance of closing the achievement gap as a challenge
confronting the science education community. Jennifer expressed the issues surrounding
science for all in a more global context. She views science literacy for all as an important
issue that is at the heart of the National Science Education Standards and that
professional associations such as NARST have been paying close attention to the issues
of race and class. She also showed how these issues are prominent in the literature.

Looking at sessions at NARST, it seems to me that there’s been this grth in the
last couple years around issues Of equity, particularly around race and class.
There’s been maybe a falling back of the interest in gender. It used to be the big
thing was a woman in science and I think that is not as big as it once was. It’s still
there but I think there’s been a bigger emphasis on race and class based on the
kind of sessions and topics and titles happening at NARST. I think that’s
reﬂective in ed. literature and ed. This is an issue that is in some ways perennial in
the United States because of history and context. We have groups of people, who
have been at a great disadvantage in many different ways, and you rely on the
school system to be one way in which to level the playing ﬁeld then I think there
is going to be a tension for that. I think that it is growing in science and I think
that it has been there a long time in other places, more prominently and I think it’s
growing in science. That is certainly a huge one, and they do. The standards, they
talk about this idea of literacy and what that means, science literacy and that it is
for everyone, and that the point is for everyone. It is supposed to be for all kids,
there’s this kind of built in. That’s my critique of the course. There’s not enough
explicit attention paid to that I don’t think it’s fair. (Interview, 5/ 17/2005)

Jennifer attributed the perennial nature of the problems of equity to the fact that
some groups Of people have been disadvantaged and that the challenge now facing the
science education community is to achieve equity in the quality of science being taught in
all schools. She sees post-modem ideas that highlight the fact that knowledge is socially
constructed as one way that can help science educators to be more critical and to teach

science that is relevant to all students.

169

The content is not cultural right? I think even with kind of postmodern ideology
being out there that everything is cultural and everything is interpreted that has
created an avenue for looking at science in a little different ways than it has in the

past. (Interview, 5/17/2005)

Diane agreed with Jennifer; people who think about diversity bring a critical
stance. Both professors and doctoral candidates agree on the challenges posed by issues
of equity and socio-cultural issues to the science education community and the need to
address these issues in order to achieve the national goal of science literacy for all.
However, the doctoral candidates think that the science education program at Midwestern
is not doing enough to address these issues. Jennifer thinks that this is mainly due to the
fact that the professors do not know how to address these issues:

I guess that’s a question about our professors about education in general a bit in

the ivory tower. They really prepare teachers for environments they’re not

familiar with themselves, and don’t know what to do themselves. We have to
practice what we claim. There is need for diversity among faculty. This is my
critique, that’s my main critique of the college. I know that it’s being addressed,
they are really trying to ﬁgure out how to infuse things everywhere and it’s
supposed to be infused everywhere. I think the big problem is that the method
classes are taught by graduate students largely and the professors can say my
baby, my passion is whatever, if I don’t have room, if I don’t have time or the
mental space and energy to try to ﬁgure out what I’m going to talk about, kids

who are different ﬁ'om you and how to get this kind of stuff across to them. I

think there’s a real effort. (Interview, 5/17/2005)

Jennifer shows real concerns for the failure by her program to address issues that
the whole science education community agrees are critical to achievement of science
literacy for all. She realizes that the professors are trying to address these issues but there
is no action. She points to the fact that empty claims are made with little action taken.
James agreed with Jennifer about the lack of action on the part of the science education

doctoral program at Midwestern to address equity issues:

I don’t think many people know how to address issues of equity. 1 think this is
170

one of the areas that I recognized now as really as a social justice issue. I think
there are a number of things that limited actions, predominantly that people who
become science educators are often middle class white. So there are few under-
represented groups in science education so I think those issues have left
traditional science educators out of science. I think there are a lot of other things
behind that. I think with better understanding there could be a lot more progress
and a lot more opportunities for people to participate. (Interview, 3/10/2005)

Professor Perry conﬁrmed these sentiments about why the science education
doctoral program at Midwestern is failing to address the issues of equity in their science
education doctoral program:

It’s so overwhelming for me but I don’t even know how to Work from it. There

keeps being research over and over again showing there isn’t science for all, so

how that’s not being done but there is very little work that shows how it can be
done. So I ﬁnd this overwhelming and I don’t have great insights for it. . .I wonder
what we can do in schools when they are learning science and I wonder how
much we can do given the underlying inequalities with respect to lots of things,

such as poverty. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

These views show that the faculty and doctoral candidates at Midwestern are
critically looking at and questioning their practice in terms of what they are failing to do
to address equity issues. These critical reﬂections and questioning their own practice
resulted in their acknowledgement that they lack the expertise to address the issues of
equity in science education. Professor Atkinson expressed hope of the potential by the
science education doctoral program at Midwestern to address the issues of equity in the
future because the program hired a professor who has expertise in the issues of equity and
social justice. He expresses that the new faculty who has been hired has brought hope for
addressing issues of equity and closing the achievement gap:

I don’t think we have very good ideas about what to do about that. I am certainly

looking forward to having the new professor join our faculty because I think she

has been very thoughtful about the issues of the achievement gap, that it’s very
deeply rooted in the way we fund schools and in both mainstream white culture

and minority culture. There are some things we can do that can fairly reduce the
size of the achievement gap but we are far, far away ﬁom making that work.

171

(Interview, 5/20/2005)

Both professors and doctoral candidates at Midwestern clearly articulated the
causes of inequity in science education and they showed concern for addressing the issue
and were frustrated with the fact that they do not have the expertise to address these
issues. Their concern and frustration led to action mainly because they view the issues of
equity as something that will be a challenge for some time to come. In the quotation
below, Professor Atkinson explains the complex nature of inequity in schools that is not
just limited to material resources but to human and social resources as well:

Certainly this is a difﬁcult issue to address because the underlying problem is that

schools lack the resources, materials, human and social recourses to sustain

effective programs. In science education you have to work on all those, the
material resources are things like the curriculum materials and the human
resources are science teachers and the way they are educated. The social resources

are building communities of practice. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

The faculty members and students at Midwestern have shown a complex
understanding of issues of inequity and questioning their practice has led to hiring a new
faculty member who will lead and provide expertise in addressing these issues.

Teaching practice

The issues I categorized as teaching practice included talk about working with
teachers in the schools to help them improve scientiﬁc literacy for all students. Five out
of the eight interviewees talked about challenges related to introducing inquiry as a
teaching method in the schools and teaching science for understanding. Professors
Atkinson, two doctoral candidates, and one recent graduate identiﬁed improving
teachers’ practices in order to achieve the goal of science literacy for all as a challenge

confronting the science education community. Professor Atkinson talked about the

challenges related to bringing reforms in the science curriculum and teaching. He

172

speciﬁcally highlighted his concern about the need for students to become more
enviromnentally literate and the need for teachers to be knowledgeable about teaching
issues related to this. Professor Atkinson showed concern for the need to work with
teachers to improve literacy among students. His conversation about science literacy is at
two levels, the ﬁrst is at national level and this is related to the need for environmental
literacy and this is how he framed the second conversation:

The second conversation is the local conversation, working with local teachers on

developing ways of helping students become more environmentally literate in

their classrooms. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Professor Atkinson, who is working on developing cuniculum materials that
focus on making environmental literacy an integral part of the science curriculum, sees
his role as an advocate for helping teachers to achieve the goal of helping students to
become environmentally literate. The environment is part of our daily lives, and it is
becoming more important as issues such as global warming, pollution, and the overuse of
natural resources such as oil become concerns.

Similarly, William, a doctoral candidate, highlighted a speciﬁc challenge related
to acceptance of and use of inquiry in science teaching by teachers. In the quotation
below, William attributed the lack of use of inquiry in schools to lack of role models that
can show teachers how to do inquiry. He shows the challenge faced by teacher educators
who are promoting inquiry but are failing to model it in a way that helps teachers
understand it:

Introducing inquiry as a teaching method is still having a hard time— it is not in

line with the grammar of schooling, it is not being modeled properly for teachers

to follow. It’s not something that shouldn’t be done, but I think over the last ten
years it has been a part of educators to somehow convince teachers to adopt

inquiry as a dominant teaching factor. My opinion is that they are still having a
hard time doing it. This is like all reforms; if you look at it with science education

173

standards they are all about inquiry. Frankly, my impression is that it is not being

modeled properly for teachers to follow. People are making the input and in trying

to do so sometimes you end up with a caricature of inquiry. (Interview,

5/13/2005)

From William’s point of view, one gets the sense that there is no agreed upon deﬁnition
of inquiry and teaching through inquiry and as a result the results are not very
satisfactory.

In relation to the idea of helping students become more knowledgeable about
reform-based teaching, Jennifer, a recent graduate, talked about the challenge of teaching
science for understanding. Her concerns are similar to William’s concern about the
challenge of changing the teachers’ practices from just focusing on covering the syllabus
but to focusing on how they should learn science in order to develop deeper
understanding.

There is this kind of perennial problem of what’s been called teaching for

understanding or that sort of thing, where kids are really learning something as

opposed to something else. I think that goes along with a lot of in depth look at
what is worth knowing and what kids need to know about. There’s that part of the
standards. The other thing I think the standards tries to do is integrate you know
its not just content standards about what kids should be learning but ﬁnd a way to
approach those things that will help them understand what’s going on as opposed
to just giving back something. How do we achieve that? In order to achieve that,
we need to integrate other programs like professional development. (Interview,

5/17/2005)

Professor Atkinson, William, and Jennifer, all see the need for working with
teachers and helping them to reform their teaching practice as important issues that the
science education community should be focusing on. Implicit in their concern is the fact
that science educators are the custodians of change; hence these issues should be the

focus for research and outreach. Still on the issue of working with teachers to bring about

reform, Professor Perry and Joshua attributed the lack of reform adoption by teachers to

174

the complex nature of schools. Professor Perry talked about the difﬁculty of bringing
about reforms in a complex education system:

Trying to have reform happen in a very complex system that does not want to

change in many ways. The schools, the public, the government, the issues of

poverty and environment-- that is hard to change. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

In this case Professor Perry is not thinking of just helping teachers to change their
practice but she is also thinking about how this can be done in a complex education
system. She deﬁned the complexity of the education system as being comprised of both
the administration and other issues such as poverty.

Similarly, Joshua talked about the challenges brought about by the conservative
nature of schools. However, he thinks that reform is slowly changing in some schools due
to pressure from the state tests, standards and parental pressure:

The conservative nature of schools — this is changing, different strategies are

being tried. I think that in the last 10 years, there have been more schools that

have been willing to try something different than what there were in the past. I

think they have probably changed because of some of the pressures that schools

are feeling from state tests or the standards movement or from parent groups, or
employers or whatever. But that conservative nature of schools, I think its still
there deﬁnitely, but I think that maybe there has been some chipping away at the

edges of it. (Interview, 3/14/2005)

Implicit in both Professor Perry and Joshua’s statements are the issues directly
and indirectly related to the teacher’s practice. The complexities of schools go beyond
what teachers can do to control their practice. “The conservative nature of schools” as it
was referred to by Joshua can be seen at different levels, ranging from a) the teachers’
own resistance to change their practice because they are comfortable with the way they
have always done things; b) resource availability in the schools which may limit the

things science teachers can do in their classrooms; and c) lack of support from

administration and parents for teachers who are willing to try and change their practice.

175

The concerns shown by professors and students at Midwestern reﬂect the nature
of their doctoral program, which has a teacher education focus. Doctoral students have
the opportunity to work on research projects related to teaching practice, where their
concern about issues related to reform-based teaching are enhanced.

Teacher Development

The issues I categorized as teacher development included talk about the
challenges of proving the relevance of teacher education through authentic research and
the challenge of preparing elementary teachers to teach science. For example, Professor
Perry talked about her concern with the pressure from government for scientiﬁcally based
research and the need to prove that teacher education is important. She also talked about
the challenge faced by science educators in the schools where science content is valued
more than the way it is taught. She thinks there is need to counter this way of thinking
through research:

Well, so I think one big issue related to our government is whether we can be able

to prove that as science educators we have a purpose and whether we can prove

our purpose and role for improving education and for helping to educate preparing
teachers. Basically that our presence is useful and that what we are seeking is
important, like the standards. I guess there is a sector of the population that just
doesn’t think that anything other than learning terminology in science is
important, including some of the teachers. There is a small sector of the
population, scientists and science educators, who are trying to think about that.

(Interview, 4/11/2005)

Professor Perry also showed her determination to work towards proving the
importance of teacher education through research to demonstrate effective practices. She
also talked about how her desire to research in this area attracted her to this institution

where people cared about similar research in teacher education. Joseph shared similar

concerns with Professor Perry about the need to prove the importance of teacher

176

education. He considers teachers to be very important. They play a critical role in
students’ learning; hence he sees the need to focus on teacher education research.

I think my view is that the teachers actually ------ take the central role to facilitate
student learning. So actually, we need to prepare good quality teachers for the
future so that they can actually nurture some good classroom environment and to
teach students for science understanding. We need to prepare good teachers, so
we need to develop some good ------- and good practice for doing that, important
part of education. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

Both Joseph and Professor Perry Show their conviction about the importance of
teacher education and the need to continue working on preparing teachers to teach for
understanding.

For past several decades I think that in science education, the students were the
central focus. I think teachers were considered to play a secondary role compared
to students’ role. But now we think that in the past 10 years I think, teachers need
to take more important role to facilitate good students’ learning. I think that’s a
very important debate now. Some institutions believe that the teacher has really
minor impact on student learning. Some people believe that, but in other
institutions including ours, we believe that teachers are the most important people,
they inﬂuence students’ learning or whatever. I think the struggles that we have
had, we as researcher, we as teachers, are one of the important issues in teacher
education. So we know that we are actually struggling, we are working hard to
resolve that kind of complaint, problem, tension or something, but those are I
think the most important things we need to actually keep working on. There are
several issues to actually cause those kinds of problems in teacher education,
some problems and questions we need to handle. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

Joseph pointed to the fact that earlier research had focused on conceptual change
and student learning and the teacher’s role was not seen to be as signiﬁcant in students’
learning. This point could explain the struggle faced by science educators to prove that
teacher learning and teaching methods inﬂuence students’ learning.

On a different note, Joshua talked about the challenges of preparing elementary

teachers to teach science. He showed his concern for the lack of an in-depth

understanding of content knowledge, the lack of motivation to teach science, and the

177

school system’s lack of support for teaching science. Joshua has concerns about
effectively preparing elementary teachers for science teaching:

I think one of the issues is deﬁnitely elementary science. I teach elementary
science methods, and I am very concerned about the subject matter knowledge of
elementary teacher candidates. They don’t have a very ﬁrm grasp of even very
elementary science concepts. They are willing to try, but a lot of them will say
well, I had bad experiences myself when I was in elementary and middle school
of science. So I was turned off to science. I only took the minimal amount in high
school. And now I am going to be an elementary school teacher, so I didn’t have
to take more than 2 or 3 science classes in college. I don’t really like science; I’m
not interested in science. And now they are going to be expected to teach

science. . .. they’re ﬁne with spending half a day teaching kids how to read. And
having science take a back seat to reading and mathematics, and so that is going
to be an issue, I think its an issue right now, but its going to become an even
larger issue in the next 10 years. (Interview, 3/14/2005)

Similarly Joseph talked about the general lack of understanding of the nature of
science among science teachers as a challenge that is confronting the science education
community. He highlighted the need to prepare teachers to have an understanding of how
science ideas are developed and the need to emphasize those views of science in teacher
preparation:

And the second thing is actually teachers’ views of science and nature of science.

You know that in order to help teachers better or science understanding we need

to help them have good views of science, if they have some incorrect or

inaccurate ideas of how science has been developed, if they don’t understand

Thomas Kuhn’s ideas of normal science, scientiﬁc or some other, you know

scientiﬁc ideas, then they would have difﬁculty actually of shaping some good

scientiﬁc science classroom practice or ------ (not clear) understanding---

(unclear) so I think the best way if we can push them to-- for us to emphasize

teachers’ good views of science. So our teachers actually understanding of

science... (Interview, 3/1 1/2005)

Both Joseph and Joshua show their concern for improvement in science teacher
preparation in order to have teachers who have a good understanding of science both at

the elementary and secondary school levels. In order for the goal of science literacy for

all to be achieved, teachers themselves should have a good understanding of the content.

178

Again the views shared by the interviewees about teacher development in this section
reﬂect the nature of their program that focuses on teacher education. This issue inﬂuences
the kind of research that doctoral students and faculty decide to engage in and the focus
of the courses.
Curriculum
The issues identiﬁed as curriculum included talk about the role of standards in the
curriculum, curriculum development, and environmental literacy curriculum. Generally
the faculty, recent graduates, and doctoral candidates from Midwestern see a close
connection between the national standards, Project 2061 Benchmarks, and the science
curriculum. The general feeling is that the standards and benchmarks are good enough
and they have informed the curriculum, but several interviewees at Midwestern see the
need to move beyond the current standards and benchmarks and to improve curriculum
materials. According to one doctoral candidate interviewed, doctoral candidates and post-
doctoral students at Midwestern are looking more at what is missing in the current
standards:
Project 2061 Benchmarks and criteria for curriculum analysis were the starting
points and were very important in conceptualizing the center’s mission. But I
think as we proceed we are sort of seeing a need for [or] going beyond that in
various ways. The standards need to be interpreted and clariﬁed and perhaps
reconceived in some way, and I think our different projects within the Center are
coming at that at different levels. Most of the projects elaborate on and interpret
and bring additional things to bear on deﬁning learning goals beyond what’s just
on the standards. Our science literacy project is doing a fundamental rethinking of
what standards ought to be like and what they ought to include and so I think
that’s a longer-term look.
The Center for Learning and Teaching is developing graduates who are taking a

critical look at the available curriculum materials as well as the available standards and

ﬁnding ways to improve them. In a way the graduates from the Center for Learning and

179

Teaching are being prepared to become leaders in research and development of
curriculum materials. According to a faculty member who is one of the principal
investigators for the Center for Learning and Teaching, the graduates who are
specializing in curriculum development will be more prepared to take a critical look at
curriculum materials and their use as they prepare teachers. I asked the Center Co-PI how
he thinks the doctoral students specializing in curriculum development will be different
from the other doctoral graduates. As mentioned earlier, he was conﬁdent that these
graduates will be more conscious about curriculum materials and will explicitly address
them in their teaching. He went on to emphasize the preparedness of center fellows in the
area of curriculum development:
I think that more of them will do more work with cuniculum and curriculum
materials and I think they will do so with a particularly stronger background
because theoretical background thinking about the research and not just the
development of the materials. Midwestern has been heavily oriented towards
teacher education and professional development and I think for our graduates, the
ones that did substantial work in the center will be more sensitive to develop
curriculum materials and will be more likely to incorporate that in their research
and will be more likely to be involved in curriculum development efforts.
(Interview, 9/28/2005)

Professor Atkinson was in agreement with Diane and the Co-PI for the Center
with regards to the fact that they are taking a critical look at curriculum materials and
thinking of how to move beyond the current standards and benchmarks at the same time.
Professor Atkinson who is leading the science literacy group in the Center went on to talk
about the need to improve environmental literacy worldwide. He shows the need for the
national standards to reﬂect recent research both in science and in education.

Taking a more critical look at the work done in the Center for Learning and

Teaching, Diane, a doctoral candidate, feels that: “the national standards helped educators

180

think about what science should be about and what students should know.” She also feels
that “Project 2061 benchmarks are useful resources but they assume a narrow vision and
they are content-driven.” She went on to highlight that the Benchmarks are a critical
aspect of the Center for Learning and Teaching. Professor Perry shared similar
sentiments about the need to balance the National Science Education Standards and the
Benchmarks in the work done by the Center. Lack of consensus on deﬁnition of reforms
and how to achieve them brings about these challenges. The concerns raised by
professors and doctoral students about how reforms should be used shows a difference in
what different faculty and their students value in research, and this is also inﬂuenced by
how they interpret the reforms.
Addressing Issues in Science Education

When asked how the issues in science education can be addressed, the
interviewees all agreed that there is a need for combined effort between politicians,
science educators, and teachers. However, the interviewees felt that the politicians and
business people need to play a greater role working with science educators and teachers
to address these issues. The majority of interviewees identiﬁed solutions to lie within the
context of the education system and teacher development (Figure 5.3). In this case
context refers to areas of school funding, provision of resources, and improving teacher

salaries.

181

 

 

I Faculty n=2 7
I Dontoral candts n=3
C! Recent grads n=3

C] Total n=8

 

 

no. of respondents
OHNwhma

 

75 h E 00 ~00
823 .25 030 .2 .58 55
o o ""

32 «3% 33m 8 ‘58 EE
15° 93 < 'E 88 a3
0‘53 a E—‘O— '-

U U

channels of inﬂuence

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. 3: Solutions to addressing issues in science education

Professor Perry feels that addressing issues related to the reforms needs leaders
who can help bring about a consensus in terms of how the reforms should be addressed.
In the quotation below she shows the complications that are brought about by differences
in opinion among science educators:

I think it would be nice if there was a leader who would set aside their agenda for
the purpose of trying to get people together for a consensus. If that is true for this
institution it would be interesting to see how true that is nationally. Although I
think there is some generational ﬂair to some extent. People of certain generations
who were trained with the conceptual change model or the inquiry model, or
socio-cultural model, whatever, sort of evolved at the time and then people here
have the teacher education background. (Interview, 4/11/2005)

Several other interviewees also felt that there is need for some sort of leadership
to address the challenges confronting the ﬁeld of science education. For example Joseph
felt that there is need for two different types of leadership.

I think I can make actually two categories, which include: 1) people in one area

will be like policy makers in science education. 2) The second part of the leaders

is more like researchers and university faculty who are working in the university
as researchers. What I mean by policy makers are those people who are involved

in policy making and are involved in writing inﬂuential policy documents like

182

curriculum materials, federal curriculum policy or whatever ideas to George
Bush, for example the No Child Left Behind Policy. (Interview, 3/11/2005)

Joseph felt that although faculty are engaged in research that can help advance
ideas and help address issues in the ﬁeld, federal policies do have a strong impact on
science education. Science education leaders at federal level can help make the research
ﬁndings and faculty ideas happen. William also believes that there is need for leadership
both at the university and federal levels, but he also thinks that several of the challenges
could be addressed by having better teacher education programs:

People like you, professors, those in the university, everybody, policy makers.

And also making them competent because having better teacher education

programs having a lifelong and those teaching in the profession and developing

strong teaching community where it can be effective. I think they will ﬁnd

teachers, will begin to ﬁnd solutions to these problems. (Interview, 5/13/2005)

Professor Atkinson also felt that the issues of equity and closing the achievement
gap are complex and that there is need to make the required resources available as well as
providing human resources through teacher education programs. He also talked about the
need to make social resources available through building communities of practice.
Generally the interviewees from Midwestern felt that there is need for leadership both at
the university level and the federal level. This is mainly because they felt that the issues
in science teaching could not be addressed if issues of equity are not addressed. The
federal leadership is therefore needed to ensure provision of materials and resources that
will make teaching successful.

Aspects of the Science Education Doctoral Program that Needs to Change at Midwestern

Although the doctoral candidates and recent graduates feel that their program

gave then a strong foundation, they felt that a few things could change in order to make

the experience complete. For example James a recent graduate felt that there was need for

183

the program to provide students with writing for publishing experience:

One thing I think that would be better is if I had more experience writing for

publication so like I have I think a limited experience in writing for publications

as opposed to writing for courses. I think as a faculty member you should have
more opportunity for graduate students to work with faculty on writing. I think
more training as well from a faculty viewpoint how do you see a faculty member

working with a student, how do you write grants? I have not written grants. I

think that would be something worthwhile ...(Interview, 3/10/2005)

Writing for publication is not a requirement at Midwestern. Although students get
a good foundation of research experiences in different areas, they may graduate without
having written for publication. James talked about how he is learning to write for
publication on the job although he had the opportunity of working on several research
projects as a doctoral student.

Some of the interviewees felt that the program at Midwestern needs to revamp its
courses to include more speciﬁc science education courses. Since the program has a
teacher education focus, only a few science education courses are offered and not all
students get to take them because they are offered every other spring semester and by the
time a science course is offered a student may be done with their coursework
requirements. Below Jennifer thinks that the science education courses should not just
focus on traditional methods and theories but that they should include issues of diversity:

I was going to say maybe some more speciﬁc science ed. grad classes because

there are not a lot and there’s [course] 955 and that’s it. I like 955 in that you can

get a sense of what other people are doing. The reason I hesitate about saying
there maybe should be more grad classes in science ed is that I think that it’s ﬁne
to say as long as those course offerings are a spectrum. I think that it’s also
difﬁcult to be giving numbers. What I mean by spectrum is that it isn’t just
focused on teaching for other standards for example or it isn’t just focused on

learning or theories of learning or something like that, but that there are these
issues of diversity say for example. (Interview, 5/17/2005)

184

On the other hand William a doctoral candidate felt that the program needed to
reduce the coursework required in the College of Education and maybe allow students to
take courses from outside the College.

I guess one that I would do different is there’s too much coursework. There is too

much coursework within the College of Education. If coursework could be used

and somehow teachers could ﬁnd inquiries to enroll in courses outside the

College, these two things I guess. (Interview, 5/13/2005)

Discussion

Achieving science literacy for all is the goal of the doctoral program at
Midwestern. The faculty and doctoral candidates showed a strong sense of concern for
addressing issues related to low achievement in science and closing the achievement gap
that exists among schools, and improving teachers’ practice, and teacher development.
There was a strong sense among faculty and doctoral students that the issues of equity,
poverty, and socio-cultural issues need to be addressed in order to achieve the goal of
science literacy for all. The interviewees openly questioned what their program was
doing in terms of addressing the challenges and they acknowledged that they were not
addressing issues of equity because they did not know how. The sense of ﬁ'ustration
about the lack of information and knowledge about how to address these issues was
shared both by faculty and doctoral candidates. Professor Atkinson mentioned the fact
that the program had hired a specialist in issues of equity in science education, and there
is a sense of anticipation among interviewees who are looking forward to working with
the new faculty member to address the issues of inequity in science education.

The interviewees also generally agreed on what issues needed attention in science

teaching and teacher development. The way faculty and doctoral students at Midwestern

think about these issues can be attributed to the fact that their program has a teacher
185

education focus and students are required to take courses in teacher education. The
students showed a more sophisticated view of science education, which is informed by
understanding the education system. From the analysis of courses such as ‘Learning to
teach’ and the ‘proseminar’ courses that the students are equipped with a critical lens
through which they view science education and the issues associated with achieving
‘science literacy for all’. Both students and faculty were questioning what the program is
doing about the issues that need to be addressed. James a recent graduate supports the
claim I made about how the teacher education inﬂuences the way doctoral students think
about issues in education:

I think one of the things that has helped our abilities is to investigate those kinds

of questions and to develop a more rigorous foundation in sociological thinking.

What has helped us is using smaller case studies or smaller sample size level

studies to understand what the challenges are in a different context. So I currently

think that students can have a strong foundation in critical theory and other things
to give them the tools to investigate these questions at a productive level. I think
another thing graduate schools have to do is send out students to learn how to do

studies that encompass that. (Interview, 3/11/2005)

There were also mixed feelings about the science education reforms among the
faculty, doctoral candidates, and recent graduates at Midwestern. Overall, the program at
Midwestern view the current science education reforms as an important step to ensuring
that students get quality science education. The standards and benchmarks are used in the
pre-service teacher education program, and most interviewees mentioned that they use
either the standards or the benchmarks in their teaching, even though they may not have
encountered them in their doctoral courses. Although they all use the standards in their
teacher preparation courses, Professor Atkinson mentioned that at doctoral level he wants

students to think more critically about the reforms and how to improve them. Professor

Atkinson and two recent graduates felt that the standards were no longer useful and they

186

need to be rewritten. For example, Professor Atkinson shows his acknowledgement of the
usefulness of standards at the time that they were written and that there is need to re-look
and revise them:

I think they did a pretty good job of capturing the conventional wisdom of science
educators in the 1990s and that wasn’t terrible but it’s not great either. The fact
that there are standards is useful; we are better off having standards than not
having standards. They certainly could be worse than they are. (Interview,
5/20/2005)

In agreement with Professor Atkinson, James also critiqued the reforms especially
the Benchmarks for being too many. However he looks at the way differently than
Professor Atkins, because he thinks it would be politically unwise to revise the reforms
now when some people are still learning about them. James said:

I think that they are probably productively wrong. Productively wrong, meaning
it’s not correct but it was worthwhile. It wasn’t the right answer, but it was where
you needed to go to make progress. By that I mean I think particularly the
benchmarks you know there’s no way any teacher is going to or a school system
is going to be able to design teaching experiences that kids learn all of that; it’s
too much. So there were just too many, so from what we know about how long it
takes to learn these things well, there’s no way you can teach those things well. I
think that has actually had a negative effect in that it undermines the credibility of
things and to say here’s what we should teach but it’s impossible, but it’s
productive because it’s farther along towards the direction we need to go than the
year before. So from an evolutionary standpoint I see it as a necessary step and
one that we can ﬁgure out how to use to move beyond and they’re all critical
issues to doing that. Well, it would be difﬁcult to say we need to revisit the
standards partly because when there are people still learning things about them
you know I’d say it would be politically unwise. (Interview, 3/10/2005)

Similar sentiments were shared by Joshua a recent graduate who also thought that
the reforms, especially the national standards, are asking teachers to do too much. He
shared his feelings about the reforms:

Now I will say this about “Science for all Americans”. Um, in looking at that

document, I don’t know how many scientists there are or people who have

devoted their career to science that would have a rounded understanding of all the
topics that is in that book. In my opinion these standards documents are too

187

ambitious. They just include too much. I mean the argument goes, that there is
“Science for all Americans”, here are things that somebody who graduates from
high school in the US should understand about science. But I don’t think it is
being done. (Interview, 3/14/2005)

Professor Atkinson agreed with the political nature of reforms and he thought that

changing them will need political willpower. However, he is optimistic that when the

right time comes he will be able to contribute to the changes in reforms. He is speciﬁcally

interested in making environmental literacy central to the science standards. He reveals

his strategic plan of having documents ready that can be used to champion the new wave

of reforms:

The process that produced them [standards] was political then and will be even
more political if they were revised, so whether it’s possible to make a better
document, I am not sure. I think if it was politically possible to make a better
document intellectually that’s what the environmental literacy project is all about,
that is to say, if I have my own way the standards would be quite different both in
content and in what they advocate in terms of pedagogy. I think we all have our
voice in addition to everyone else having their voice, but it will be just one voice
among many. I think that the Bush administration’s stance on environmental
issues is way out of line with even the Republicans. Even the Republican
mainstream recognizes that the environment is more important. The next
administration whether democrat or republican is going to be more focused on
environmental kind of issues than the current administration. When it changes I
think we are going to have some ideas in place that people will come looking for.
Deciding you want to change something you need something written and that way
it will be possible to change the standards. When the political willpower is there
ﬁ'om other sources we will provide materials that will help people act on their
will. (Interview, 5/20/2005)

Therefore, Professor Atkinson and the two recent graduates show that they do not

support the reforms, and they think they are asking teachers to do too much. Professor

Atkinson also thinks that the content standards need to be written around the theme of

environmental literacy since this is becoming a major concern in the world today. These

sentiments are reﬂected in the focus of doctoral course entitled ‘Science Literacy

188

Exploration’ that was taught by Professor Atkinson where he raised questions about what
science literacy means.

Similarly, Professor Perry thinks the reforms are overwhelming and need to be
revised. However, she also feels that the reforms bring some order to the ﬁeld of science
education:

In general I think that the standards are for the better that with such hodge-podge

of stuff before and at least now there is some sort of document about what science

teaching should look like. I really care obviously about helping teachers and kids
engage more in practices of science and habits of mind for all kids. Those are

complicated things and I am not so sure whether the message is so complicated. I

looked at the inquiry standards book people still don’t know what it is and there

are people who are still ﬁghting against inquiry because either they think it
doesn’t represent scientiﬁc practices deep enough or they think it’s too
superﬁcial. I support the vision and I wish people supported the vision in more
concrete ways. To some extent there is validity in that the standards are a little
behind times and there are always advances in talking a bout what we should be
doing and talking about. To be constrained to just doing the standards would be
very limiting if we are really trying to break out of the mold.

Although Professor Perry supported the standards, towards the end of this
quotation she acknowledged that the standards are a little outdated and that there is need
to keep thinking about how to improve. Similar views are reﬂected in the way Professor
Perry thinks about how the standards are incorporated in research. This shows the

different ways of thinking among faculty at Midwestern. Similarly, the students also

189

share a critical approach to thinking about the reforms and other issues in science
education.

Conclusion
The doctoral program at Midwestern has a teacher education focus. Analysis of

course documents show that the courses equip doctoral students with a critical lens
through which they view issues in science education. Science education courses such as
‘Exploring scientiﬁc literacy’ explicitly addresses the reforms from a critical viewpoint,
questioning what scientiﬁc literacy means and how it can be addressed. The program also
explicitly addresses the reforms through courses such as the ‘Science Curriculum and
Teaching’ and ‘Teaching for Understanding” which directly explore the reform
documents. The Center for Teaching and Learning strives to achieve the goal of “science
literacy for all” by focusing on critically analyzing and conducting research that aims at
producing curriculum materials that support reform-based teaching. The Center also
engages in outreach projects and helps teachers and teacher candidates to critically
analyze available curriculum materials and modify them to suit their needs.

Although some doctoral candidates and recent graduates agree with the faculty
that the program is addressing the current reforms, they all showed some reservations
about the usefulness of the reforms and were more critical about them. Professor
Atkinson and two recent graduates explicitly expressed their views that the reforms need
to be revised. They however acknowledged the political nature of the reforms and that it
is not easy to revise them. Nonetheless, Professor Atkinson is taking a strategic move at
preparing materials to push forward for reform once the political climate is right.

All interviewees emphasized issues of equity and social justice as a challenge

confronting the ﬁeld of science education. Issues such as poverty, poor funding of urban

190

schools, and lack of resources were identiﬁed as inﬂuencing the quality of science that
students receive in urban schools. They expressed their concern that the reform goals of
‘science literacy for all’ will not be achieved unless issues of equity are addressed. Both
faculty and their students agreed that addressing issues of equity was complex and they
acknowledged that their program did not know how to address these issues. However,
according to Professor Atkinson they hired a professor who has experience dealing with
issues of equity and social justice. Consequently, there was hope among interviewees
that in the future they will at least address some of the equity issues with support from the
new faculty member.

Both formal and informal mentoring exists for doctoral students at Midwestern.
The doctoral students get experiences working on different projects both in teacher
education and in science education. The Center for Learning and Teaching provides
funding for fellows who are being prepared to become leaders in research on cuniculum
materials and cuniculum specialists. The fellows in the Center for Learning and Teaching
also get to teach methods courses and work on other teacher education and science
education projects. Almost all doctoral students get experience teaching science methods
courses and the doctoral students and recent graduates feel that they get a strong
preparation in both teaching and research. However, some recent graduates feel that there
is need to prepare students to write for publication. In general all interviewees shared
similar concerns and they all took a critical look at issues in the ﬁeld of science
education, in some instances questioning their own practices.

There seems to be a tension among what the doctoral program advocates and

teacher preparation expectations. We have seen that the doctoral program takes a

191

complex critical approach to preparing its doctoral students to think of science education
from multiple perspectives (Kincheloe and Weil, 2004) and ask questions that enable
them to come up with solutions to addressing the challenge of achieving ‘science literacy
for all’ students. On the other hand, teacher preparation expectations are different.
Although doctoral students report that they take a critical approach to preparing teacher
candidates, Professor Atkinson showed that he approaches issues such as standards
differently when teaching teacher candidates and when teaching doctoral students. When
teaching doctoral students he takes a more critical approach, and he expects doctoral
students to think more critically about the standards and how they can be changed. On the
other hand, he expects teacher candidates to know the reforms and apply them in their
teaching. It is clear that the focus of the doctoral program is to prepare leaders who have
a complex critical approach to issues in the ﬁeld and who will lead in bringing about
change. At the same time there seems to be a tension between a complex critical
approach in doctoral study and a simplistic critical approach in the teacher preparation
program.

Science educators at Midwestern agreed that they do not know how to address
issues of equity in science education. Addressing issues of equity requires a complex
critical approach; similar to the one the professors at City Ville are engaged in. Because
of their commitment to complex critical thinking, the science education doctoral program
at Midwestern hired a professor who has experience in urban science education. This
professor is going to focus on addressing issues of equity in preparing teachers. Hence
both the doctoral program and teacher education programs at Midwestern are going to

take a complex critical approach to science education.

192

CHAPTER 6
THE STORY OF SOUTHERN VALLEY SCIENCE EDUCATION DOCTORAL
PROGRAM
Introduction

In chapters 4 and 5, I have presented two cases, two different doctoral programs,
which emphasize different approaches to addressing reforms in science education for
their students. In this chapter I will present the third case, the science education doctoral
program at Southern Valley University, a large research intensive university located in
the Southern part of the United States. This university is located in a larger town than
Midwestern but smaller than City Ville. It is located in the warmer southern part of the
United States—a climate that is close to my background of growing up in the warm
Southern Hemisphere.

Again, I summarize the description and analysis of the course of study at Southern
Valley, present faculty, doctoral candidates and recent graduates’ views about the
reforms and important issues in the ﬁeld; and what mentoring and preparation is like as a
doctoral student at Southern Valley. As a reminder, the central research question for this
study is: “How are science education doctoral programs interpreting the current reforms
and how are they enacting them in preparing future leaders in the ﬁeld?”

I used the National Research Council’s Framework for assessing the inﬂuence of
standards in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education that I described in chapter
3 as a ﬁamework for analyzing data ﬁom the cases. Key features of this framework
include channels through which policies and reform impact student learning in K-12

education. This chapter is made up of 4 sections--the background information, a

193

description and analysis of courses offered, faculty research and mentoring provided to
doctoral students, and the views of faculty, doctoral candidates, and recent graduates.
Finally, in the discussion I compared and contrasted the views of faculty, doctoral
students and recent graduates. In the conclusion, I provided a summary of the patterns
that exist.
Geographic location

Southern Valley is a large research-intensive university located in a medium sized
city of about 120,000 people in the Southern part of the United States. The city has a
diverse population with the largest minority group being Hispanic American. Southern
Valley is a publicly funded university and most doctoral students are supported through
research and teaching assistantships as well as fellowships. The Science Education
doctoral program at Southern Valley is housed in the Department of Teaching, Learning
and Culture and it is called Science Society and Technology Education. Faculty members
from the Science, Society and Technology Education program are either co-PIs or
actively participate in the Center for Learning and Teaching, which is funded by NSF.
The Center is run collaboratively with the College of Natural Sciences.
Participants
Faculty

The two professors who were interviewed have been at Southern Valley for at
least 15 years. They both have extensive public school teaching experience and they are
both working in the Center for Learning and Teaching. Their scholarly interests are
similar—classroom learning and teacher learning. They are both interested in use of

technology in science education.

194

Professor Laura King

Professor Laura King is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching,
Learning and Culture, specializing in Science Education and has been professor at
Southern Valley for almost 15 years. She has 20 years of public school teaching
experience. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of classroom science
learning, teacher education, ﬁeld-based teacher learning, philosophy, & sociology of
science education, information technology and promoting conceptual change in culturally
diverse science classrooms. She has published book chapters and journal articles in
science education journals in diverse areas, some of which are: philosophy of science
education, multiculturalism in science education, teacher education and nature of science.
She won the Montague (CTE) scholar award and served on numerous committees of
professional organizations, such as the executive board of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching and the Technology Committee for the Association of
Science Teacher Educators. She has been on several editorial boards including Science
Education and Journal for Research in Science Teaching and also served as associate
editor of American Education Research Journal.
Professor Sarah Evans

Professor Sarah Evans has been Associate Professor of Math and Science
Education at Southern Valley for almost 20 years. Her research and teaching interests are
in the areas of classroom observation, design study methodologies, science cuniculum
design, model-based science teaching and learning, teacher education and problem-based
science learning. She has published articles in the International Journal of Science

Reform and has some articles accepted for publication in the Journal of Research in

195

Science Teaching and the Journal of Science Teacher Education. She was President of the
School Science and Mathematics Association and co-editor of the Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Education Journal. For the past two years she has taught the
following courses: Research Methods in the Learning Sciences, Trends in Curriculum
and Instruction, and Advanced Elementary Science Methods.
Recent graduates

Only two recent graduates were interviewed for this study. They graduated from
Southern Valley at least two years ago. These two recent graduates have taken up jobs
working on projects at Southern Valley University. The third candidate could not be
interviewed because she backed out of the study at the last minute, which explains why
only two recent graduates were interviewed from Southern Valley.
Noel

Noel graduated from Southern Valley in 2003 with a PhD in Science Education.
Upon graduation, Noel took a position as a Research Associate in the Center for
Mathematics and Science Education at Southern Valley, and he also teaches physics.
During his tenure as a doctoral student, Noel worked with the Center for Mathematics
and Science Education on professional development projects with science and
mathematics teachers. His job in this Center also involved developing products and
intemet resources for use in physics classrooms. Noel also worked as a physics lab
instructor and was a teaching assistant for an elementary methods course. Noel is
certiﬁed to teach secondary science. He taught physics and mathematics for fourteen
years before he joined the PhD program. His dissertation investigated preservice

teachers’ learning to teach physics, and he won Dissertation of the Year Award.

196

Candice

Candice graduated from Southern Valley in 2004 with a PhD in Science
Education. Upon graduation, Candice took a position as a Research Scientist and is
currently interim director of a school improvement and research consortium at Southern
Valley. She is teaching mathematics education courses. During her tenure as doctoral
student Candice worked as a teaching assistant and taught mathematics and science
methods courses. She also taught introductory college physics. Candice is a certiﬁed
teacher and taught high school physics before she joined the PhD program. She also
worked on several federally funded programs for high school science improvement and
worked as a college adjunct faculty teaching physics. Her dissertation investigated
Modeling and its Impact on Instruction. She also won a Dissertation of the Year Award.
Doctoral Candidates
The three doctoral candidates who were interviewed for this study are in their third, or
fourth year of study. At the time of the interview, only one doctoral candidate was
writing his dissertation. Two of the doctoral candidates had teaching experience when
they came on the program. All three doctoral candidates have worked as research
assistants in the Information Technology Center.
Carla

Carla is a 4th year doctoral candidate who is currently at the dissertation writing
stage. Her dissertation focuses on problem solving in Environmental Sciences. Currently
Carla is working as a research associate at Southern Valley and plans to continue working
there after graduation. She has worked as a research assistant for the Information

Technology in Science summer workshops. Before coming to the PhD program, Carla

197

 

 

tang

the

COP:

pm

An

Cl

JiI

taught middle and high school science for 36 years before joining the program. She won
the State Teacher of the Year Award in 1989. She has presented several papers at
conferences and professional development workshops. She is a member of several
professional associations such as American Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Educational Research Association, and was president of Kappa Delta Pi, Mu
Chi Chapter.
Jim
Jim is currently a 4th year doctoral candidate and he is currently writing his
dissertation. During the tenure of his doctoral studies, Jim worked with pre-service
teachers as a ﬁeld instructor in urban schools. He has also worked on professional
development projects with middle school science teachers. He worked as a research
assistant with the Information Technology in Science Center. Before coming to the
doctoral program, Jim taught middle school science for 5 years. He has presented papers
at several professional conferences.
Cindy
Cindy is a third year doctoral candidate. She has worked as a research assistant
with the Information Technology in Science (ITS) Center during her doctoral program.
She also worked as a part-time science and mathematics teacher employed by a
Christian school in the area. She also worked as an instructor assistant in the chemistry
department. Cindy did not have teaching experience. Before coming to the doctoral
program, she worked as a quality assurance chemist for a pharmaceutical company and
as a chemical technician for research and development for a private company. Cindy

came to Southern Valley on a full scholarship offered through the Information

198

 

1e

SCI

Ctr

Technology in Science Center and the National Science Foundation. She joined the ITS

second cohort during the summer of 2003.
Center for Learning and Teaching

The Science Education doctoral program at Southern Valley as part of the College

of Education and Human Development is an active participant in the Center for Learning
and Teaching partnership with the College of Natural Sciences. This Center was
established with funding from the National Science Foundation. The Center offers an
interdisciplinary graduate program that seeks to replenish the nation's supply of science
and mathematics education specialists through collaboration among scientists,
mathematicians, education researchers and education practitioners. The Center for
Learning and Teaching has the following goals that are posted on their website:

1. Production of education specialists through a program of study focused on the
interaction between scientists and mathematicians, education researchers and
education practitioners.

2. Creation of new knowledge through research on the impact of information
technology on learning and teaching science and mathematics.

3. Development and dissemination of quality professional growth experiences
structured around the impact of information technology on learning and teaching
science and mathematics.

The mission of the Center is to change the culture and relationships among
scientists, educational researchers, and teachers by engaging all in the use of information
technology to learn about how science is done; how science is taught and learned; how

science learning can be assessed; and how scholarly networks between scientists,

199

Edi

sci

Stu

tee

Sll

C8

Sp

Wt

pa

Ull

6X

b TL Du-

 

educational researchers, teachers, and students can be developed. The Center is led by
scientists and educators, and brings together researchers, educators, master teachers, and
students from a variety of disciplines by collaborating on the use of information
technology to transfer current research into the classroom.

Participants in the Teaching and Learning Center take coursework during two
summers with a three-week intensive experience on the Southern Valley University
campus as part of a scientiﬁc team. All courses are team-taught and include faculty
specializing in science education, educational psychology and information technology, as
well as various science disciplines. During the ﬁrst academic year aﬁer the ﬁrst summer,
participants will be involved in instructional applications in their classrooms that are
unique to their science team. Successful involvement in this professional development
experience will qualify participants to complete coursework and science team
experiences designated for the second summer, which is another three-week intensive

experience. The ITS Center has developed a core of 12 credit hours worth of courses as

described below:

Table 6.1: Information Technology in Science core courses

 

Course Credits

 

Practical applications of Information Technology in 3
Science Teaching and Learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theory of research 3
Problem based science applications 6
LTotal 12

 

200

Upon completion of these 12 credit hours, all candidates receive a Science
Education Specialist Certiﬁcate. Those pursuing degrees may incorporate these 12 credit
hours into a degree program with the approval of their degree committee. Since its
inception 5 years ago, 70 students have been recruited into the PhD program through the
Information Technology Education Specialist program. The majority of graduate students
are enrolled in masters and Ph.D. programs in science education; but there are also some
enrolled in various science departments such as geology, chemistry, wildlife and ﬁsheries
science, as well as a few in instructional technology through the Educational Psychology
Department.

Findings
Courses Oﬂered

The traditional science education doctoral students at Southern Valley are
required to take 4 core courses, 5 research courses, 8 departmental and general electives,
and 13 credit hours of dissertation research for a total of 64 credit hours (Tables 6.2 and
6.3). The four core courses include: curriculum theory, instructional theory, philosophy
of education, instructional theory, philosophy of education, and history of education.
These account for 12 credit hours. The research methods courses include ways of
knowing and paradigms of research, quantitative research methods, qualitative research
methods, advanced quantitative and qualitative research methods and research in area of

emphasis and these account for 15 credit hours (Table 6.2).

201

Table 6. 2: Required core and research methods courses at Southern Valley

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Core Courses Credits Research Courses Credits
Curriculum theory 3 Ways of Knowing and 3
Paradigms of Research
Instructional Theory 3 Experimental / Quantitative 3
Research
Philosophy of 3 Naturalistic / Qualitative 3
Education Research
History of education 3 Advanced Qualitative or 3
Advanced Quantitative
Research
Research in Area of Emphasis 3
Total 12 l 5

 

 

 

 

Some of the departmental electives offered to doctoral students include: Trends in

Curriculum, Research Methods in Learning Sciences, Research and Foundations in

Science Education, Science Curriculum, Educator as Researcher, Knowing and Learning

in Mathematics and Science, and Advanced Elementary Science Methods (Table 6.3).

Please note that these are just some of the courses offered, hence there is no total number

of credits indicated.

Table 6.3: Department elective courses offered at Southern Valley

 

Course

Credits

 

Trends in Curriculum and Instruction

3

 

Research Methods in the Learning Sciences 3

 

Research and Foundations in Science
Education

3

 

Science Education

 

Educator As Researcher

DJ

 

Knowing and Learning in Mathematics and 3

Science

 

 

Advanced Elementary Science Methods

 

 

 

202

 

Interviews with faculty and analysis of the course documents showed that the
science education doctoral program at Southern Valley is working on improving science
literacy among students by preparing their doctoral students to become leaders in
research and teaching that focuses on doing authentic science and teaching science for in-
depth understanding. The coursework emphasizes on using technology, doing authentic
science, and understanding how people learn. Faculty and doctoral students interviewed
for this study unanimously agreed that the program emphasizes these areas as well as
model-based reasoning. In addition to teaching science education doctoral courses, both
Professor Evans and Professor King are actively involved in research and teaching in the
Center for Learning and Teaching where teachers are recruited to practice authentic
science, to use technology, model-based reasoning and inquiry science teaching.
Emphasis on technology is explicitly incorporated in most of the elective courses offered
to doctoral students. Alongside the technology course, the elective courses also
emphasize “How People Learn” using the work of John Brandsford (Bransford et. a1,
2000)

I analyzed three course documents to show the program emphasis and how the
science education doctoral program is interpreting and enacting the current science
education reforms as they prepare future leaders in the ﬁeld. One course where use of
technology and model-based reasoning is explicitly addressed is entitled “Trends in
curriculum and instruction”. This course focuses on using computers to promote model-
based reasoning, through emphasizing mental models and Understanding by Design
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). One of the course goals below clearly shows what doctoral

students are expected to know and be able to do in this course:

203

The ﬁrst goal of this class is for you to learn to work collaboratively to produce a
complex project. The project will be related in some way to modeling of a
scientiﬁc or mathematical concept.

The course engages doctoral students in modeling scientiﬁc concepts using
technology. This provides them with tools for preparing teachers to use technology to
enhance science understanding and improve scientiﬁc literacy among Ieamers. This
course also engages students in discussions around the discourse of authors like” Lehrer
& Schauble “Modeling in mathematics and science”, Gilbert & Boulter (eds.)
“Developing Models in Science Education” and J ackson-Metcalf, et. al. “Model-1t: A
design retrospective”. The course also emphasizes the importance of how technology
can be a tool that helps teachers bring the work of scientists into the classroom with the
goal of developing deeper and enduring understanding of science concepts. Since the
main goal of the National Science Education Standards is to help students understand
science through work that stimulates how scientists work, this course focuses on using
technology to do authentic science.

The nature of this course implies that the professors for this course are thinking
critically about how to improve understanding of science concepts as a way of achieving
scientiﬁc literacy. In this case the assumption is that there is need to improve science
instruction and learning in order to achieve science literacy for all. Technology is one of
the innovations used to help make science concepts more meaningful to students through
creation of models and doing authentic science.

The doctoral program also offers a course that explicitly addresses some of the

current reform issues as a part of its framework. The course entitled “Science

Curriculum” covers themes such as “Project 2061 analysis”, “Concepts of curriculum and

204

purpose of cuniculum study” and “Curriculum evaluation” among many others. The
course engages students in exploring the history of the science cuniculum, its current
status and the purposes of the current science education reforms as shown in the science
curriculum. This is evident in the reading list that features authors like: DeBoer, “A
history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice ”, Posner, “Analyzing the
curriculum Wiggins & McTighe, “Understanding by design ” and the National
Research Council “National Science Education Standards. "

This course prepares the doctoral students to have a holistic understanding of the
current reforms. It shows the strong commitment that the faculty at Southern Valley has
towards the National Standards. Professor King explained:

We are believers in the reform movement, we are believers in the standards, we

have been participants, and we realized that the big step in the implementation of

speciﬁcs takes a lot of energy and creativity and talent but we are very much
champions of the reform documents, we site them all the time in our research.

(Interview, 7/1/2005)

This statement from Professor King is reﬂected in the nature of their program in
terms of what they want doctoral students to know and be able to do in science. Teaching
for understanding and inquiry-based teaching are the two major goals of the National
Standards and we can see that the doctoral coursework at Southern Valley is tailored
around these goals.

Another general elective course entitled “Educator as Researcher” speciﬁcally
prepares graduate students to become mentors for teachers who join the Center for
Learning and Teaching during the summer. Below are the course themes that incorporate

the learning goals for the course:

1. Cognition (how people learn), inquiry, and information technology;
2. Team mentoring, distributed expertise, and learning trajectories;

205

3. New models of assessing student learning: the what, how and transfer of learning; and
4. Research designs suitable for teacher research.

The major textbook for this course is entitled “How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school” (Bransford, Brown and Coching, 2000). This book is used as a
framework for the course design as shown in the following quotation from the syllabus:

How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) was used to create the

framework of overlapping learning goals for Ieamers in the course as follows.

Students in the course should review HPL, Chapter 6, pp. 131-154 for an

overview of the HPL Framework.

Both faculty and students referred to the framework during the interviews as an
important component of their coursework. They all agreed that in order for pedagogy to
be effective, there is need for understanding the ideas contained in this work. The
program therefore put emphasis on both pedagogy and cognition in their effort to achieve
the reform goal. In an interview with Professor King, she showed how their program
uses the HPL strategy to understand student learning in elementary school:

The more we know about how people learn, (we use that phrase from John
Bransford, we call it the HPL strategy to gauge student learning in elementary
schools) the better we can become at our job. We provide conceptual experiences,
incorporating technology. Normally, Innovation in science education often comes
too late in K-12 education. If a child is not challenged at an earlier age, a good
curriculum at a later grade may not do them much good since they have not been
exposed to rational thinking and solving problems. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

What is important to realize about this course is that its goal is to prepare doctoral
candidates to mentor science teachers in the Center for Learning and Teaching within
programs conducted in the summer months. Its focus is on helping doctoral students
understand How People Learn (HPL) and using scientiﬁc inquiry. Again this shows the

doctoral program’s commitment to teaching science for understanding and improving

scientiﬁc literacy among Ieamers. Understanding HPL was emphasized in Science for All

206

Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) and using scientiﬁc inquiry is at the heart of
the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1998). Again this course shows the
program’s commitment to the current science education reforms.

Addressing the Current Science Education Reforms

As shown in the analysis of courses previously, the science education professors
at Southern Valley have incorporated the current reforms in the framework for their
doctoral courses. According to the faculty members interviewed in this study, each of
their courses has Benchmarks and the National Standards embedded either in the
background or the planning or they are upfront in the course. Both Professor King and
Professor Evans emphasized how much they believed in the reform movement and that
they have been active participants in the reform process. Professor King mentioned that
implementing the reforms needed energy, which is the reason why the reforms are
embedded in their coursework.

What Professor King said is explicitly shown in the goals and course readings for
their courses. She went on to talk about a course entitled “Science Curriculum” that deals
with Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy: “The way that course has been put together
deals speciﬁcally with benchmarks for scientiﬁc literacy and how one might judge, I use
the wonderful curricula that came from MSU.” True to Professor King’s word, one of the
goals of the science curriculum course reads, “Critical exploration of the needs and issues
in school science programs, consideration of the foundations and strategies for the design,
selection, and evaluation of science curriculum”. Standards and Benchmarks are used
explicitly as part of the reading materials for this course. When asked what her views

were about the current reforms, Professor King was positive in how their state is using

207

the standards, and she also felt that their doctoral students were familiar with the reform
documents:
I personally am very impressed... the science education community that I work
with is in favor of the Standards and Project 2061. In our state, the teachers have
to teach according to the state standards and the state standards are based on the
national standards, so it’s fairly prescriptive, not how you should teach but what
you should teach at every grade level. Our doctoral students are quite familiar
with the national science standards documents. (Interview, 7/1/2005)
A majority of the doctoral students and recent graduates agreed with Professor
King that the current reforms in science education are incorporated in the framework for
their courses. Noel, one of the recent graduates from Southern Valley, echoed exactly the
same sentiments as Professor King:
Results and recommendations from these reforms permeated almost all of our
coursework. They directly led to discussion on equity and equality issues, inquiry
based teaching methodologies, and the role of technology in teaching and
learning. We were all constantly made aware of the recommendations ﬁom these
reforms. I perceived mostly positive thoughts about each of them. (6/24/2005)
Whereas Noel seems to have developed positive thoughts about the reforms,
another recent graduate, Candice, had a different view about how the reforms were
incorporated in the framework of the courses. She pointed to the fact that the way reforms
were addressed was not consistent and that it depended on the professors who were
teaching the courses:
Very spotty, some pay more attention than others. What has been incorporated is
how students learn and scientiﬁc research. There is no mechanism to bring the
reforms to campus — some professors see reforms as pre-college stuff that they
don’t want to deal with. (Interview, 6/22/2005)
This interesting contrast in views among doctoral candidates about how reforms

are incorporated in the framework of the coursework can partly be explained by the way

different professors structure their courses and what they emphasize. It is possible that

208

these two recent graduates may have taken the courses from different professors.
Although the curriculum course explicitly addresses the reforms, it is an elective course;
therefore, some doctoral students may even choose not to take it depending on their
program plan. This was true of one doctoral student Carla who missed out on the class
that addressed the reforms because she had to take other electives.

Within the program it depended on what courses you chose to take. I probably

missed some of them because I was also taking some courses over in the

geography department so I think I missed some that would have been more
beneﬁcial to me and were standards based, but still they have been there and
discussed. I think we all agreed they were all very important. (Interview,

6/14/2005)

Carla conﬁrms Professor King’s claims that they think the standards are good and
use them always. One of the doctoral students Jim also agreed with Carla and highlighted
the fact that the standards were addressed in an elective course which science education
doctoral students took by default. The required courses for their program are the general
curriculum and instruction courses. However, it looks like all the students and recent
graduates who took the curriculum course developed positive thoughts about the reforms
compared to Candice who did not feel that the reforms were addressed consistently in her
courses. When asked what her views were about the reforms she did not give a well
articulated response other than to say: “Its difﬁcult — no ﬁnancial support, a lot of
requirements”. There was however a big difference between Candice’s views of the
reforms compared to Carla’s views. Although Carla mentioned that she missed the course
that addressed the reforms because she had to take courses in geography, her views about
the reforms were positive and well articulated:

Deﬁnitely my research deals with the standards. . .I think the standards are quite

inﬂuential but the average teacher in the classroom probably is not concerned
about them but is concerned about the state standards, that’s the ones they are

209

If!

required to teach by and the test goes with these standards. The state standards are

speciﬁc. I speciﬁcally like the freedom and the broadness of being able to choose.

(Interview, 6/14/2005)

Carla seemed to have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the
reforms from working on research that deals with the standards and not necessarily from
coursework. On the other hand, another doctoral candidate Jim seems to have a
preference of the Project 2061 Benchmarks over the National Science Education
Standards.

1 think Science for all Americans is a wonderful document. I think its not being

done and I think it’s an empty model and not something that’s happening. Project

2061 sets a really good framework for evaluation of curriculum. It gives 5

different components of a good curriculum. The NSES is fairly broad but I don’t

think that’s necessarily a bad thing. (Interview, 6/14/2005)

Jim seems to be the only one who talked about the Benchmarks when everyone else
talked about the National standards in the interviews.

On a different note, Noel a recent graduate who has positive views about the
reforms thinks that the reform documents need to be revised since a lot of things have
changed in the last 10 years. He stated: “I see nothing wrong with them, although they
may be getting slightly outdated since the world and society have changed greatly in the
last 10 years.” Noel is the only one who seems to take a critical look at the national
standards with an idea of changing them.

Mentoring of Graduate Students through Research and Teaching

There are 8 faculty members in the science education department at Southern

Valley. Six of the faculty members are tenure track and two are non-tenure track faculty.

The faculty members are engaged in different areas of research that include integrating

technology in the classroom, impact of information technology on learning, web-based

210

instructional materials, problem-based learning, model-based leaming, and promoting
conceptual change. The doctoral students at Southern Valley are mentored through
working with professors on research projects. Some professors have individual research
grants that support student assistantships and two professors in particular are part of a
large NSF funded Center for Learning and Teaching that focuses on lnforrnation
Technology in Science. This grant is providing ﬁnancial support to the majority of
doctoral students who are on the program. Since its inception, the grant has supported
about 20 doctoral students. Professor King shows the important role played by the Center
for Learning and Teaching in mentoring doctoral students:
The Center for Learning and Teaching in the last couple of years has done a
better job in setting students up in doing research for the PhD program. The
Center has 12 credits taken during the summer. Information technology is
embedded in these courses. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

The Center for Learning and Teaching provides structure for mentoring in
research. In addition to mentoring in research the doctoral students who are funded by the
Teaching and Learning Center are trained to become mentors for teachers who come to
the program in the summers. The mentoring into leadership roles is embedded within one
course described earlier.

There is also unique mentoring at Southern Valley where doctoral students in the
College of Education have the opportunity to work closely with faculty in the natural
sciences as lab instructors and science doctoral students get to work closely with
education faculty in the Center for Learning and Teaching. This networking is an effort to

promote authentic science teaching in the schools. Several doctoral students teach lab

courses in the college of science. The Center for Learning and Teaching fellows have

211

formal mentoring through conducting research for the center and their own dissertations
as shown in the following information from the ITS website:

The Center for Learning and Teaching is a multi-college department. The research
doctoral students can be related to the Center but it depends with their
departments. Some students are in the natural sciences department. Doctoral
students are strongly recommended that their dissertations have to be related to
information technology. They are all involved in different kinds of research
projects and mentoring in the ITS is intensive.

Mentoring doctoral students is emphasized in the Center, but there is fear that
soon this may come to an end when funding for the Center runs out. Funding for the
Center is temporary and professor King fears that once the funding runs out that the
program will be back to its traditional state where there was not much formal mentoring
in research and leadership development. Professor King expresses her concern about the
sustainability of the funding provided for mentoring of doctoral students:

Almost all [doctoral students] are funded by the Center for Learning and Teaching
- so the mentoring they get is because of the Center, but when funding runs out in
two years we will be back to a more traditional approach. The professors oversee
64 participants who come into the program. The PhD students take an active role
as leaders in the summer program, and they have gone through a course to prepare
them for this. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

Jim agreed with Professor King that doctoral students get tremendous mentoring in
research:

There is tremendous mentoring in research. We are mentored pretty well because
most of us have been teachers before so to go on and teach to undergraduates
requires some tweaking but its not like we have never done it before. Research on
the other hand is new to most of us when we ﬁrst come into the program and it
requires a lot of mentoring and slowly that mentoring drops off to where you are
able to do most of it on your own with just some help from your advisor or other
faculty. (Interview 6/13/2005)

Here Jim also shows that the doctoral students get good mentoring in research but
teaching assistantships are limited. This is mainly because the School of Education at

Southern Valley employs clinical faculty whose primary responsibility is to teach the

212

methods classes. The doctoral students therefore do not get to teach many of the methods
courses. According to Professor King, the doctoral students only manage to teach at least
once a semester:

I wish we could but as far as teaching assistantships are concerned, our

department has clinical faculty members who are PhDs whose primary job is

teaching, and they teach the methods courses in the elementary and middle school

program sometimes. Doctoral students do not have an opportunity to teach a

methods class because there aren’t that many available. We have many more

doctoral students. Although we don’t require teaching assistantships, we certainly
understand the value and we try to provide students with a semester or so of
teaching in methods courses but we can’t always succeed at that. (Interview,

7/1/2005)

There seems to be a general belief at Southern Valley that there is need to mentor
doctoral students in teaching, but not as much as in research. Sentiments from doctoral
students show that they believe that since they were teachers for some time their job is to
prepare pre-service teachers to survive in the classroom. Jim, a doctoral candidate
highlighted this in his interview. He felt that the most important thing in preparing
teachers is to help them survive on the job; hence he sees it important to some extent to
teach them the way he taught:

There is no strict required type of mentoring for teaching that I know of, but most

of the time mentoring will be informal. But I think part of teaching a methods

course is teaching how to survive within the system as well, for instance if all you

did in a methods course was just teach how to teach for understanding, are you

really prepared to go into a school that is set up now, maybe you are doing more

harm than good if you don’t at least teach a little bit about the way that you taught

and survived in the system. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

This quotation from Jim raises some interesting questions about whether his focus is on
reform-based teaching or if he is just preparing teachers to survive through teaching the

way he taught. Unfortunately the study did not go into investigating Jim’s teaching.

Further studies in this area could yield some useful information that connects doctoral

213

preparation to practice.

Another doctoral candidate Carla agreed with Jim that there was really no need
for mentoring in teaching. She actually thought she did not require any input from her
professors in her teaching:

I think requiring doctoral candidates to practice teaching at the University would

be good for them, but I don’t know about requiring it necessarily. Depending on

what courses you take, there are deﬁnitely courses you learn more about how to

teach. I did not get a whole lot of mentoring while I was teaching except when I

went out and looked for help. I had a lot of experience in the classroom already so

they might have assumed that I would know what I was talking about. I had
taught for 30 years already. I don’t think I needed input from my professors.

When I needed help I asked someone who had taught the course already and

asked especially when I taught a new course. (Interview, 6/14/2005)

These doctoral students certainly have a different view of mentoring and teaching;
they are relying on their past experiences in teaching, the number of years they had
taught, assuming they were successﬁrl, that mentoring new teachers is just about survival
and that evidently teacher mentoring is easy; and no need to receive feedback from their
professors on their teaching.

The doctoral program offers courses that speciﬁcally focus on teaching doctoral
students how to teach methods courses. Below, Noel, a recent graduate from Southern
Valley shows that there was a tradition where doctoral students are left to work on their
own from his personal experience:

Some teaching assistants are basically left to their own and only receive

mentoring and/or guidance when they seek it out. This was my personal

experience my ﬁrst year as a teaching assistant. (Interview, 6/24/2005)

A closer look at the courses and interviews show that the faculty at Southern

Valley are incorporating the reforms in the framework of their program for preparing

future leaders in their doctoral program. Evidence from the course descriptions and

214

interviews also show that the doctoral program at Southern Valley has positive views
about the reforms, especially the National Standards and they seem to interpret the reform
goals of ‘science literacy for all’ as a call for developing stronger cognitive and
pedagogical tools that enhance students’ understanding of science concepts. In this case
using technology and model-based reasoning are the ways that the program is preparing
doctoral students to address the challenges of improving students’ learning capacity.
Faculty members and students consider working closely with scientists, practicing
authentic science, and using technology as powerful ways to improve the teaching and
learning of science.
Roles Doctorates are Prepared for

Interview data showed that the Graduates from Southern Valley are prepared for
speciﬁc roles in K-12 teaching and administration, teaching at University and research.
There was evidence from the interviewees showing that a sizeable number of students go
back to K-12 teaching and administration. According to Professor King, this is mainly
due to the fact that the program does not require students to study full time, hence some
of them stay in schools throughout their studies and go into K-12 administration after
they graduate as shown below:

Our doctoral program does not require people to come in full time, as long as they

meet the residency requirement. A number of our doctoral candidates will stay in

the classroom through much of the doctoral program and emerge working in the

school district they were in or in a leadership position. Our history and focus is to

produce science education faculty at the university level and in school districts.

(Interview, 7/1/2005)

Professor King highlighted the traditional nature of their program by mentioning

its history and focus, which is to produce faculty and K-12 teachers. Carla agreed with

Professor King that the program prepares its graduates for teaching as shown below:

215

I would say the two main ones are either to be a professor at a university or
college or to teach in the classroom. The other emphasis is to be researchers in
science education. Also to be leaders in professional development is another
emphasis and outreach. (Interview, 6/14/2005)

Other graduate students feel that the program prepared them for research. Jim
feels that the program adequately prepares them for research and grant writing. He
emphasized the amount of research experience they get at Southern Valley:

Since this is a research 1 institution, we are deﬁnitely pushed into research, doing

research is one of the central focused that we do. Since research costs money,

grant writing is also emphasized. Almost everyone is involved in research.

(Interview, 6/13/2005)

However, Professor Evans pointed out that their doctorates are prepared for speciﬁc
roles, which are mainly K-12 teaching and administration, and teaching at university
level:

We don’t prepare them for everything — Most of our graduate students want to be

either school leaders in science education or they want to be a professor

somewhere. We occasionally have someone who wants to advance in the area of
informal science education. It’s pretty traditional and we take it case by case.

(Interview, 9/7/2005)

It is clear from Professor Evans’ views that faculty believe that their students are
interested in K-12 teaching and administration or in becoming a college professor; hence
they prepare them for those roles. Professor King also emphasized the traditional nature
of their program and that they do not normally have students who go into different areas.
Views and perceptions about challenges in science education

In this part of the study, my goal was to establish what faculty, doctoral
candidates, and recent graduates from the science education doctoral program at Southern

Valley consider being the most important issues in the ﬁeld and how these issues relate to

the preparation of doctoral students. I asked the interviewees to tell me what they see as

216

the most important issues that the science education community should focus on in terms
of researching, funding, and as they prepare new leaders in the ﬁeld. I analyzed the
responses to the above question using the framework for assessing the impact of National
Standards on student learning (described in chapter 3). I categorized the responses to the
interviews using the ﬁve channels of inﬂuence identiﬁed in the National Research
Council’s framework for assessing the impact of National Standards namely: contextual
factors, teacher learning, teaching, student learning, assessment and accountability and
cuniculum. Figure 6.1 shows that the interviewees identiﬁed all the channels of inﬂuence
listed above, except curriculum as important issues that the science education community
should be focusing on. However, some areas were emphasized more than others. The
interviewees emphasized the areas of student learning, teacher development and teaching

more than areas of assessment and contextual factors.

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3 7
.3 g r I Faculty n=2
a ..4
g 4 .. I Recent grads n=3
g 3 ‘ D Doctoral can.n=3
Q—n
°. 1 r C] Total n=8
2 o a
+9? 639‘ ‘53” . $0“ &é“ (6pr

(“o
2;.
' 0’
6‘6,
)‘r

 

channels of inﬂuence

 

Figure 6.1: Views about the most important issues in Science Education at

Southern Valley

The areas that were emphasized by most respondents were student learning and
teaching, followed by teacher development. Six out of seven respondents identiﬁed
student learning as an important issues in the ﬁeld.

Contextual factors

The issues I identiﬁed as contextual factors include concern about policies and
issues of equity. Professor King voiced her concern about how religious fundamentalists
are inﬂuencing policies on what gets taught in schools. She speciﬁcally talked about how
the teaching of evolution has become a big debate in some states.

Another area in America which inﬂuences the teaching of science is the religious
fundamentalist pressure on textual materials in the big states--Texas, California,
Michigan—the kinds of materials that teachers end up having to work with and
their devotion or lack of devotion to certain important topics like evolution. So
when a new teacher comes in and given a curriculum or told what to teach, they
may have little choice about the extent to which they can discuss topics they think
are important. You are probably aware of the statistics in this country of people
who are ignorant of what we know about the evolution of living things is
astounding. It’s a lot of poorly educated parents who are sending their children to
school and if the teachers have too much pressure against what they are doing it is
a huge issue. There is a threat to many fundamental religious beliefs by
evolutionary theory. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

218

Professor King shows how parents can inﬂuence policies and how teachers can end up
having little control over what they teach depending on the policies in the state.

Recent graduates and doctoral candidates shared their concerns about equity
issues in science education. Noel talked about how lack of funding is leading to budget
cuts and schools are forced to make cost-cutting decisions that inﬂuence student learning.
Candice a doctoral candidate and Cindy a recent graduate talked about the lack of
minority and women in science and the fact that the Hispanic population is not being
served fairly in their state. Cindy explained that equity is difﬁcult to achieve in Southern
Valley because "we are not reaching the Hispanic population, why not test people in
their language. ” Because of an increasing number of Hispanic immigrants, Cindy felt
that learning would make better sense if students were tested in their own language.
However, faculty did not highlight issues of equity in the interviews, and neither are these

issues emphasized in the coursework.

Student Learning

The issues I identiﬁed as student learning included talk about lack of interest in
science learning among young people, producing literate students, and improving student
achievement. Student achievement according to the interviewees can be accomplished
through understanding how people learn, using mental models in science learning, and
knowing how to teach students with learning disabilities. Professor King clearly
articulated the importance of understanding how people learn and student motivation as
solutions to the challenge posed by the fact that science concepts are difﬁcult to

understand. Professor King replied:

219

We must understand how people learn and what it takes to engage students
meaningfully. Scientiﬁc knowledge is generated in complex ways; it is not
intuitively obvious how to do that. When we see the sun rise in the east and sets in
the west, the scientiﬁc explanation for that is not intuitively obvious; its hard to
understand what is happening; it requires deep thinking and mathematical
formulas. What it takes to engage students meaningfully and seeking problems to
answers that are not easy, e. g. the Private Universe, these are bright people but
when you ask them to explain scientiﬁc phenomena they can’t remember, because
its not common sense. You have to struggle to remember what’s happening.
(Interview, 7/1/2005)

Professor King emphasized the fact that science concepts can be too abstract for
students to understand, and it takes a lot of effort to engage students in activities that help
develop an in-depth understanding. Understanding how people learn is seen as one way
that can help science educators come up with pedagogy that is complimentary to learning
styles.

Doctoral candidates from Southern Valley who talked about the challenges of
producing scientiﬁcally literate students echoed similar concerns. Jim talked about how
student achievement can be improved by using mental models that make the student
thinking visible:

Modeling in science is extremely important deﬁnitely the difference between
expert views and novice views are important, what an expert sees versus novices,
how do they see and how do they think and how do they organize the information
in their mental models. I think models are kind of huge broad things. I am talking
more about a scientiﬁc model, what an expert scientist would use to study or look
at a certain situation to learn more about something. Deﬁnitely scientiﬁc models,

even mental models, what’s going on inside the students’ heads; that’s what I

mean by modeling. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

Jim emphasizes the difference in knowledge between an expert and a novice and
the need to close the gap by using scientiﬁc and mental models. Both Professor King and

Jim show concern about how the science education community should approach teaching

of science, which is a difﬁcult subject. Their ideas about how this can be addressed

220

focuses on the learner and how educators should understand the leamer’s cognitive
abilities and how these can be enhanced through modeling that visually show how
students are thinking.

Professor King also voiced her concern about how the education system is failing
to meet the needs of a competitive technological world and how this has led to the US
workforce losing jobs to international competitors. In the following quotation Professor
King showed the importance of technology and how the US is being out competed by
other nations such as China and India:

I just ﬁnished Tom Freidman’s book “The world is ﬂat” and that is a book that I

think all science educators should read. It’s about how intemet technology has

ﬂattened the world so I can easily hire for the same price of a graduate student
here in Southern Valley, I could just easily hire a PhD from Bangalore India who
would analyze data for me while 1 am sleeping and when I arrive at my ofﬁce it
would be delivered via technology. There is going to be additional pressure on all
of us in the US to do all the above things better so that we can compete in a global
market. The average worker in the US earns $1500 or $2000 a month. The same
skilled worker in China earns $150 and so if I own a company in the US I would
do better by hiring a Chinese worker. That increases the pressure on education to
deal with this somehow and make our students be better enough than the PhDs in

India. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

This quotation justiﬁes the emphasis that the program at Southern Valley places
on use of technology in science education. There is a sense that use of technology has
made communication possible in many ways, and the potential of using technology to
enhance understanding of science concepts is viewed as critical in this case. In agreement
with Professor King, Candice a recent graduate views how important technology is
becoming and how useful it will be in the future:

Technology is changing things a lot. We will be using technology more in the

future. Education will change so radically but the ﬁeld is not prepared for that.

Money is not available to stay abreast increasing technology. (Interview,
6/22/2005)

221

These sentiments about technology are reﬂected in the way the Center for
Learning and Teaching has technology as its focus. Technology is seen as an important
component in improving ‘science literacy’ as well as preparing students to become
successful in a competitive world market.

Teacher Development
The issues I identiﬁed as teacher development included talk about teacher
knowledge and the need for better-qualiﬁed science teachers. Speciﬁcally, issues of
professional development, lack of science knowledge among elementary teachers, lack of
collaboration between science educators and scientists in preparing teachers, teacher
resistance to learn new technologies, and leaming to teach in inner city schools were
issues raised by the interviewees. Generally the interviewees from Southern Valley
considered teacher development to be a critical issue in science education. They all
mentioned different concerns related to teacher learning. Professor Evans for example
talked about the need to produce specialists in science education through professional
development. She feels that there is a need for teachers to work closely with scientists to
gain knowledge that they can transfer to their students. She explains how the Center for
Learning and Teaching is helping teachers to bring authentic science in the classroom:
Our Center for Learning and Teaching focuses on producing specialists in
science education. This is professional development. We thought about how
teachers could work with scientists, perfecting a model for teachers to transform
what is in the lab to inquiry in the classroom. (Interview, 9/7/2005)
Here emphasis is placed on the collaboration between science educators and scientists in
professional development efforts to help teachers teach authentic science.

Similar concerns were shared by Candice, who raised concerns about the lack of

appreciation of the use of technology among some science teachers. She talked about her

222

experience from working with teachers in the ﬁeld and raised concerns about the fact that
some teachers are resistant to learning new technologies: “In professional development
projects with teachers, some are more receptive to technology than others.” Both
Professor Evans and Candice view a close working relationship between scientists and
educators as important in bringing an understanding of technology and science content to
the teachers.

Similarly Professor King shared concerns about elementary teachers’ lack a
good understanding of science or the high expectations placed on the elementary teacher
or elementary science specialist to teach science when they are really not knowledgeable
in science:

Many elementary teachers are not well educated in science. We should have

specialists in elementary science, the poor elementary teacher who is expected

to be a specialist in everything is also expected to teach science, so they don’t

feel comfortable with it and so they either do it poorly or they do it at a

minimum and that just feeds into the whole problem. (Interview, 7/1/2005)
Professor King shows the complexity of preparing elementary teachers to become
specialists in science when they have to teach everything. Noel attributed the problem
associated with preparing teachers for science teaching to lack of funding and the strong
competition with reading, early childhood and multicultural education which are
receiving more money and are currently given priority by the government. He said,

We still face the challenge of getting all science teachers to be “highly qualiﬁed.”
I see science educators in Southern Valley continually working to address these
issues, although it often comes down to funding decisions. It would seem we are
in strong competition with reading, early childhood, and multicultural education
for money to spend on reform and teacher training. (Interview, 6/24/2006)

On a different note, Jim, a doctoral candidate, raised the issue of teaching ‘science

for all’ as a challenge for teachers who are learning to teach in inner city schools. He

223

acknowledged the fact that how people learn is a good framework that focuses on good
teaching strategies, but it does not focus on issues that are critical to urban science
teaching, which requires culturally responsive teaching.

There are two ways of looking at learning to teach in inner city schools. The one

kind that is culturally responsive teaching and the other kind that is teaching as

good teaching. How people learn focuses on good teaching strategies for effective
instruction. It doesn’t necessarily go into culturally responsive teaching.

(Interview, 6/13/20005)

Other interviewees whose concerns were mostly focused on using technology and
understanding how people learn did not share Jim’s concerns about science teaching in
urban schools. The course documents analyzed in this study and the interviewees
emphasized the importance of improving teachers’ content knowledge. The focuses on
research and professional development targeted at producing highly qualiﬁed teachers
with a deeper understanding of content knowledge. Professor Evans said that there is
need for teachers to learn science content ﬁom scientists and transfer this knowledge to
their students, and Dr. King feels that there is need to have specialists in elementary
science in order to avoid having teachers who are generalists being expected to teach
science well. Most recent graduates and doctoral candidates share similar concerns with
their professors except for two doctoral candidates who feel that whereas the framework
for their doctoral preparation focuses on good science teaching, it does not address issues
of urban science teaching. One of the students speciﬁcally mentioned that the program is
not reaching out to the Hispanic population.

Teaching

The issues I identiﬁed as teaching included concerns about teachers working

closely with faculty, threat to nature of scientiﬁc knowledge by post-modemist views of

224

science, teacher competence, use of technology, teaching for understanding,
implementation of standards, and using inquiry in science teaching. Professor King
shared her concern about how scientiﬁc knowledge was being eroded by different
ideologies. She speciﬁcally referred to the need to preserve the western cannon of the
nature of scientiﬁc knowledge, citing how postmodernist thinking has misinterpreted
what it takes to generate good scientiﬁc knowledge:

Over the last twenty years in science education there have been numerous threats

to the western cannon (the established way of looking at the nature of scientiﬁc

knowledge), that is, post-modernist views of science or relativist views, especially
in the academy have allowed in some cases misunderstandings about what it takes
to establish best knowledge in science- - the way it is portrayed and the way it is
understood, its often taught in its ﬁnal form and focused on Friday tests. Most
scholars perceive science as white Anglo Saxon exclusive club and have
misinterpreted what it takes to generate good scientiﬁc knowledge, the issue of

evidence, reliability, etc. (Interview, 7/1/2007)

Implicit in Professor King’s views is the idea that teachers should strive to teach
science in a way that will help students to understand and think about science the way
scientists do. These notions tie in with Professor Evans’ views of the need to produce
specialists in science education. Her idea of how teachers can become specialists is that
they should work closely with scientists in their labs and transform what is in the lab to
inquiry in the classroom, stating: “T here is need for teachers to work closely with
scientists, perfecting a model for teachers to transform what is in the lab to inquiry in the
classroom Both Professor King and Professor Evans see challenges related to how
teachers can focus on a deeper understanding of science concepts.

Jim, a doctoral candidate agreed with the professors about the importance of

developing teachers who are specialists and who can use multiple representations in their

225

teaching. In the following quotation he emphasizes the importance of understanding how
people learn and how he uses the work of John Bransford in professional development:

Multiple representations I think is very important, different ways of looking at the
same phenomena from different views and respecting those views. We study a lot
about John Bransford’s How people learn, a book that looks at leaner-
centeredness, and it looks at knowledge-centeredness, assessment centeredness,
and all those ﬁt within the community. This is one of the books we learn from and
that’s also the one that I use when I do professional development with middle
school science teachers. It’s a learning tool and it’s also linked to other research
that was used to create the book and it’s a book we use in professional
development seminars. At Southern Valley we use the book pretty extensively.
(Interview, 6/13/2005)

Therefore, Jim clearly stated how the HPL framework of the coursework is inﬂuencing
the work he does with teachers in schools.

Jim also views issues of conceptual change and teaching for understanding as
important in the ﬁeld of science education. He talked about teaching for understanding in
a more holistic way and showed how it is multifaceted, involving what the student
knows, how the teacher get to know what the students knows and how the teacher can
facilitate conceptual change.

Teaching for understanding is probably the most important issue right now

because it incorporates a lot of the learning sciences in there. For instance

presuppositions that students come in thinking or knowing, ways to assess that,
the importance of knowing that, developing strategies to develop and work around
that and that Incorporates formative assessment where you are constantly
assessing students’ mental models and then develop adapt instruction learning and

teaching around that. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

J irn talked about the importance of assessing students’ mental models, which is a
reﬂection of the emphasis of modeling in the doctoral program at Southern Valley.
However, Carla brought up different issues to those mentioned by the faculty and fellow

students. She talked about the challenges of using standards in the classroom and training

teachers to use standards.

226

I think the movement towards standards, whether its state standards or National
Standards, using them in the classroom and training teachers to use them is one
thing. Melded in with that is using authentic science and inquiry in teaching
science. (Interview, 6/14/2005)

The two professors and the doctoral student’s concerns about improving the
quality of science teachers is reﬂected in the research and outreach work done in the
Center for Learning and Teaching where teachers are brought in to come and work side
by side with faculty. Teachers are mentored to use technology to teach authentic science.
Although the faculty at Southern Valley did not mention this as a challenge in science
teaching, analysis of course documents and interviews with faculty show that they
incorporate standards in the framework of their courses and they are very positive about
the standards. However they do not mention the challenges faced by science teachers as
they implement the standards in their classrooms.

Assessment

The issues I identiﬁed as assessment include talk about high stakes testing that is
part of the No Child Left Behind reform and the impact it is having on science teaching.
Professor King and two doctoral candidates shared similar concerns about how the focus
on testing in math and reading has pushed science to the margins in the school
curriculum. Professor King alluded to this:

Another issue in the United States is because of standardized testing, reading and

mathematics have taken the place of science in many elementary schools, lack of

science teaching in elementary schools until a test comes along that r uires you
to teach it. For example, in Southern Valley a few years ago we had 5 grade
science testing so suddenly teachers who weren’t teaching science because they
spent all their time with reading and mathematics began to teach some science.

(Interview, 7/1/2005)

Professor King talked about the positive effects of standardized tests especially

where science is also tested. Her views reﬂected the general sentiments among

227

interviewees that standardized testing was helping to close the achievement gap
However, by closing the achievement gap it was not clear whether incorporating a
science test was considered to narrow the gap.

On a different note Carla viewed high stakes testing as having a negative impact
on the way teachers teach because the tests do not support reform-based teaching. She
talked about the need to develop tests that allow teachers to reform their teaching without
fear of the test results:

High stakes testing in all the ﬁelds including science is having a big effect on

everybody, and I think one of my big problems with that are the lack of a test that

will test in a way that teachers can actually use to teach and not be aﬁ'aid of the
test results. I think some test development needs to be done. (Interview,

6/14/2005)

There are deﬁnitely mixed feelings about high stakes testing among interviewees
at Southern Valley, but the bottom line is that assessment is not reﬂected in the course
documents as an area that gets attention in the doctoral program. The kind of testing that
is seen as a challenge is federally mandated hence faculty may feel they do not have
much control over it. However their views of standardized testing for science implies that
it is a good thing if it causes teachers to teach science in schools.

Addressing Issues in Science Education

When asked how the issues in science education can be addressed, the faculty,
doctoral candidates, and recent graduates at Southern Valley had different views ranging
from preparing teachers to be leaders to educating administrators and business leaders

about education issues. Figure 6.2 shows that all the three groups of respondents felt that

solutions classiﬁed as contextual should be employed to address the challenges in the

228

ﬁeld. Contextual issues in this case included talk about the role of the administration at

different levels and change in policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 6 .

o 4 ‘4" H . ‘HV ._.._ h

a 3 . — —~ «

E 2 l7” _.__ ..u-...-~_ I Faculty n=2

0 1 L- E“ w .~——~-——

g 0 . w; T I Recent grads n=2
($09” 02.5“ @3’ $99 6“ +0» DDoctoralcan.N=3

\ab \& «65‘ $ 0 69° 69 D Total n=7
5“). 5040 Ci 9% (“o

&"

 

channels ofinﬂuence

 

Figure 6.2 Solutions to address issues in Science Education

Professor King, for example, felt that there is need for administrators to value
education and put more resources into education in order to ensure that the graduates
remain competitive. She went on to show how lack of support in developing people with
a deeper understanding of science has led to other countries becoming leaders in the ﬁeld
of science.

I think we have to educate administrators and legislators, business leaders so that

we are all on the same frequency about the need and value for better math and

science education to stay globally viable. I do think the ﬁmding agencies like NSF
can help with the cause, and I think they are moving in the right direction. In
some ways the US is no longer a leader and China and India are leading in certain

aspects. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

It was clear from the interview with Professor King that administration especially at
federal level needs to put more money into supporting science research and initiatives.

Jim, a doctoral candidate shared similar views with Professor King that

administrators need to play a major role in addressing the issues in science education.

However, he emphasized the need for collaboration between administrators, policy
229

makers, and science educators in the implementation of reforms in science education. In
other words, all parties to have an equal voice:

Collaboration between administrators, policy makers and science educators. . .if

policymakers, educators and administrators do not have a stake or buy into it, then

I don’t think it is going to be really effective. All of those camps have to be

present at the conversation in order for this reform to be effective. In order for it

to work everyone has to have an equal voice. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

On the issue of producing science teachers with a deeper understanding of
science, Professor King felt that there is need for more involvement and collaboration
between scientists and science educators in order to improve the teaching of science.
However, Carla had different ideas about how issues of recruiting good teachers and
retention should be addressed. She talked about how alternative certiﬁcation can help
provide enough science teachers:

I wish I knew some good answers for the equity issues and teacher retention and

recruiting good science teachers. I think its going to be difﬁcult. I know we have

some programs in place with alternative certiﬁcation of people with degrees, as
long as we do some good training on pedagogy with those teachers that may work
ok, but its being done, I think we have to continue that in order to get enough

science teachers. (Interview, 6/24/2005)

Carla also sees teachers as playing a critical role in addressing issues in science
education. In the following quote she shared similar ideas with Professor King that issues
in science education can be addressed through teacher training and professional
development:

I think it has to start with training teachers in colleges and continuing with

professional development for in-service teachers to know the things like what

research shows about how people learn and one of the best ways of teaching and
doing a better job overall with preparing teachers to do the things we are asking

them to do, [and] training the elementary teachers in inquiry, etc. (Interview,
6/24/2005)

230

Still on the issue of preparing and recruiting teachers with a good understanding
of science, Noel felt that that content speciﬁc educators need to lead reform in the
different areas of science. He also felt that the content specialists should have classroom
teaching experience.

We need content specialists for each science discipline who understand the unique

features of teaching and learning that content. We cannot expect someone who

may be expert in teaching and learning physics to be able to lead in reform of
biology teaching and learning. I also believe that classroom teaching experience
is important. Too many university science education specialists/researchers have
very little actual classroom teaching experience and they are not as effective in
leading classroom teachers as those who have more experience. (Interview,

6/24/2005)

Cindy shared similar thoughts as Jim, that teachers are the answer to good science
teaching. She talked about the fact that teachers need to take more leadership roles in
science education and that administration at all levels should be made of former teachers.
She said: “Teachers need to take more leadership. Admin determines [that] good teachers
stay; bad teachers leave. “Admin should be made of former teachers.”

Candice thought differently about what is needed to address effective science
teaching. She states that science teachers need to have an understanding of technology:
“Educators need to be comfortable with technology and be knowledgeable with using
technology and provide materials of technology.”

For assessment, Jim came up with ideas of how he felt that issues of teaching for
understanding and assessment should be addressed. High stakes assessment should be
more authentic so that it tests for deeper understanding of science concepts, rather than
testing for factual recall. Jim explains that if high stakes testing is made more authentic,

it could be beneﬁcial to the students, teachers, researchers and educators.

What I would like to see is more authentic testing. I think high stakes testing is
23 1

going to be here for a while, I think for the next 10 years so its there and I think a
way to bring the two together is to make this test more authentic, testing for
deeper understanding rather than just factual recall. A test could be something that
actually beneﬁts both, not only the teacher and student but also the researcher and
the educator because its going to bring what the teachers are so concerned about
which is this test that will bring it closer to our side. (Interview, 6/13/2005)
Cindy shared similar ideas about how researchers should use research to prove
that authentic assessment is possible and that it works. She shows that researchers should
play an important role in addressing the challenges posed by high stakes testing that is
not authentic:
Science education researchers should conduct scientiﬁcally based research that
shows that assessments that look for deeper understanding is possible and that
they are important, with a control group taking a standardized test versus a test
that assesses deeper understanding. I think if we go into it without anything to
back us up other than theory we could be in trouble. Having thought this for the
ﬁrst time I would say that there is a need for more research that we can go to the
table showing that there is scientiﬁcally based research showing that it’s possible
and should be done. (Interview, 6/16/2006)
Here Cindy shows the struggles that science educators face when it comes to mandated
policies like high stakes testing. She showed the need for proving that authentic
assessment can be done.
Aspects of the Science Education Doctoral Program that Need to Change at Southern
Valley
The interviewees from Southern Valley had different perspectives about what
needs to change in order for the doctoral program to address the issues they highlighted
earlier. Generally the interviewees highlighted a need for more emphasis on research and
teaching courses, increasing the number of elementary specialists in the program, and

more courses that focus on culturally responsive teaching. The two recent graduates, Jim

and Candice, and one doctoral candidate, Carla, felt that more emphasis on research is

232

needed. For example Carla thinks the program can intensify the research experiences for
doctoral students:

When I did my preliminary exams one of my professors’ question was that
exact question, how would I design a program for people coming in for a degree
in science education. One of the things I really emphasize would be to start
doing research courses and training at the very beginning and let that grow
throughout instead of waiting until the second year. Start working on small
projects and get training. Right now I am writing my chapters as stand alones
ready for publishing. (Interview, 6/14/2005)

Although the Center for Learning and Teaching improved the research
experiences for doctoral students, there is a general concern that once the money for the
Center runs out, the earlier shortfalls in research experiences may resurface. Jim showed
concern about the need for continuation of the Center for Learning and Teaching:

Before the Center came in, I don’t think that our program was as reliant on

research as it is now, in other words, the focus on previous research, how to do

research, how its speciﬁcally pertains to the learning sciences a lot of that was not
there. Now that the Center for Learning and Teaching is there I would say that the
doctoral program really is doing an excellent job of becoming research based

focusing on research and the issues of teaching for understanding. The Center for

Learning and Teaching served me well and it’s something I would like to see

continuing. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

The Center for Learning and Teaching is doing well in terms of providing
research experience, but since it is a 5-term funded program, there is some nervousness
about what will happen once the funds run out. Hence Carla feels that the doctoral
program coursework should offer more research courses especially mixed methods.

Professor King has different ideas on what needs to improve in the doctoral
program. The Center for Learning and Teaching did not support elementary teacher
educator preparation:

All the funding we have and all the doctoral students we have on our doctoral

program will specialize in secondary or higher education because the Center for
Learning and Teaching is a funded program for participants who teach grades 7

233

through undergraduate so what we need are more elementary science education
specialists, and we have very few funded students who come through, so we are
not contributing that much right now. I can’t say over the years but as long as I
have been here which is 10-15 years, our science education program has been
much more secondary. We have occasionally a student who would come
through and specialize in elementary science education. I think there is a need.
(Interview, 7/1/2005)

Prof King also felt that the program needs to offer more teaching assistantships to
doctoral students:

Another area I mentioned earlier is that its difﬁcult to ﬁnd enough teaching
assistantships for our students because the undergraduate courses are taught by
clinical faculty and that is a philosophical decision that is made by our
department. There is a delicate balance there. We need more teaching
assistantships for our graduate students who have teaching experience but they are
few. We have a very large department. The TE program is housed in my
department so there are many sections of math and science but the department
head and faculty agreed that having graduate students come and go isn’t as
consistent as hiring a clinical member who will teach it for years. Tenure track
faculty are pressured to seek external funding and to publish that the
administration has relieved us of undergraduate teaching so that we can focus
more on graduate teaching and working on projects, so we are not involved much
at all in what is going on in the undergraduate programs. (Interview, 7/1/2005)

Professor King however sees the dilemma between having instructors who stay on
and teach the course for a long time as opposed to graduate assistants who come and go.
This gives the program a “transient” character. Whereas the idea of having course
instructors is meant to free up time for professors to do research and publish, she feels
that doctoral students also need to practice teaching. Related to professor King’s concern
about teaching assistantships is Noel’s concern about having more courses focusing on
classroom teaching and learning:

I would like to see Southern Valley offer more courses in the doctoral program

that speciﬁcally address issues directly related to classroom teaching and learning,

rather than being a program stressing educational research. Many students like

myself, were not pursuing the degree to become educational researchers, but to
become better teachers and teacher trainers. (Interview, 6/24/2005)

234

Noel clearly shows that there is a need for more focus on preparing doctorates for careers
in teaching through coursework. His concern for more courses on classroom teaching
could be a result of the fact that the students are not involved in teaching experiences and
they only get research experiences. Speciﬁcally Jim showed concern about learning to
teach in urban schools; therefore, he felt that the program should offer courses that
address issues of multiple perspectives and culturally responsive teaching:

I supervise student teachers in inner city schools. I am a former inner city middle

school science/math teacher so I have experience in these settings so I do a lot of

mentoring and supervising student teachers. ...It all comes down to culturally
responsive teaching, identifying and trying to meet the needs of every student,
school should be community based. I believe multiple perspectives and
epistemologies should be valued and respected, and I think there should be high

expectations for everybody. (Interview, 6/13/2005)

Throughout the interview Jim showed that his interest is in working with urban
teachers and here he shows that the program needs to prepare doctoral students to address
these issues. The interview and the document analyses show that the doctoral program at
Southern Valley emphasizes improving science pedagogy through engaging doctoral
students in understanding how people learn and model-based reasoning. The program
also emphasizes use of technology in science teaching and doctoral students have the
opportunity to work with faculty from the Natural Sciences and Science Education to
gain authentic science experiences.

Discussion

In this section I will compare the views of faculty, recent graduates and doctoral

candidates. All interviewees at Southern valley agreed that using technology to teach

authentic science and modeling are important tools for achieving ‘scientiﬁc literacy for

all students.’ The issues highlighted by interviewees as important in science education

235

reﬂect the ‘How People Learn’ framework that is used in their coursework. Southern
Valley faculty and students’ views show that they view a scientiﬁcally literate person as .
one who has a deep understanding of science concepts and understands science the way
scientists do. This is shown in the way professors view development of specialist teachers
as a challenge to the ﬁeld. They see teachers working with scientists as essential for
transferring scientiﬁc knowledge that is generated by scientists ﬁom the lab to the
classroom.

Both professors at Southern Valley share similar concerns about teacher
development and student learning that reﬂect their philosophies and scholarly interests as
shown in the coursework and research done in the Center for Learning and Teaching.
Although the doctoral students generally agreed with the professors about the importance
of technology and understanding how people learn, at least two of them showed concern
about the fact that issues of equity are not explicitly addressed in the coursework. These
students viewed issues of equity as an important challenge in the ﬁeld, given the growing
Hispanic population in the state. One recent graduate also talked about a lack of equity in
terms of limited access to physical science by girls and minorities. These are complex
issues that present challenges to the ﬁeld and yet they are not explicitly addressed in the
program. Since Southern Valley is already tackling the complex issues of model-based
reasoning and using technology to enhance understanding of science content, can we say
it is hard to address more than one complex issue at a time? Analysis of the City Ville
program showed that it is focusing on one complex issue of urban science education.
From this evidence, we can conclude that these doctoral programs are addressing one

complex issue in their coursework, which is speciﬁcally targeted at addressing equity in

236

science learning. Model-based learning, using technology in science teaching and
providing authentic science experiences to students ensures that ‘all students,’ not just the
ones who are going to become scientists can have an understanding of science. Hence
equity is achieved.

The complex issues addressed by the doctoral program at Southern Valley are
related to the scholarly interests of the professors. For example, the focus on classroom-
based practices, teacher development, student learning and teaching, are related to
Professors King and Evans’ scholarly and research interests. Professor King emphasized
understanding how people learn as the framework for their coursework which reﬂects her
views about science as a body of knowledge that “has been generated in complex ways”
and that “it is not intuitively obvious how to do that.” This is also reﬂected in the
emphasis that the program places on theories of how people learn and model-based
reasoning.

Professor Evans talked at length about the importance of deeper understanding of
science concepts. Their interpretation of ‘science literacy for all’ has a focus on student
learning of authentic science experiences the same way that scientists do, through use of
technology and creating mental models that show their understanding. Looking at the
science education elective courses that are offered at Southern Valley, only one science
methods course includes an explicit emphasis on inquiry in science teaching and learning.
Most of the courses focus on use of technology and modeling in science. However, the
positive orientation on “How People Learn” provides a strong entrée into constructivist

learning and pedagogy.

237

Whereas all doctoral candidates and the two recent graduates pointed out some
contextual factors that are important in the ﬁeld, the professors did not highlight
contextual issues in their discussion. The contextual issues highlighted by students
included limited emphasis on issues related to learning among minority-students.

Another interesting point worth noting is that, although the students and recent
graduates reported that they are being prepared for research and teaching, their professors
emphasized that they prepare their graduates for university and K-12 teaching and
administration. The difference between what students believe they are being prepared for
and faculty’s intentions is interesting mainly because, the students do not get extensive
practice teaching methods courses. This is because and they do not have teaching
assistantships for their students. Since doctoral students get to do more research
assistantships than teaching, this may lead them to believe that the program emphasizes
research. Also since Southern Valley is a research 1 university, there is bound to be focus
on research. The professors views Show the need by doctoral students to understand and
use research ﬁndings from their own and other people’s investigations to improve their
teaching, whereas, the students and recent graduates appear to believe that the emphasis
in the program is to make them into researchers, as opposed to being both researchers and
users of research.

It is also interesting to note that there is a belief among some students that the
doctoral candidates are capable to teach teachers since most of them have been teaching
for a long time; hence they did not think that mentoring in teaching is necessary, as
highlighted by Carla. Jim also clearly articulated his belief about the need to teach

preservice teachers to survive in the classroom. The program’s focus on model-based

238

reasoning, use of technology in teaching science, and understanding how people learn
clearly shows that the intention is to strengthen doctoral students’ pedagogical
knowledge.

Conclusion

The science education doctoral program at Southern Valley focuses on teaching
science for in-depth understanding through use of technology and model-based
reasoning. Efforts are being made to prepare science teacher specialists and university
science educators through working with scientists in order to bring authentic science
teaching to the classroom. Analyses of course documents shows that the science
education courses either implicitly or explicitly address the current reforms and ‘science
literacy for all’ as the program goal. The faculty and graduate students have positive
views of the National Standards, and according to Professor King they are supporters of
the standards. The professors promote standards in the schools through working with
teachers in the Center for Learning and Teaching and they always quote the standards in
their work.

Generally the professors and their students agreed on the goals and focus of the
program. Both the faculty and students emphasized the use of the ‘How People Learn’
(Bransford et. al., 2002) model in their courses and professional development work. The
faculty and doctoral students at Southern Valley acknowledged the tremendous work
done in the Center for Learning and Teaching in terms of providing research experiences,
and they showed concern about what will happen after the funds for the Center run out.

It appears from the data obtained from the interviews and analysis of the program

documents that Southern Valley is doing a credible job tackling a complex issues of

239

improving science literacy by ensuring a deep understanding of science by all students,
not just those who are going to be scientists, which highlights the way the program is

interpreting the current reform goal of science literacy for all.

240

CHAPTER 7
SCIENCE LITERACY FOR ALL: VIEWS, PERSPECTIVES AND PHD
PREPARATION
In this study I investigated how three science education doctoral programs; City
Ville, Midwestern and Southern Valley are preparing their graduates for leadership in
supporting teachers to achieve the national goal of science literacy for all. I focused on
how science education faculty are incorporating the reforms in their courses, and how
they are interpreting and enacting the reforms through coursework, research and
outreach.

To summarize, in chapters 4, 5 and 6, I analyzed ﬁndings from each of the three
science education doctoral programs as individual cases of doctoral programs. I described
and analyzed: a) the nature of the coursework; b) how doctoral students are mentored
through research and teaching experiences; and c) the views of faculty, recent graduates,
and doctoral candidates about issues in the ﬁeld of science education and how faculty
views inﬂuence the nature of the doctoral programs.

In this chapter I will present a cross case analysis and discussion of data on the
three universities. First I will discuss the similarities and differences across the programs,
then I will discuss the unique features of that each program has, and ﬁnally I will present
some of the crosscutting issues across the doctoral programs. Presenting the crosscutting
issues is important because it will show that even though the three cases are unique this
data can be generalized to a larger population and provide insight into the preparation of

doctoral students for reforms in science education.

241

Similarities and Differences across the Programs

In Table 7.1, I show that the three doctoral programs have similarities in the ways:
1) the programs generally interpret the current reforms; 2) they all have a science center;
3) they require some similar courses; and 4) they all provide some assistantships for their
doctoral students. I will discuss how these similarities reﬂect the way the doctoral
programs are interpreting the science education reform goals of achieving science literacy

for all.

242

Table 7.1: Similar features across the three doctoral programs

 

 

Features City Ville Midwestern Southern Valley

Interpretation of -Achieving -Achieving -Achieving

reforms excellence in excellence in excellence in
science teaching science teaching science teaching
-Improving -Improving -Improving
understanding of understanding of understanding of

science concepts
among Ieamers

science concepts
among Ieamers

science concepts
among learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science Centers -Urban Science ' - Science Learning - Science
Education and Teaching Learning and
Center Teaching Center
Doctoral Program -Research -Research -Research
Requirements and Methodology: Methodology: Methodology
Coursework qualitative and qualitative and qualitative and
quantitative quantitative quantitative:
- Science education - Science education - Science
seminar seminar education
seminar
-Curriculum and -Curriculum and -Curriculum
Pedagogy instruction theory
-Qualifying -Comprehensive -Qua1ifying
examinations examinations examinations
-Dissertation and -Dissertation and -Dissertation and
oral defense oral defense oral defense
Assistantships -Research -Research -Research
assistantships for assistantships for assistantships for
fellows fellows and other fellows and other

 

 

students

 

students

 

243

 

Analysis of courses and research experience required of students show that the
three doctoral programs are interpreting the current reforms at two different levels. At
one level, all the programs show that they are interpreting the reform goals as a call to
achieve excellence in science teaching and improving understanding of science among
learners in accordance with the reforms goals (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). By achieving
excellence in science I am referring to improving science pedagogy in ways that support
understanding of science concepts. Beyond this interpretation, each of the programs
interprets the reforms somewhat differently.

At the ﬁrst level of interpretation, there seems to be a general understanding
among science educators at these three institutions that the current reforms are calling for
innovations to improve science teaching and learning and to change from traditional
pedagogy that emphasized rote memorization of facts to reform-based pedagogy that
emphasizes teaching and learning for understanding (White & Gunstone, 1992; Wiggins
& McTighe, 1998; Wiske, 1998). For instance, excellence in science teaching through
use of inquiry (Haury, 2001; Llewellyn, 2002) and teaching science for understanding are
addressed in the cuniculum and pedagogy courses offered by the three doctoral
programs. There are variations among the curriculum courses. Whereas Southern Valley
requires students to take a cuniculum theory course that combines the history and
development of the science curriculum and development of pedagogical theories, the
doctoral students at City Ville are required to take a curriculum and pedagogy course that
focuses on issues related to the history and development of curriculum mostly from the

608 to the present. Yet still, the doctoral students at Midwestern take a curriculum and

244

instruction course as one of their selective courses, and it focuses mostly on the
development and evaluation of curriculum materials in relation to the current reforms.
What is common among the curriculum courses at the three programs is that they
explicitly address both instructional models and the current reforms.

The emphasis given to curricula in the doctoral programs reﬂects the importance
of curriculum reforms in the ﬁeld of science education. Curriculum reforms have been an
important feature in the ﬁeld of science education in the US since the 19603 mainly due
to the realization that other nations were getting ahead in scientiﬁc knowledge. The
launching of the Sputnik in 1957 (Dickson, 2003) made Americans realize the need to
improve teaching and learning of science in schools. This led to the development of
science curriculum that placed more emphasis on content in the different subject areas of
chemistry, biology and physics (De Boer, I991). Reforms in science curriculum are still
ongoing as evidenced by the most recent reforms of the 19905 were triggered by a
realization that US students were performing poorly compared to their counterparts in
other developed countries (AAAS, 1996; NRC, 1998; Roth et. al., 1999)

Another common feature across these programs is that they prepare graduates for
jobs in academic research and teaching through coursework and assistantships. Although
course emphasis differs across the programs, all three doctoral programs require students
to take methodology courses and attend science education seminars. Each of the
programs requires students to take at least 9 credits of research methodology courses. The
methodology courses prepare doctoral students primarily to conduct their dissertation
research as well as prepare them for future research in academia. Preparing doctoral

students to conduct research has always been a part of the Research PhD (Buchanan &

245

Harubel, 1995). Anderson (1975) suggested that doctoral programs in science education
should provide for in-depth training of students in one of three specialization areas in
addition to general education namely: research and evaluation, development, and
instructional leadership. In this case the doctoral programs are providing students with in-
depth training in research and instructional leadership, which are necessary for one to
become successful in academia.

The three science education doctoral programs in this study also require students
to take a science education seminar where faculty and doctoral students meet to talk
about their research or work together on research projects. Again these seminars differ in
the content and how they are run at the three places. For example the seminars at City
Ville mostly involve inviting guest speakers to talk about research, whereas the program
at Midwestern and Southern Valley normally involves faculty and doctoral students
working together on research projects. What is common across the three programs is that
the science education seminar is a formal process for mentoring doctoral students in
research and engagement in intellectual discussions of contemporary issues. The
seminars focus on research presentations by faculty, students and invited guests. As
mentioned previously, research is an essential part of the PhD degree and these seminars
also serve the purpose of teaching doctoral students ways of presenting their research and
communicating their ideas. It is critical for doctoral students to be competent in research
because academic success is measured by how much one publishes (Russell &
Korthagen, 1995).

Doctoral students are mentored into research through working as research

assistants on research projects. Besides the research assistantships offered in the Science

246

Education Centers, other research assistantships are available to doctoral students at all
three institutions. The numbers of available assistantships vary. Midwestern always has
at least as many research assistantships as the number of doctoral students whereas the
doctoral program at City Ville and Southern Valley have limited research assistantships
and teaching assistantships. However, all the three doctoral programs offer research
fellowships to doctoral fellows in their Science Education Centers. .

Research assistantships in doctoral study serve dual purposes namely: to mentor
doctoral students into the research community and to provide funding for doctoral
studies. Midwestern University has the most number of research assistantships available
to doctoral students in part due to the diversity of faculty areas of research. Because the
program is located in a Curriculum and Instruction department, the science education
faculty members work on joint projects with faculty in other specialty areas. As a
consequence, doctoral students in science education often have experience working on an
array of different projects that are related to science education. This interaction of science
education students with faculty in other areas also explains the nature of the doctoral
program at Midwestern as shown in Chapter 5. The students are exposed to different
theoretical frameworks and research methodologies that enable them to conduct science
education research from different perspectives. Conversely, City Ville does not offer
many research assistantship opportunities and the students who get research
assistantships work with professors in science education. This also inﬂuences the type of
research that the students conduct.

The requirements highlighted above reﬂect the general nature of doctoral

programs in the United States. What I found to be most interesting in the literature on

247

doctoral studies is the fact that the structure and salient elements of the American PhD
degree have remained unchanged since its inception in 1861 despite criticisms ﬁom all
vintage points (Buchanan & Harubel, 1995). Not one of the elements has been dropped to
shorten or to expedite matters in achieving the PhD, although transformations and
substitutions have been made to these elements (Buchanan & Harubel, 1995). Failure to
change the structure of the PhD can be explained partly by its origins and original
purposes. The US PhD has its roots is a Germany where American scholars went to
undertake doctoral studies in the arts, sciences, and theology. The German PhD degree
was awarded as a capstone to a sustained educational experience from gymnasium
(Germany’s advanced level of secondary schooling) to university. The PhD was seen as
the pursuit of pure knowledge through research. It was also seen as a professional degree
in respective disciplines.
According to Buchanan and Harubel, (1995), the basic morphology of the original
PhD included the following elements:
a) Specialized courses and residency of at least one year, including at least three
years of doctoral enrollment.
b) Language requirement demonstrating reading knowledge of one or two foreign
languages
0) Qualifying or comprehensive examinations
d) Dissertation
e) Oral examination in defense of dissertation and subject specialization
All but the language requirement have remained intact, and are all required by all

three doctoral programs in this study, although there are minor variations. It is hard to tell

248

why the structure of the doctoral programs has not undergone drastic changes since its
inception. Perhaps the reason is that very few studies have focused on the curriculum of
doctoral programs. In the case of the three doctoral programs in this study, it is clear that
the current reforms and pedagogical styles such as inquiry have been added to the
curriculum courses, which goes on to show that the structure of the doctoral programs is
ﬂexible enough to enable faculty to add and drop content without necessarily changing
the structure of the program.

In summary, faculty at all three programs have responded to the reforms by
incorporating them into their courses. However research faculty have the liberty to
choose what they want to work on and in these three doctoral programs, their science
education centers are providing varied and needed opportunities for faculty to mentor
students in areas of research that they view as being important to improve science
teaching and science learning. And since the foci of the three centers differ, the programs
therefore differ correspondingly.

What Makes the Programs Unique: Diﬂerences Across the Three Doctoral Programs

Whereas some science educators have just focused on the goal of achieving
excellence in science teaching and learning as deﬁned by the current reforms, others have
gone further to question who ‘all’ refers to. Table 7.2 below shows several differences
across the programs such as: a) how the programs further interpret the reform goal, b) the
focus of the three science education centers, c) special courses offered and d) mentoring
experiences doctoral students get. In this section I am going to discuss the features that

make each of the three programs unique.

249

Table 7.2: Differences across the three doctoral programs

 

 

Features City Ville Midwestern Southern Valley
Interpretation of -A plea for access -A plea to question -Deeper content
“Science for all” -Identity formation traditional practices understanding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Social justice -Improving science -Teaching authentic
-Curricular justice literacy among science
learners -Understanding
Ieamers
-Incomorating STS
Science Centers Urban Science Curriculum Information
Education Materials in Science Technology
Doctoral Urban science Required courses on Philosophy theory
Coursework education educational thought
and practice
Multi-cultural Research Knowing and
courses practicum/teaching learning in
practicum Mathematics and
Science
Science, Technology in Technology
Technology and science
Society
History of science Philosophy of History of science
science
PCK Course Advanced
elementary science
methods
Assistantships -Limited teaching -Unlimited -Limited teaching
assistantships Teaching assistantships
assistantships
-Teach science labs -Research
-Research assistantships
-Research assistantships in limited to science
assistantships teacher education education
limited to urban and science
science education education
-Field instruction
Program Focus Social Justice Teacher Education Technology

 

 

 

 

250

 

The Case of City Ville Doctoral Program
Interpreting Science Literacy for all as a call to Achieving ‘Social Justice’ in Science
Teaching:

City Ville is paying close attention to improving the education of students who
have not been provided with the quality of science that would make them scientiﬁcally
literate. These are students in poor urban schools and minorities (Atwater, 2005; Barton,
2003; Lee 2003; Malcolm, 2003). I see this as the way that faculty at City Ville ﬁirther
interpret the reform goal of achieving science literacy for all. Their actions show that they
are thinking critically about the meaning of the word all. Evidence from course
documents, interviews with faculty, and doctoral students at City Ville show that they
view the reform goal of science literacy for all as a plea for making science accessible to
all students (Malcolm, 2003). The doctoral program is taking a social justice approach
(Griffiths, 2003) to working towards providing equal access to excellent science
education to urban students.

Therefore, in addition to preparing doctoral students for excellence in science
teaching through coursework and research as described earlier, the doctoral program at
City Ville is also preparing its graduates to become leaders in preparing teachers for
excellence in urban science teaching. The graduates from City Ville will become leaders
in research and preparing teachers for science teaching in urban schools. The interview
with Professor Gordon showed that urban schools need teachers who have a good
understanding of urban youth, what experiences they bring to science learning, and how
best to use resources in the city for science teaching. This observation is in agreement

with the ﬁndings from the Leadership Development Study (Gallagher et. al., 2003) that

251

highlighted the plight of urban schools science teaching and raised questions about
appropriate responses to this issue in science education doctoral programs. J ablon (2002),
in his study of science education also highlighted the need by the science education
community to pay close attention to issues of diversity and urban education. The program
at City Ville therefore attends to the importance of addressing urban science education as
a social justice issue. If urban students continue to be ignored, then the reform goal of
science literacy for all can never be achieved.

According to Connell (1993), social justice matters for everyone connected with
the schools, mainly because schools are social institutions and a public asset, and it is
important to question who gets its beneﬁts. Although the education system is designed to
beneﬁt all students, only some students gain a high level of beneﬁt from the system. In
the case of schools in the City Ville area, lack of funding and high staff turn over results
in urban students getting inferior science education (Interview with Professor Gordon,
2005). Another disadvantage for students in the City Ville area schools is that many
teachers do not understand urban youth; hence they do not know how best to teach them
for understanding. As a result, in many cases they burn out after a few years of teaching
(Interview with Professor Gordon, 2005). Most teachers have not been trained to think
past the deﬁcit models; hence they stereotype urban students from low-income families
as incapable of learning. Barton (2003) warned against stereotyping and highlights the
need to understand urban students’ backgrounds and the knowledge they bring to learning
in order to make science meaningful to them.

The current reform goals of ‘science literacy for all’ are premised on the

assumption that all students are getting a just education. However, in reality many people

252

view education and social justice as separate entities and this is clearly shown by the
separate government departments that oversee these issues (Connell, 1993). This explains
why the reform documents do not take a social justice approach even though they
highlight their goal as embodying “equity and excellence” (NRC, 1998). What makes the
doctoral program at City Ville University unique is the fact that it has interpreted the
reform goals from a social justice perspective, in which case science literacy for all
means providing quality science education to students who have not had access
previously. According to Brickhouse (1994) “science classes have been too strongly
inﬂuenced by the needs of few students who will go on to become professionals, and
qualiﬁed scientists, the needs of the majority are largely ignored”. Thus, the philosophy
of science teaching and learning in the City Ville program is that science literacy for all
can only be achieved if we look at excellence in science education from the perspective
of the disadvantaged students.

Science literacy for all can only be achieved if science content is viewed from
different angles in order to make it meaningful to all students. One other thing that makes
the doctoral program at City Ville unique is that the research being done in the Urban
Science Education Center is focusing on developing a just science curriculum (Connell,
1993). Giving agency to urban youth, listening to, and accepting their ideas, and getting
to know what experiences they bring has been used to develop and enrich curriculum
used in urban classrooms. For example the Urban Ecology curriculum starts from the
grocery store investigating the foods that students eat everyday and then connections to
the environment are made. This curriculum does not compromise the content of ecology

but it puts it in a context that students can identify with. Through this process, the urban

253

youth can identify with science (Brickhouse, 1994). When students identify with science
they feel they are capable of success (Brickhouse, 1994; Barton, 2003).

Although the perspective of social justice is within City Ville, the approach to
research differs among the faculty. Professor Gordon and Professor Macarthur do not
share the same views about the reforms, and they are engaged in different types of
research. Professor Gordon’s views seem to be inﬂuencing the nature of the doctoral
program more than those of Professor Macarthur. There could be several reasons for this
but the most obvious one is that Professor Gordon is the leader of the Science Education
Center, which is funding science education fellows to study full time in urban classrooms
and focusing on teaching science for social justice. City Ville is a private institution, and
most doctoral students are part time; hence the current program has been designed mostly
to suit the needs of the urban science education fellows. All the doctoral students
interviewed in this study were science education fellows but two of the recent graduates
did not work in the science education center. The experiences of the recent graduates who
did not work in the Urban Science Education Center were different from those who did,
showing that the program changed during the last ﬁve years to accommodate the Center
and its research.

Funding played a major role in enabling Professor Gordon to enact her views of
science teaching from a social justice approach. Through the Urban Science Education
Center, Professor Gordon is advocating for curricular justice (Connell, 1993). According
to Connell, curricula justice is based on three principles namely: considering the interests
of the least advantaged, caring for the worst-off ﬁrst, and speciﬁcally serving the interests

of the least favored groups in society. Connell clearly articulated these principles by

254

stating that, “This means that we think through economic issues ﬁ'om the standpoint of
the poor not the rich. We think through gender from the standpoint of women and we
think through race from the standpoint of indigenous and minority groups, we think
through sexuality from the standpoint of gay people” (Connell, 2003).

Despite the challenges facing urban schools, Professor Gordon advocates for
science for all urban youth by helping teachers realize how they can utilize resources in
urban areas as tools for conducting meaningful science inquiry. She sees the need for
deﬁning a knowledge base for what teachers need to know and be able to do to teach
science. Professor Gordon sees herself and her colleagues as having the ability to help
urban teachers empower themselves through resources available in their community.
Professor Gordon therefore sees science literacy as developing at the intersection of what
happens in the school and what happens in the home. Therefore she sees the need to
come up with cuniculum that utilizes local knowledge and resources as a way of
establishing better linkages between the daily experiences of urban youth in their homes
and community and what goes on in places of science, such as informal science learning
places and in the schools.

Professor Gordon’s ideas are consistent with understanding the nature of science
(Lederman, Lederman, & Bell, 2004), in that “Scientiﬁc knowledge is partially a product
of human creative imagination and partially a ﬁrnction of human subjectivity. Scientiﬁc
knowledge is culturally constructed.” Therefore instead of seeing science as a bunch of
facts that students should memorize, teachers should help students to be actively involved

in ﬁguring out and constructing their own knowledge.

255

On the other hand, Professor Macarthur’s views about the reforms are that they
need to be revised, and he feels strongly about the need to develop understanding of
constructivist ideas in science pedagogy. His thinking is in line with several science
educators who have translated the constructivist theories into inquiry-based instructional
models. For example Bybee (1997) came up with the SE inquiry model, and the National
Research Council (1998) deﬁned scientiﬁc inquiry and how it can be done. Recently
science educators have come up with more complex guided inquiry models that take
conceptual change into consideration. The Guided Inquiry and Instructional Model
(Schwarz & Gwekwerere, under review) and the EPE model (Anderson, personal
communication) are two examples.

Figure 7.1 shows the components of the City Ville doctoral program and the
features that make it unique. The diagram is a pictorial depiction of the relationships that
exists between the way faculty are interpreting the reforms and how the reforms are

enacted in the program. I will describe the components of the diagram in the next section.

256

 

 

Interpretation of Current Science
Education Reforms
-Achieving excellence in science teaching
-Improving understanding of science concepts
among Ieamers
-Plea for access
-Identity formation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENACTMENT
Addressing the Reforms
PhD Coursework Urban Science Education Center
Teaching Science for Social justice Providing equal opportunities
Assistantships Research . Outreach .
Coursewor Teaching science -Research in urban -Workrng wrth
k for social justice schools partner schools
-Urban _ Teaching --Developing understanding of -Help teachers
science science labs :crrlipno;ering practices in K-12 understand urban
. . th
education -Spencer ﬁrndrng - Preservice teacher 33:1 teachers
focus for technology (I - & PD p
- e ucatron rocure resources
research in equity issues surrounding p
science and science education -Help teaChers use
Mathematics -Technology use in urban available
education 50110015 resources
-Help students
identify with
science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7.1: Response to current reforms by City Ville doctoral program

257

The doctoral program at City Ville is interpreting the current reforms at two
levels. The ﬁrst level is shared by all doctoral programs in this study and at this level
science for all is interpreted as a call for achieving excellence in science teaching, and
teaching science for understanding (White & Gunstone, 1992). They go on further to
interpret the reforms as a ‘plea for accesses’ (Malcolm, 2003) and as ‘identity formation’
(Brickhouse, 1994). The diagram shows that the program is enacting these reforms
through the doctoral coursework, assistantships and research and outreach work in the
Urban Science Education Center. The doctoral coursework has an urban science
education focus. The courses help students understand the urban education system and
how to take action to improve urban science teaching. Although reforms do not drive the
curriculum they are speciﬁcally addressed in the curriculum courses. The courses address
issues of equity, the reforms and what is happening in urban schools. Barton (2003)
showed the need to understand urban youth and to realize what science means to them.
Students will therefore understand science if it is relevant and if they can apply it to their
lives.

The doctoral program at City Ville has two major externally funded grant
projects: the Spencer research grant which funds research on technology use in urban
schools, and the Urban Science Education Center grants that fund research in urban
schools. These grants provide research assistantships and doctoral students are mentored
to conduct research in urban schools. However, there are limited numbers of research
assistantships at City Ville and most doctoral students continue teaching in schools
throughout their programs. The Spencer fellows and the Urban Science Education fellows

work on the research projects and mostly are full time students. Research in the Urban

258

Science Education Center therefore serves a dual purpose, that of preparing doctoral
students for future careers in research and as professional development for teachers in the
urban schools. The doctoral students at City Ville therefore beneﬁt from the new
directions of the Urban Science Education Center and from their more traditional courses
that are part of the university.

Overall analysis of the doctoral program at City Ville shows that it is developing
critical thinkers by giving the doctoral students the opportunity to see the connection
between their personal lives and the larger outside world within which they and others
live (Kincheloe and Weil, 2004). By engaging doctoral students in asking such questions
as: ‘what experiences, knowledge, and skills do kids bring with them to school,’ and
‘what is the nature of the thought and intelligence that urban students bring with them to
school to challenge and nurture,’ the program provides a basic starting point for complex
critical thinking which expands the boundaries of the ﬁeld. Instead of just thinking about
how to improve science pedagogy in the classrooms, they are thinking beyond the
classroom, beyond the school, and focusing on what the student brings, what the students
can contribute to the learning, and what teachers can do to nurture this intelligence. By
taking a complex critical approach to interpreting the reform goals, the City Ville
doctoral program is preparing leaders who will be able to address the challenge of

providing equitable science education to urban and minority students in the United States.

259

The Case of Midwestern Doctoral Program
Interpreting Science Literacy for all as a Call to Achieving ‘Equity in Science Teaching

In addition to preparing doctoral students for excellence in science teaching
through coursework and research, the doctoral program at Midwestern is preparing its
graduates to become leaders in preparing teachers to become critical thinkers who
question their practice, and the cuniculum materials that support teaching. They are also
being prepared to become leaders in curriculum development research and supporters of
teachers’ practices. According to an interview with Professor Atkinson, it was clear that
the program at Midwestern sees the need for the science education community to
question what science literacy for all means, who are ‘all students’ and what are the
constraints to achieving the goal of science literacy for all (Gee, 1991). The research
agenda of the doctoral program at Midwestern is to come up with solutions for achieving
excellence in teaching diverse learners (Gilbert, & Yerrick, 2001) including all racial and
linguistic minorities as well as students with learning disabilities.

Evidence from course document analysis and interviews with faculty and doctoral
students show that the doctoral program at Midwestern ﬁrrther interprets the reform goal
of science literacy for all as a plea for science educators to become more critical in terms
of who are our students, what are the needs of the students, how do we meet their needs’
and what are the solutions to achieving science literacy for all? The doctoral program at
Midwestern is tackling a similar complex issue to the one that the program at City Ville is
attending to. Their doctoral students showed that they take a complex approach to
thinking (Kincheloe & Wei, 2004) about issues of equity. In the interviews, the doctoral

students showed that their concern about science literacy goes beyond improving student

260

understanding or test scores, but they take a global view of the education context as
described by Wei (2004):
Complex critical thinkers develop the ability to ask questions that expand the
boundaries of the ﬁeld. In a globalized, postcolonial world, we must move beyond
monocultural standards of reason and become detectives of intelligence, ﬁnding
cognitive forms that can make complex critical thinking more elastic (p. 9)
Inequity was highlighted by interviewees from Midwestern as a hindrance to
achieving science for all. Issues of inequity have persisted in the education system for a
very long time. Kozol (1992) lamented the plight of poor urban schools that was caused
by the way schools are funded. Since then, many others have shown that inequity has
resulted in the creation of an achieving gap between well-funded urban schools and
poorly funded suburban schools (Kozol, 1992, 2006; Oakes and Rogers, 2005).
Questioning the status quo and thinking critically about what science for all
means seems to shape the nature of the courses and research that doctoral students at
‘Midwestern are engaged in. Evidence from interviews with both faculty and doctoral
students at Midwestern show that courses such as ‘Investigating Scientiﬁc Literacy,’ and
‘Learning to Teach,’ and the questions raised in these courses, shape the way that the
professors, doctoral students, and recent graduates prepare teachers in their science
methods courses. In an interview with one doctoral student, Jennifer talked about the
importance of teachers questioning their practices and becoming critical and reﬂective
thinkers. Professor Atkinson’s course on science literacy and his research agenda show
that he is engaged in asking critical questions about how ‘science for all’ can be achieved
and how the constraints to achieving ‘science literacy for all’ can be overcome.

There are similarities between the way City Ville encourages urban teachers to be

more critical when thinking about urban kids and the way the doctoral students at

261

Midwestern think about issues of equity. However, one big difference between the two
programs is that, whereas City Ville is taking a social justice approach to address issues
of inequity in urban school, the Midwestern doctoral program does not focus on any one
minority group of students, but they talked about equity as it applies to all minority
groups. As a result of questioning their practices, searching to understand the constraints
for achieving ‘science literacy for all’, and acknowledging the challenge of addressing
issues equity, the program at Midwestern has only begun to attain a solution for preparing
science teachers for urban schools. They hired a new faculty member who specializes in
teaching science for social justice. It is clear that Midwestern is working towards
achieving the goal of ‘science literacy for all’ the way they interpret it---as a plea to
achieve equity in science teaching.

The steps taken by the staff of the science education program at Midwestern to
employ a professor who is knowledgeable about issues of equity and teaching science for
social justice are aimed at producing teachers who are critical thinkers who can address
the national goals of achieving ‘science literacy for all’. This shows a belief among
faculty at Midwestern that practitioners are capable of developing sophisticated cognitive
abilities and that they can pass such rigorous modes of thinking along to their students.
The need to develop teachers who think critically (Segall, 2002) is necessary when one
considers the diverse nature of students in the schools. The education system has been
failed by the assumption that ‘one size ﬁts all’ (Brickhouse, 2003). Teachers need to
know their learners and understand their diverse needs in order to achieve the reform goal
of ‘science literacy for all’. The current reforms have become a part of the teacher

education focus of the doctoral program at Midwestern, but they have been adapted with

262

a degree of questioning and skepticism, as they seek better ways to view curricular and
instructional challenges.

Figure 7.2 shows the components of the doctoral program at Midwestern and the
features that make it unique. The diagram is a pictorial depiction of the relationships that
exists between the way faculty are interpreting the reforms and how the reforms are
enacted in the program. I will provide a description of the program components in the

next section.

263

 

 

Interpretation of Current Science

Education Reforms
-Achieving excellence in science teaching

-Improving understanding of science concepts among

learners
-Questioning the status quo
-Finding solutions to issues of equity

 

 

 

ENACTMENT
Addressing the Reforms

 

 

 

 

Teacher Education: Critical Approach

 

 

Coursework
--Teacher
education
-Science
education
seminar

- science
education
courses
-Curriculum
course
-Science
literacy

 

Assistantship

s Research
- Teaching -Teacher
assistants education
-Field research
instructors -Science
-Research literacy
assistants on course
TE projects

Research

assistant in

Center for

Teaching and

learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Center for
Teaching

 

 

Research
-Center for
Curriculum
Materials in
science
-Research on
curriculum
development
-Research in
schools
-Research in
pre-pre-service
teacher
education

Learning and

 

 

Outreach

- Prof.
development
in Urban
schools
-Curriculum
dev
-Produce
leaders
-Pre-service
teacher
education

 

 

 

 

264

Figure7.2: Response to current reforms by Midwestern Doctoral Program

 

 

Similar to the program at City Ville, the program at Midwestern is interpreting the
goals at two different levels. First, the reforms are interpreted as a call to achieve
excellence in science teaching and improving understanding of science concepts among
Ieamers. Second, the doctoral program at Midwestern is preparing its doctoral students to
take a critical look at what it means to achieve scientiﬁc literacy for all students,
questioning the status quo, which is critically looking at the way science has always been
taught and the assumptions that have been made about teaching all students. These
reform interpretations are enacted in the doctoral programs through coursework, research
and teaching assistantships in the regular teacher education program, and through
research, outreach projects, and professional development in the Center for Learning and
Teaching. The program therefore prepares doctoral students to become leaders who will
champion reform goals by mentoring them to take a critical look at issues that are
important to achieving science literacy for all.

One thing that makes the doctoral program at Midwestern unique among the three
programs is that it provides extensive opportunities for doctoral students to teach science
methods courses and for intensive collaborative with faculty on research projects.
Doctoral students work closely with faculty and they apply the knowledge they learn
from their courses and research experience. The doctoral students also have the
opportunity to engage in a variety of research projects in teacher education, most of
which focus on supporting teachers to teach inquiry-based science. The program
promotes reforms in the schools through teacher development and a variety of teacher

support activities.

265

The Case of Southern Valley Doctoral Program
Interpreting “Science Literacy for all” is a Call to Teaching Science for Understanding
Through Authentic Science Experiences:

In addition to preparing doctoral students for excellence in science teaching
through coursework and research, the doctoral program at Southern Valley is preparing
its graduates to become leaders in preparing teachers to teach authentic science and to
improve understanding of science through model-based reasoning and using technology
to teach science. The graduates from Southern valley will become leaders in research on
using computers to support authentic science teaching, model-based reasoning and
understanding how people learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

From an interview with Professor Evans and Professor King, it became clear that
the science education doctoral program at Southern Valley is taking a complex approach
to achieving science literacy for all by not just focusing on traditional science teaching
methods, but by focusing on innovations that will enhancing the mental envisioning and a
deeper understanding of science content (Lehrer, R. & Schauble, 2000; Edelson, Gordin,
& Pea, 1998; Woolnough, 2000). Over the past century, researchers have tried to reduce
complexity of instructional processes by breaking them down into simpler pieces
(Clarebout & Elen, (2006). This has resulted in simplistic solutions for complex
instructional processes. By taking a complex approach to science teaching through model
based reasoning and use of technology in teaching science, and using the how people
learn framework in their coursework, the doctoral program at Southern Valley show that
they fully acknowledge the complexity of learning and instruction (Clarebout & Elen,

(2006). This reveals critical thinking on the part of the educators who see the need for
266

integrating technology with knowledge of how people learn, inquiry teaching, and
authentic science to make science meaningful and relevant to the students.

According to Edelson, Gordin, and Pea (1998) current theories hold that authentic
learning activities are the key to developing understanding that will serve Ieamers beyond
the classroom. The faculty members appear to have adapted these practices of science to
classrooms to provide the beneﬁts of authenticity for science learning. Engaging students
in authentic science experiences ensure equity in the classroom because it enables all
students to engage in doing science regardless of their ability (W oolnough, 2000).
Engaging students in doing open-ended research projects has been found to be effective
in developing core skills in students, especially problem solving, communication and
interpersonal skills that improve students’ attitudes towards science (W oolnough, 2000).
Roth (1995) also showed that engaging students in doing science is exciting as students
get to see patterns in the data they collect ﬁom their own experiments. Going beyond the
textbook and doing authentic science in the way practiced by scientists motivates all
students to learn and understand science. Science instruction focused around scientiﬁc
modeling helps Ieamers develop deep understanding of subject matter, powerful
scientiﬁc skills, and a strong understanding of the nature of science (Author, 2005; Carey
& Smith, 1993; Feurzeig & Roberts, 1999; Lehrer & Schauble, 2000; NRC, 2000.

By bridging the gap between scientists, educators and students, the program at
Midwestern is taking a critical approach to address issues that have not been addressed in
traditional science teaching. Traditionally, the Colleges of Natural Sciences and Schools
of Education have not worked in collaboration to prepare teachers with a good

understanding of science. In fact literature shows that educators have always been viewed

267

as being inferior to scientists (Lanier & Little, 1986) mainly because of the seemingly
lack of rigor in education courses when compared to science courses. Education research
has also been seen as less rigorous. Failure to work together between scientists and
educators has led to problems of producing teachers who do not have strong content
knowledge (Gallagher et. al., 2003). The program at Southern Valley is therefore
addressing this problem as it strives to nurture the reform goals of achieving ‘science
literacy for all’.

The focus on authentic science teaching that is promoted by the doctoral program
at Southern Valley engages students in thinking about science content in complex ways
while also thinking about how to engage all students in doing science. The goal is to
prepare doctoral students so that they equipped with the same kind of knowledge that
scientists so that they will be able to teach authentic science in schools as well as prepare
teachers to teach science in the same way. Teachers learn to conduct research in the lab
together with science faculty and they learn to use technology to model scientiﬁc
concepts. This interaction is beneﬁcial to both graduate students and teachers and it
provides a source of research questions and opportunities to conduct research that is
meaningful in the context of the reform agenda as it is interpreted at Southern Valley.

Unlike the other two doctoral programs that are interpreting the reform goal of
science literacy for all as a call to reach out to populations that have not been equally
served in the community such as urban students, racial, linguistic minorities and students
with learning disabilities, the program at Southern Valley is interpreting the reform goals
as a call to address equity in the classroom by promoting authentic science experiences

that engage all students in doing science. They are developing a deeper understanding of

268

science among science teachers through engaging in model-based reasoning, authentic
science practice in the lab (Woolnough, 2000; Roth, 1995). The understanding how
people learn model used in their doctoral program is an essential element for
constructivist teaching such as inquiry. Through the Center for Learning and Teaching,
the doctoral students work closely with teachers, science doctoral students, and science
faculty, hence they are mentored both in pedagogy and authentic science experiences.
The doctoral students are mentored to become leaders in professional development
through collaborate with and support teachers as they work with scientists to learn
authentic science that they will take to their classrooms.

Figure 7.3 below shows that the doctoral program at Southern Valley interprets
the goals of the current reforms as referring to achieving ‘excellence in science teaching’
through doing authentic science, using technology in science teaching, model-based
reasoning and understanding how people learn as a way of developing a deeper content
understanding among Ieamers. The graduates are prepared to use technology in science
teaching and understand how people learn through normal coursework, research, and
interdisciplinary work in the Center for Learning and Teaching, and outreach work on
teacher professional development. There is also research work that is speciﬁc to the
Center. Unfortunately doctoral students who are not fellows in the center have little

opportunity to work on this kind of research.

269

 

Interpretation of Current Science
Education Reforms

-Achieving excellence in science teaching
-Improving understanding of science concepts among
learners using model-based reasoning

-Deeper content understanding with technology
-Teaching authentic science

 

 

 

 

EN ACTMENT
Addressing the reforms

 

 

 

 

Doctoral Coursework
Improving science literacy through

Center for Learning and Teaching
Doing authentic science through

 

information technology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coursework / Interdiscipli Research

-Model-based nary Collaborative

reasoning Research Certificate research on 0“"th

-Use of -Using in Impact of Professrona

technology technology in Information information 1

-Understanding science Technology technology developme

how people teaching -Improving on learning nt 0f

learn -Classroom the supply of involving teachers

- Authentic practices science and scientists, centered

science mathematics mathematicia around

CXperiences education ns, education :Impact 9f

specialists researchers information

& technology
practitioners on teaching

 

 

 

 

Figure 7.3: Response to current reforms by Southern Valley doctoral program

270

 

 

Science education doctoral students work together with science doctoral students,
science faculty, and science education faculty to experience authentic science themselves
and to enable more effective authentic experiences for teachers and learners with whom
they work. The Center therefore brings together authentic science, technology, and
inquiry-based teaching. The Center also recruits science teachers over the summer to gain
the authentic science experience through working side by side with bench scientists so
that they can bring the science experiences ﬁ'om the laboratory to the classroom.

Some cross-cutting themes across the doctoral programs
From the discussion of the three doctoral programs, I identiﬁed the following six
crosscutting issues:
a) Current reforms occupy a signiﬁcant part of the PhD curricula in these three
institutions.
b) Programs exhibit different ways of interpreting the reform goals as seen in the
overall focus of coursework and research.
c) Faculty views have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the nature and content of the courses.
d) External funding has a strong inﬂuence on the capability and willingness of faculty
to respond to innovations.

Each one of these points in discussed below.

Current reforms occupy a significant part of the PhD curricula in these three institutions.

Findings from this study show that all three doctoral programs are incorporating
the current reforms in the framework of their courses and research. Faculty from the three
doctoral programs and their students generally agreed that their programs were

incorporating the current reforms in the framework of their courses. Faculty members

271

from Southern Valley showed great enthusiasm for the reforms and talked about how the
standards are embedded in all their courses. On the other hand, faculty members ﬁom
Midwestern wanted their students not only to understand the reforms but also to take a
critical look at the reforms. Faculty members from City Ville and Midwestern said that
the reforms do not shape their programs and that they wanted doctoral students to look at
the reforms critically. One-faculty member from City Ville mentioned that she takes a
critical look at the standards and emphasized both pros and cons in her courses, but her
colleague strongly felt that there is need to revise the reforms. Similarly, Professor
Atkinson from Midwestern feels that the reforms should be revised, and some of the
recent graduates concur. The faculty members who mentioned that the reforms need to be
re-written had different reasons for that. The faculty member from City Ville strongly felt
that there is need for science educators to come up with a new cuniculum that is based on
our understanding of students’ cognitive abilities.

Generally when the interviewees were talking about the reforms they emphasized
the National Science Education Standards (N SES) and only a couple of people talked
about Project 2061 and the Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy (AAAS, 1993). However,
the courses offered by the doctoral programs focus on both the NSES (NRC, 1996) and
Benchmarks (AAAS, 1993). All three doctoral programs offer courses in cuniculum and
instruction. A common feature across these curriculum courses is that they trace the
history of the science curricular reforms from the 19608 to the 19808. The current reforms
have become a major part of the doctoral cuniculum for this particular reason.

The commitment shown by doctoral programs to attend to cunicular issues shows

their commitment to addressing national issues. Taylor and Tye (1975) describe the

272

cuniculum as involving intentions and transactions. There are transactions between
citizens and the schools, between the schools districts and the government, and between
teachers and their students. In these cases the doctoral programs are preparing doctoral
students to address the curriculum issues in K-12 science in three different ways. For
example the doctoral program at Midwestern is preparing doctoral students to be critical
of the reforms as well as cuniculum materials. One of the courses analyzed focused on
reforms and analysis of curriculum materials. Through coursework and research done in
the Center for Learning and Teaching, the program at Midwestern is serving the science
cunicula needs of K-12 science teaching and learning, where the textbooks have been
found to be of low quality (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002).

According to Goodland planning curriculum is philosophical, political, and
sociological/anthropological as well as psychological (Goodland, 1975). Curriculum
development includes sensitive matters of policy and making of negotiations. In the
curriculum values are articulated, goals are formulated and intentions ﬁnd their way into
the institutions. Some faculty and their students agreed with Goodland about the political
nature of the reforms. Although faculty from Midwestern feel that the reforms need
modiﬁcation, they acknowledged that it will not be easy to change the standards because
it is a political process that involves academics, politicians, business people and ordinary
citizens.

Programs exhibit different ways of interpreting the reform goals as seen in the overall
focus of coursework and research.

Analysis of the three programs’ coursework, type of research doctoral students

and faculty do and the views of faculty, doctoral students and recent graduates show that,

273

the three doctoral programs are interpreting the reforms as a call to ‘achieve excellence’
in science teaching and ‘improving understanding of science concepts’ among learners.
This interpretation is in accordance with the National Science Education Standards
(NRC, 1996) and the Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) that
highlighted what a scientiﬁcally literate person should know and be able to do. Teaching
for understanding and bringing authentic science experiences to the classroom (Roth,
1995) through inquiry have been highlighted in the reforms. There is no doubt that the
three doctoral programs are preparing their graduates to become leaders in preparing
teachers for reform-based teaching. However, the focus and emphasis of the coursework
and research also show that the doctoral programs further interpret the reform goals
differently.

Through work done in the Urban Science Education Center, there is evidence that
the program at City Ville interprets the reforms as a call to ‘provide access to all’ students
(Malcolm, 2003) and as a call to ‘teaching science for social justice’ (Barton, 2003).
Urban science education is complex because it involves social, cultural and economic
issues as well as political issues that inﬂuence student learning. Several people have
argued that the reforms alone will not address the challenges of achieving excellence in
science learning and that there is need for equity in the way schools are funded and also
to address socio-economic issues that inﬂuence student learning (Anderson 2003; Biddle
1997; Rothstein, 2004). In arguing to make science accessible to all students, Malcolm
(2003) highlighted the fact that making science accessible to some students is not

equivalent to making science accessible to all students.

274

Thus the doctoral program at City Ville is making efforts to ﬁnd ways to tackle a
complex issue of making science accessible to urban students by preparing students for
urban science teaching and by making science relevant to urban students. The City Ville
doctoral focus is in agreement with Lynch, (2001) who warned against the idea that one
way of achieving science literacy ﬁts all students. The program at City Ville focuses on
making science accessible to students in urban schools who historically have not received
similar quality of science education mainly due to lack of funding, lack of resources, and
other socio-cultural issues. Grifﬁths (2003) and Connell (2003) have argued for the need
to view education as a social justice issue. In keeping with these ideas, the program at
City Ville emphasizes teaching science for social justice as a way of bringing equitable
science to urban schools.

From analysis of the doctoral courses and research done at Midwestern, there is
evidence that the program further interprets the reforms as a call to examine prevailing
practices in science teaching and learning and assumptions about who our students are
and how scientiﬁc literacy can be achieved for diverse Ieamers. For example the course
on ‘investigating science literacy’ explicitly engaged students in raising questions about
issues of identity, diversity, language and race, nature of science and current practices of
science teaching (Ogbu, 1992; Gilbert, & Yerrick, 2001). A similar critical approach is
also found in other Teacher Education courses at Midwestern and this enables students to
be critical about issues of power and the construction of scientiﬁc knowledge (Latour &
Woolgar, 1986), and what literacy means for students who are not from the culture of

power (Lemke, 1990; Gee, 1991; Halladay & Martin, 1994).

275

In addition to taking this approach in the courses, interviews with faculty from
Midwestern showed that they encourage doctoral students to take a critical look at the
reforms, and to think about modifying the reforms. This is in keeping with Kincheloe &
Wei] (2004) who advocate for a critical thinking approach to teaching. By thinking of
science knowledge and literacy in the context of language, race and diversity, the
doctoral program is taking a complex approach to achieving science literacy for all.
Further aligned with Kincheloe and Wei] (2004), Midwestern faculty argue for the need
to teach critical thinking among students in order to produce graduates who can change
the current practices that have led to unequal education.

Analysis of courses and interviews show evidence that the program at Southern
Valley interprets the reform goals of science literacy as a call to achieve literacy for all
through improving pedagogy by equipping doctoral students with a wide range of
knowledge and skills in such areas as technology (Bransford, Brophy, & Williams,
2000), understanding learners (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), assessment
(Larkin, McDermott, & Simon, 1980) and community (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989). This way of interpreting the reforms by the doctoral program shows their
realization of the complex nature of instruction and learning (Clarebout & Elen, 2006).
Preparing students to become scientiﬁcally literate as deﬁned by the Benchmarks
(AAAS, 1993) and the National Standards (NRC, 1998) calls for more complex and multi
faceted ways of thinking about science. AAAS (1993) for example deﬁnes a scientiﬁcally
literate person as one who:

0 Is familiar with the natural world

0 Understands some key concepts and principles of science

276

0 Has capacity for scientiﬁc ways of thinking
- Knows that science, math and tech. are human enterprises with strengths &
weaknesses

- Is able to use scientiﬁc knowledge for personal and social purposes
Developing these scientiﬁc qualities within a student requires complex ways of
instruction such as the ones practiced by the doctoral program at Southern Valley. The
program is making efforts to reach out to every student in the classroom not just those
who are going to be scientists.

If the analysis of these different interpretations can be discussed in terms of
buzzwords, then the three programs interpret the reforms in ways such as “teaching
science for social justice,” (Barton, 2003) “teaching science for equity” (Malcolm, 2003)
and “teaching science for authentic experiences” (Roth, 1995). Similar buzzwords have
dominated the science education literature for more than a decade now. In this case
buzzwords are used as a way of focusing the intentions and interpretation of reforms
within the three programs, and it also highlights the differences across the three
programs. Science educators at the three institutions therefore share similar interpretation
of the meaning of the reform goals by all other science educators as a call to ‘achieving
excellence in science teaching’ and improving understanding of science concepts.

Although all three programs offer courses in technology, the focus of these
courses is different. The technology courses at Southern Valley for example, focus on
information technology and model-based reasoning. This is different from the focus of
the technology courses offered at the other two institutions. The different foci of the

technology courses reﬂect the different and unique nature of the three programs and this

277

is also related to the way the different programs further interpret the reform goals of
teaching ‘science for all’. The doctoral program at Southern Valley for example puts
more emphasis on deeper understanding of science concepts through model-based
reasoning and authentic science teaching. The technology courses focus on how to use
technology to create models in science, similar to the way scientists use technology in the
process of knowledge creation. At Midwestern the technology course reﬂects an
emphasis of the program on teacher education by focusing on technology tools that can
support teachers to teach science. At City Ville, the technology course is called Science,
Technology and Culture, which reﬂects the program’s focus on urban science education.

Courses such as urban science education and multicultural education are unique to
the City Ville doctoral program. These two courses deﬁne the unique nature of the
doctoral program at City Ville, which is strongly inﬂuenced by a social justice approach.
Due to its location in a large urban area, the program caters to the needs of its
populations, which are different from the populations served by Midwestern and
Southern Valley. This dedication to serving the poor urban schools reﬂects how City
Ville further interprets the reform goal of ‘science literacy for all’ to mean enabling all
students to have access to science regardless of their backgrounds. Focus is on how
racially, ethnic, and linguistic minority students as well as poor students can identify with
science. The urban science education courses take a social justice approach where focus
is on urban students, what science means to them, and what is important for them to learn
in science.

At Midwestern doctoral students are required to take courses on educational

thought and practice and these comprise the substantial part of the student’s program of

278

study. Similar courses may be required at the other two institutions but they are a much
less substantial part of the student’s program of study. Whereas History of Science is a
required course at the other two institutions, Midwestern does not offer a similar course,
but instead students can take a philosophy of science course or an epistemologically
based course as an elective. These courses on educational thought and practice give
doctoral students a critical and holistic understanding of the education system.
Questioning the status quo and assumptions in education is shown through the faculty
and doctoral students’ concerns about issues of equity and teaching science for
understanding.

The programs at City Ville and Southern Valley offer courses in pedagogy and
advanced elementary methods respectively. These courses prepare doctoral students for
teaching science methods courses. However the program at Midwestern does not offer
any course in pedagogy mainly because it has a teacher education focus, and most of the
required doctoral courses focus on educational thought and practice. These courses
engage students in reﬂecting on teachers’ practices and understanding the profession of
teaching within the context of science education. The program at Midwestern also
provides doctoral students the opportunity to teach science methods courses for
elementary and secondary teachers under the supervision of regular, science education
faculty members. Doctoral students get experience to teach methods courses this way.
The doctoral students at Midwestern also get formal mentoring through taking a required
practicum course as they teach, and they also work closely with faculty who observe their

teaching and give them feedback. Since the other two doctoral programs have limited

279

funding for teaching assistants, not many doctoral students get to practice teaching in a
similar way which explains why they have to take a pedagogy course.
Faculty views have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the nature and content of the courses.

Comparison of faculty, doctoral candidates, and recent graduates’ views about
issues in science education showed that there is a relationship between faculty’s views
and the focus of the doctoral program. In other words, the issues that were emphasized by
faculty to be important in science education are reﬂected in the focus and emphasis of the
doctoral program. The following graphs that were generated in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 show
the issues that were emphasized by faculty, doctoral students, and recent graduates as
being important in the ﬁeld of science education. The graphs were generated from
interview data in response to the question: “What do you consider to have been the most
important issues in the ﬁeld of science education in the last ﬁve years?” The follow up
question asked interviewees to elaborate on the issues they had highlighted. I analyzed
the data using the framework for assessing the inﬂuence of the national standards on
students learning described in Chapter 3. The three graphs provide a comparison of the
three doctoral programs in terms of what the faculty, doctoral students and recent
graduates consider as most important. In this section I will provide a discussion of the
issues highlighted at each program and show how the views highlighted in the interviews
are related to the nature of the doctoral pro gram.

The interviewees from City Ville and Midwestern emphasized the importance of
contextual factors in the ﬁeld of science education. These contextual factors included
issues such as equity, availability of resources, teacher salaries, and school funding. The

interviewees believed that contextual issues are critical to achieving the national goal of

280

science literacy for all. These views are reﬂected in the doctoral coursework at City Ville
that focuses on Urban Science Education and their framework of ‘teaching science for
social justice’. Ideally, faculty and recent graduates from Southern Valley did not

emphasize contextual factors in their conversations.

281

City Ville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7
6
g 5
4
3
1 I I Faculty n=2
0 on no on g I Recent Gads n=3
re 5 .F Q _
g o g a g g 3 D Doctoral Candts n=3
5 3; I— E I— ; g g D Total n=8
Channels ofinﬂuence
Midwestern
7 .
g 7” I Faculty n= 2
4 I Doctoral candt n=3
u g D Recent grads = 3
g 1 :3 Total n=8
0
as"
(5’
”53
«9‘ «fr
Channels ofinﬂience
Southern Valley
I Faculty n=2

I Recent grads n=3
0 Doctoral can.n=3
D Total n=8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Respondents
o—nwamoq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

channels ofinﬂuence

 

Figure 7. 4: Comparison of faculty views about the most important issues in science
education across the programs

282

Although Midwestern does not have the same urban education focus as City Ville,
their concern for contextual issues is reﬂected in the critical nature of the courses and the
critical lens through which they analyze science education reforms. Faculty from
Midwestern therefore shares similar views with faculty from City Ville about issues of
equity and thinking about how to make science accessible to all students especially
minorities and other students in poor urban schools. Whereas the faculty members at City
Ville are taking action to address issues of equity through a social justice approach, the
faculty members at Midwestern did not know how to address these issues.

The above graphs also show that faculty from Midwestern and Southern Valley
emphasized issues related to teaching and students learning as important in the ﬁeld of
science education. Again these views are reﬂected in the focus and nature of courses
offered at Midwestern and Southern Valley. This reﬂects the program focus at
Midwestern, which is teacher education. During the interviews, faculty emphasized
issues such as working with teachers in schools to improve science literacy among
Ieamers, teaching for understanding, teacher development, and introducing inquiry in
schools. Both faculty at Midwestern and doctoral students viewed these issues as
challenges confronting the ﬁeld.

The program at Southern Valley focuses on improving pedagogy through use of
technology, model-based reasoning and using authentic science. During interview
conversations, the faculty and students emphasized improving achievement through
doing authentic science, and understanding how people learn. The conversation with

faculty conﬁrmed their passion for model-based reasoning and using technology to

283

improve teaching and learning of science. Doing authentic science is deﬁned as “doing
science the way scientists do it in the laboratory” (Roth, 1995).

Curriculum and assessment are two areas that were not emphasized that much by
all interviewees. Faculty members ﬁom Midwestern are the only ones who emphasized
the importance of issues of the curriculum in the ﬁeld. This is reﬂective of the Learning
and Teaching Center at Midwestern whose focus is on cuniculum materials. The faculty
and students from Midwestern did not mention any issues related to assessment in the
interview whereas faculty and students from Southern Valley did not mention cuniculum.

Faculty from City Ville did not mention cuniculum and assessment although
doctoral candidates and recent graduates did mention these issues. Generally speaking,
the interviewees who talked about issues of assessment referred to high stakes testing and
the NCLB policy. Doctoral students and recent graduates only, mentioned these issues
but faculty in all cases did not mention them. This could reﬂect some resistance by
faculty to deal with external policies that are posing a challenge to their practice. On the
other hand, doctoral students see assessment as a real challenge conﬁ'onting the reform
goal of science literacy for all. This is mainly because the high stakes tests do not probe
deeper understanding of science but mostly focus on multiple choice recall questions
which are contrary to reform-based teaching.

Although faculty views play an important role in determining the content and
emphasis of a course, there was is clear pattern in the relationship between the views of
faculty and those of doctoral students and recent graduates. Whereas doctoral students at
all three institutions generally agreed with their faculty’s views and how reforms are

incorporated in the coursework, some students disagreed with faculty and did not think

284

the reforms were covered adequately. Other students’ views were totally different from
those of faculty. There were also different views among students and recent graduates.
For example, all doctoral students at City Ville feel that they are getting adequate
mentorship in research and teaching; for two of the recent graduates this was not their
experience. One of the recent graduates Cathy felt that she did not get enough mentoring
from her program, and she had to learn on the job. Such differences could partly be
explained by changes in the program since Cathy graduated. Even Cathy mentioned that
Professor Gordon joined the faculty just before she graduated and she would have wanted
to work more with her on research projects.

This again conﬁrms the fact that faculty’s views and perspectives do have an
inﬂuence on the nature and structure of a doctoral program. Faculty themselves are aware
of the fact that they have different views about important issues in the ﬁeld and what they
should focus on in their courses and research. Professor Atkinson was excited about the
fact that their program was going to hire a professor who focuses on issues of equity.
Since there are many issues to be addressed in the ﬁeld of science education, there is
need for diversity in views and perspectives among faculty in order to address all these
issues.

Faculty, doctoral students, and recent graduates shared similar concerns about
leadership in the ﬁeld and who should bring about change. It was clear that there is a
need for combined efforts among politicians, business people, and science educators to
address issues in the ﬁeld of science education. Interviewees from City Ville and
Midwestern emphasized the need for funding, materials and human resources, and

increasing teacher salaries for all schools as steps towards achieving science literacy for

285

all. On the other hand, interviewees from Southern Valley talked about the need to
prepare teachers to be leaders, to educate education administrators and business leaders
about ways to address issues in science education.

Generally the interviewees were satisﬁed with their programs, but they had
suggestions for a few things that they felt needed to change in order to ensure that
doctorates were well prepared. The interviewees from City Ville felt that their PhD
curriculum needed to change in order to address current reforms more explicitly.
Additionally, one recent graduate from Midwestern mentioned the need for more writing
and publishing experiences in the doctoral program, and one doctoral student ﬁom the
same program mentioned the need for more speciﬁc science education courses. Similarly,
doctoral students at Southern Valley mentioned the need for more courses on classroom
teaching, research, and multiple perspectives in education. One faculty member from
Southern Valley wanted more teaching assistantships.

External funding has a strong inﬂuence on the capability and willingness of faculty to
respond to innovations

The three programs offer research opportunities that equip doctoral students with
knowledge and skills that will enable them to prepare teachers for reform-based teaching.
Midwestern also adds the options that enable some of the graduates to work in curriculum
and assessment. The three programs have externally funded Centers for Learning and
Teaching or similar units that provide research funding and research mentoring
opportunities to doctoral students. The Centers for Learning and Teaching provide
funding for doctoral fellows to study and conduct research on a full time basis. Although

these centers have different foci and goals, what is common among them is that they

286

provide opportunities for some of the doctoral students to conduct research on teaching,

learning, curriculum and assessment, and to work closely with teachers in the schools or
on professional development projects on campus. The centers also have a common goal

of producing leaders who are knowledgeable about research in their area of study.

By providing funding for doctoral studies through these Centers, these doctoral
programs are able to partially support the personnel needs in the ﬁeld. Findings from the
Leadership Development Study (2003) showed that there is a need to produce more
professional personnel and leaders in science education to replace faculty who are
nearing retirement. Many senior science education faculty who are in leadership positions
got their doctoral degrees between 1960 and 1970 when there was an increase in funding
for science education doctoral programs. This resulted in high enrollments and
production of graduates (Yager &Zehr, 1981). These numbers declined between 1970
and 1980 due to a major decline in externally funded projects and internal funding for
graduate students. This trend continued well into the 19908, with the result that science
education programs have not managed to meet the personnel demands in the ﬁeld.
Findings from the Leadership Development Study (Gallagher et. al., 2003) showed that
people who either have a partial or poor match for what the job requires are ﬁlling a
sizeable number of science education positions. The study found some poor matches
where positions that required a PhD in science education hired individuals with limited
qualiﬁcations in science education such as a PhD in educational psychology, reading and
literacy or educational administration (Gallagher et. al., 2003). This indicates a shortage

in qualiﬁed personnel to ﬁll existing positions in science education. The long term effect

of this deﬁcit may be a deﬁcit in the ﬁeld’s leadership capabilities.

287

F unding for doctoral study remains a major constraint to enrollment and
production of graduates in the ﬁeld of science education. Deans and faculty members
interviewed for the Leadership Development Study (2003) indicated that people are not
willing to leave their secure teaching jobs to join doctoral studies where the allowances
are low and in most cases not guaranteed. By providing guaranteed funding, the Centers
at the three institutions are able to recruit students to study full time. For example, the
Center for Learning and Teaching at Southern-Valley has enrolled 70 doctoral students
who have guaranteed funding for full-time studies.

The Centers for Learning and Teaching are a ﬁve to ten year initiative that was
established by the National Science Foundation with the goal of providing a “rich
environment that melds research, teacher education, and education practice.” So far 18
NSF funded Centers for Learning and Teaching have been awarded about $10 million
each for a ﬁve-year period, about equally divided between science and mathematics. The
Centers for Learning and Teaching initiative was a response to the need to produce more
faculty members and develop leadership in the ﬁeld. Each Center must address the
following three equally important components: (1) Renewing and diversifying the cadre
of leaders in STEM education, particularly the higher education faculty who educate
STEM teachers and professionals in leadership positions at state and district-levels and
other education organizations; (2) enhancing the content knowledge and pedagogical
skills of current and future elementary and secondary teachers; and (3) supporting
research into STEM education issues of national import.

The two Centers for Learning and Teaching, plus the Urban Science Center at

City Ville, that are connected with the doctoral programs in this study, demonstrate these

288

initiatives. For example the Urban Science Center at City Ville is developing leaders for
excellence in urban science teaching and research; the Center for Learning and Teaching
at Midwestern is developing leaders for research and improvement of science curriculum
materials and teacher education related to curriculum; and the Center for Learning and
Teaching at Southern Valley is developing leaders to improve science teaching and
learning using technology and understanding how people learn. In all three programs, it is
clear that the science education centers were established in response to the need for
improving science teaching and learning in accordance with the reform goals of
achieving excellence in science and teaching science for understanding.

The courses provide students with an understanding of the reforms and reform-
based teaching, which emphasizes inquiry learning and understanding of science. This
also shows the commitment of these three programs to preparing doctoral students for
careers in teacher education. Science education seminars are also a common feature
across these programs and these seminars also focus on contemporary issues in the ﬁeld.
The general structure of the seminars at the three places is that doctoral students meet
with faculty to talk about research. This is a formal mentoring process for all the three
programs where doctoral students learn about conducting research and presenting
scholarly work in informal settings. All three programs also require students to take both
qualitative and quantitative research methods courses. These courses prepare students for
the dissertation, which is the culmination research project for the programs.

critical thinking allows for critique and improvement of doctoral programs respond to

reforms

289

CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED
Introduction

Doctoral programs play a signiﬁcant role in preparing ﬁrture leaders. Science
Education doctoral programs play an even more signiﬁcant role preparing leaders in a
ﬁeld that is critical to maintaining the national economic and scientiﬁc superiority in the
face of global competition. The current science education reforms have the goal of
achieving science literacy for all students and for this national goal to be achieved;
teachers need support from science education faculty. In this qualitative study I
investigated how three doctoral programs at major research universities are preparing
their graduates for leadership in supporting teachers to achieve the national goal of
science literacy for all.

Three science education doctoral programs participated in the study. Data
collection took place through surveys, interviews and analysis of course documents. Two
faculty members, three doctoral candidates and three recent graduates were interviewed
from each of the programs. A case study design was used to investigate how science
education faculty incorporated the reforms in their doctoral courses and how they
interpreted the national reform goal of science literacy for all. Data analysis involved an
interpretive approach and The National Research Council Framework for Investigating
Inﬂuence of the National Standards on student learning (2002) and Kincheloe and Weil’s
framework of teaching critical thinking (2004) was used as tools for analyzing and

interpreting the data.

290

Throughout this investigation I found that the current reforms occupy a signiﬁcant
part of the doctoral program curriculum as shown both in the coursework and research.
However, the extent to which the reforms are incorporated in the courses and the way
they are addressed depends on how the faculty members interpret the reforms and what
they consider to be important in achieving the goal of science literacy for all. Faculty
members interviewed in this study interpret the reform goals differently. Whereas three
of the faculty members interpret science literacy for all as a call to achieve excellence in
science teaching; two of them interpret the reform goals as a call to question who ‘all
student’ refers to and what science literacy means for diverse learners. Yet still one
faculty member interprets the reforms as a call to exercise social justice in science
education.

Considering the Kincheloe and Weil’s framework of critical thinking, the doctoral
students at the different institutions are getting different experiences depending on the
faculty members’ focus and how they are interpreting the reforms. For example those
students working with professors who are questioning the reforms and teaching science
for social justice are prepared to take a more holistic approach to achieving the goal of
science literacy for all. According to Kincheloe and Weil (2004) complex critical
thinking incorporates the social, cultural, political and cognitive elements. In this case,
professors who are engaging their doctoral students to think about what science means to
urban youth, how teachers can effectively teach urban youth and questioning who all
students refers to are acknowledging that good pedagogy alone cannot achieve the goal of
science literacy for all. They are realizing that there are other factors that need to be

considered in order to achieve science literacy for all. Considering Kincheloe and Weil’s

291

(2004) deﬁnition of critical thinking, taking a global view of issues in teaching is deﬁned
as involving complex critical thinking.

On the other hand, professors who are focusing on improving pedagogy through
model-based reasoning, doing authentic science, and understanding how people learn are
working towards achieving science literacy for all as outlined in the reform documents
(AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). These reform documents provide details of what students
should know and be able to do. By preparing their doctoral students to have a deeper
understanding of pedagogy that improves student leaming, these professors are achieving
the reform goal of ensuring that science is taught in a way that will make all students
scientiﬁcally literate, not just those students who are going to be scientists. However, the
program does not substantially incorporate the social, cultural, political and cognitive
elements in their program. Considering Kincheloe and Weil’s (2004) deﬁnition of critical
thinking, failure to take a global view of issues in preparing teachers is deﬁned as
simplistic critical thinking.

Another ﬁnding from this study was that faculty members’ views signiﬁcantly
inﬂuence the nature and content of the courses as well as the program focus. Faculty
members who take a more simplistic view of the reform goals focus more on authentic
science teaching and methodology and understanding how people learn which has come
to deﬁne their program. On the other hand, faculty members who take a complex critical
view of the reform goals focus on looking at issues of science education in relation to the
complex education and socio-cultural inﬂuences on science learning.

A relationship also exists between faculty views and the views of their doctoral

students. Many students agreed with the views of their faculty about what issues are

292

important in science education. However, doctoral students and recent graduates at all
institutions had some different views from their faculty about some issues they think are
important. Faculty seemed to be more in-depth and focused in terms of the issues they
think are important whereas doctoral students and recent graduates took a broader and
somewhat shallower look at the issues in science education. It also became clear from the
interviews that although there are some issues that all faculty agree are important, all hold
different views about some issues that they feel the science education community needs
to address. For example, while the faculty members at City Ville focus the contextual
issues such as equity and urban science learning, the program at Southern Valley focuses
on using technology as a tool to advance K-12 students’ understanding of science and
inquiry. Faculty at Southern Valley are embracing the reforms and preparing teachers to
address issues of science literacy and at the same time the faculty at City Ville are also
embracing the reforms and preparing teachers to address issues of science literacy for all.

These different views inﬂuence the emphasis that different faculty place on
course content related to the reforms and this inﬂuences the experiences and meanings
that doctoral students develop from the same courses taught by different professors. This
also inﬂuenced the way the reforms are incorporated in the framework of the courses, for
example, although all faculty members from the three programs said that reforms were
imbedded in their courses, some doctoral students and recent graduates denied having
taken courses that addressed the reforms.

The differences in faculty views also greatly inﬂuence the way they interpret the
reform goals of science literacy for all. Analysis of the content of their courses and

graduate students’ research experiences shows that the way faculty interpret the reforms

293

signiﬁcantly inﬂuence how they incorporate the reforms in their courses and research.
The National Science Education Standards deﬁne the reform goal of science literacy for
all as embodying both excellence and equity. Findings from this study show that the way
reforms are interpreted either emphasizes excellence only or both excellence and equity.

The ways the reforms are interpreted and enacted have implications both for
practice and policy and I will talk about these implications in the next section. In the ﬁrst
chapter, I made it clear that this study is not meant to evaluate or compare doctoral
program performance. My goal is to highlight the need for science education faculty to
pay attention to doctoral study in relation to societal needs and to see how their programs
are preparing their students to address these needs. There is also need for dialogue among
faculty about how they are preparing doctoral students as a way of learning from each
other.
Implications for Doctoral Preparation

Since the reform goal embodies both excellence and equity, there is a need for
doctoral preparation to embrace both of these goals. This is mainly because doctoral
graduates of today have the task of preparing teachers to achieve the reform goals. If
doctoral preparation only focuses on achieving excellence in science teaching, then the
equity part is ignored and doctoral students will continue to avoid these issues in their job
of preparing teachers. If both excellence and equity are emphasized, the doctoral
graduates will have the tools to work towards achieving both excellence and equity in
science teaching. Interpreting the reform goals as achieving excellence through equity is
one way that can enable doctoral programs to put equal emphasis on both excellence and

equity as they prepare their students.

294

I ﬁnd this to be a critical part of doctoral preparation because the science
education reforms were written in response to issues that have been and are still major
challenges in society today. The problem of low achievement among students is still
reported in the most recent studies (Luesdorf 2006) as they have been reported more than
twenty years ago. Science literacy for all students is a societal problem that needs to be
addressed by providing equitable and quality science to all students regardless of their
social or cultural background. Most recent literature also shows that issues of equity still
need to be addressed just as they did more than 20 years ago (Kozol, 2005). Hence one of
the implications of ﬁndings from this study is that doctoral programs need to take the
necessary steps to provide doctoral students with tools that will enable them to address
both issues of excellence and equity in their own practice.

Findings from this study show that the faculty members are interpreting the
reform goal of science for all either as a pedagogical issue, as an equity issue, or as a
social justice issue. However what is notable about these three programs is that they are
focusing on only one complex issue that is targeted at achieving science literacy for all.
This makes me wonder whether it is not possible to focus on more than one complex
issue at a time. For example, the program that is focusing on teaching science for social
justice does not have an explicit emphasis on using technology, but authentic science is
implicitly addressed in the inquiry and curricular that focuses on urban students. The
program that is focusing on providing authentic science experiences and using
technology does not have an explicit emphasis on making science accessible to cultural
and linguistic minorities, although the issues of reaching out to diverse Ieamers in the

classroom are implicit in authentic science teaching.

295

It was clear from interviews with recent graduates and doctoral students that they
feel strongly that issues of equity need to be addressed. They however, admitted that they
did not know how to do it. If doctoral programs do not prepare students to meld equity
with excellence, it becomes difﬁcult for them to address these issues when they prepare
teachers. There is therefore a need to sought ways to meld equity and excellence in
doctoral preparation as a way of achieving science literacy for all.

There is evidence from these ﬁndings that faculty members at different
institutions have specialty knowledge in one area that the others do not have. Professional
development among faculty members has become popular in the natural sciences and
other ﬁelds. Groups such as the Case Studies Center at the State University of New York
(SUNY) Buffalo, New York run professional development for faculty at different
universities. This is a model that can also be used in science education for faculty
members to share their intellectual resources in these areas. Starting such professional
development efforts for faculty will enable them to conduct research that focuses on
melding equity with excellence in science teaching to achieve excellence with equity.
This model can trickle down to the classroom level through teacher preparation.

One thing that most science educators may agree with is that it is hard enough just
to achieve excellence in science teaching and achieving both excellence and equity is
complex. Given the complex nature of the education system it becomes almost
impossible to do both. Providing doctoral students with opportunities to develop complex
critical thinking skills is one way that the doctoral programs in this study are hoping to
work around this almost impossible task. Complex critical thinking skills enable one to

think beyond the status quo, in other words thinking of science the way it has always

296

been deﬁned, written, and taught. These skills also enable future teacher educators to
prepare teachers who take a complex critical thinking approach to science teaching.
Implications for Policy

In order for doctoral programs to be able to prepare graduates who are well
prepared to address national issues of achieving excellence and equity in science
teaching, sustainable sources of funding are needed. The three doctoral programs in this
study all have received external funding for Science Centers. The National Science
Foundation funds two of the centers and private foundations ﬁmd one of the centers. The
work conducted in the centers is enabling the doctoral programs to provide students with
experiences that they would otherwise not be able to do without funding. The funding of
the centers enabled doctoral programs to provide doctoral fellows with full tuition and
allowances. This enabled the program at Southern Valley for example to enroll as many
as 70 students in their doctoral program.

Although the National Science Foundation originally planned to fund Centers for
Learning and Teaching for 10 years, faculty from this study told me that they only
received funding for 5 years, and there is no sign that the ﬁmding will be renewed for the
next ﬁve years. There is general concern about what is going to happen after the NSF
funding runs out. One of the faculty and students from Southern Valley feared that their
doctoral program is going to go back to the old structure where the students did not get
much mentoring in research. Recruiting doctoral students to doctoral programs has been
cited as a major challenge by faculty and availability of funding is one way that has
enabled doctoral programs to enroll increased numbers of American students. Funding

for doctoral studies is necessary for achieving the national goal of science literacy for all.

297

Therefore, in order to prepare doctoral students who will be able to work towards
achieving the national goal of excellence and equity in science teaching there is a great
need for sustainable funding. Investment in doctoral study is important because it is an
investment in future leadership.
Implications for Research

This study revealed that there is need for faculty members in science education to
take a closer look at the reform goals and ﬁnd ways to address both issues of excellence
and equity. In the literature there has been a sizeable amount of research into efforts of
achieving excellence in science teaching and learning. However, the issue of equity has
not received the same amount of attention. Equal efforts are needed for ﬁnding ways to
achieve equity and excellence in science teaching in order to achieve the national goal of
science literacy for all.

There is also a need for research that focuses on doctoral preparation, paying
particular attention to the content of the doctoral programs and how they are addressing
different societal needs. Conducting research on doctoral program course content and
research programs is one way that faculty can improve and strengthen their doctoral
programs. Faculty can also learn from what others are accomplishing if literature on
doctoral programs is readily available. College professors have contributed a great deal to
doctoral studies and failure to have research that talks about how faculty have prepared
doctoral students means this wisdom is not passed on to later generations.

Plans for Future Research
‘Coming to America’ was a 1988 Hollywood movie directed by John Landis

which featured an Aﬁican Prince, excited about coming to America for the ﬁrst time and

298

ﬁnding himself a bride in Queens, New York. In one episode when a girl (his bride to be)
asked Prince Akeem what he did for a living, he lied and said that he was a student at the
University of the United States. When I watched the movie again more than a decade
later, I saw it in a different light. Prince Akeem’s lying about studying at an American
university showed how the voluntary movement of Aﬁicans to the United States has
mostly been associated with studying at universities. Aﬁicans are still coming in large
numbers to study at American universities. The Global Education Digest U18 (2006)
showed that ”tertiary students ﬁom sub-Saharan Aﬁica are the most mobile in the world,
with one out of every 16 — or 5.6 % - studying abroad.” One may wonder how sustainable
studying abroad is for Sub-Saharan Aﬁicans, considering their educational and economic
needs? In this section I will show how my doctoral studies and particularly the experience
and knowledge I gained from this study will guide my ﬁiture research work in Sub-
Saharan Aﬁica.

When I came to the United States in 2000 to pursue a PhD in science education
my goal was to get a higher degree that would enable me to offer the same level of
education to other Zimbabweans. The reason why I came to study in the USA is because
there was no science education doctoral program in my country. There are many more
people like myself who would like to pursue a PhD but cannot secure funding. Since my
‘Coming to America’, I have become concerned about this situation, and I have always
wondered what makes American PhD programs sustainable and what makes the doctoral
programs what they are? Working on the Leadership Development Study three years ago
made me even more aware of the variations among the science education doctoral

programs in the United States. This raised more questions about how the doctoral

299

programs were put together, what makes some courses more important than others, and
generally what shapes the doctoral programs? I decided to conduct my dissertation study
in this area in order for me to ﬁnd answers some of these questions. To narrow my focus,
I decided to investigate the inﬂuence of current science education reforms on doctoral
programs. I looked into how three science education doctoral programs are interpreting
and enacted the reforms in their courses and research. I also investigated how the views
and perspectives of faculty shaped the doctoral programs.

Studying science education doctoral programs has been the most rewarding
experience for me. This study gave me the opportunity to look at science education
doctoral cunicula from different science education programs. I also had the opportunity
to talk to science education faculty from different universities, and listening to their views
and ideas was one of the most enriching experiences I have ever bad. My interviewing
skills improved greatly through conducting this study, and it is an asset that I will
certainly use in my research. I realized that I love talking and enjoy listening to people
talk. People from all walks of life want to have their voices heard and interviews are a
great method that provides rich data and I plan to continue using this method in the
future.

Zimbabwean universities need to establish doctoral programs in science
education. In 1980, with the establishment of a new, independent Zimbabwe, we set on a
goal of educating all children. We made signiﬁcant progress on that goal for several
years, but have lost ground recently. I am conﬁdent that at some time in the future, we
will recapture the educational goal that was set at independence. At that time, I plan to

return to Zimbabwe and become involved in establishing doctoral programs. I also plan

300

to conduct research that looks at the nation’s societal needs and how education can meet
these needs. I will conduct surveys and interview people from different sectors of the
country to get a better sense of the direction science education need to take. From these
data I hope to come up with ideas that can help reform and enhance science education in
Zimbabwe. Although it may be a long time before I can begin to work on this, given the
economic and political situation in Zimbabwe at the moment, this is what I plan to do
when the climate stabilizes. There is a strong need for Zimbabwean professionals to plan
ways to restore the crumbling structures and to create programs that will foster signiﬁcant
educational reform in my native land.

Issues of teaching science for understanding and achieving equity in science
among all students are critical in Zimbabwe where students in different types of schools
do not get the same quality of science education. This is mainly due to the long history of
colonial education that left former white schools with well-equipped laboratories than
former black only schools. Although the government made efforts to ensure that all
students had access to science education, it did not have the ﬁnancial resources to provide
all schools with equipment that would be needed to provide authentic science experiences
to all students. The implications from this study for the need to focus on melding equity
with excellence also apply to the education system in Zimbabwe. Hence, this study was
instrumental in helping me to think about issues that need to be addressed in science
education in Zimbabwe. Doctoral programs in Zimbabwe will need to explicitly address

issues of equity and excellence in science teaching.

301

APPENDICES

302

APPENDIX A
FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Information

Name: Position Held:

 

 

Name of Institution:

 

No. Of years at this Institution:

 

Areas of Specialization:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your department or unit:

Mailing Address:

City State:_ Zip code:
Phone Fax:

Email

 

Some of the questions in this survey are similar to the ones that were asked during the
2001-02 survey of science education doctoral programs that you may have completed.
This survey is meant to update the information from the previous survey as well as
collect data that relates to the issue of reforms and doctoral study.

I am also requesting copies of your syllabi and reading lists of all the courses you taught
on the science education Doctoral program.

Update on the Faculty Situation
1. Names of the faculty members in your science education department

2. Please provide the following stafﬁng information about the faculty in science
education during the past 5 years:

 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

 

Number of faculty who resigned

 

Number of faculty who retired

 

Number of new faculty joining

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of positions advertised

 

303

 

GRADUATE STUDENTS INFORMATION

3. Please complete the following table about the composition of students enrolled in
your science education doctoral program:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Number

Students currently enrolled Females
Full time Part time
lntemational students White, non-Hispanic

students
Native-American and Aﬁican-American students
Alaska Native students
Asian-American students

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. What level of science content background do your students normally have upon
graduation? Can you equate it to:
_More than a Master’s degree in science
_Masters Degree in science
___BS degree in science
___Less than a BS Degree in science
_No requirement is speciﬁed
5. How many doctorates in science education did your science education program grant
in the past 5 years?
6. Below I have a table with names of graduates from your program who are identiﬁed
as Science Education majors in the dissertation abstracts.
Please could you help me identify whether these graduates were Science Education
majors or not, if not which departments they were from.

 

List of Science Education Doctoral Dissertations from Teachers College: 2000-2004

 

 

 

 

 

Year Student Dissertation Advisor Science Department
title name Education they were
mﬂ'or from
Y N
Y N
Y N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Additional information about recent graduates and doctoral Candidates I am
requesting:

304

 

Please note: I am going to interview three recent graduates and three doctoral
candidates from your program as part of the study

Please could you provide me with names and contact information of 4 or 5 recent
graduates from your program from the past ﬁve years who I can interview? I am also
requesting for their study plans.

 

 

 

 

MPWN?‘

 

Please could you provide me with names and contact details of 4 or 5 doctoral
candidates who are advanced in their program, preferably at dissertation stage.

 

 

 

 

30:59.“?

 

Please can you send this information to Yovita Gwekwerere, 118 Erickson Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824. .

If you have made any changes to the course syllabi for your science education
doctoral program in the past 4 years, could you please send course descriptions and
syllabi for the core courses in the program to the same address?

 

 

 

8. What positions have been taken by recent graduates from your program during the past
5 years
College Teaching - Science Education.

College Teaching - Sciences
College Teaching — Two year college

K-12 Administration
K-12 teaching

Research

305

Course Requirements

For Questions 9, 10 and 11 use the following Key to show the type of content, type of

research and focus of coursework/research:

IN Inquiry in science

SL Science Literacy

NOS Nature of science

ST Standards-based teaching

CI Curriculum issues

SE General Science Education

TE General Teacher Education

SM General Science Methods

RM Research methodology

Ph Philosophy of Science education/science

HS History of Science education/science

PI Policy Issues

Other - Specify

9. What is the full range of courses that your doctoral students take, how many

credits does each course carry, which courses are selective and which ones are
elective.

NB: In the last column, please use the key above to classify the focus of content.

 

Name of Course No of credits Required/Elective/ Focus of Content
Recommended

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

306

Research
10. List the research areas that faculty in your science education department are involved
in.

NB: Please use the key above to classify the type of research

Research Area or 'c T of Research

 

Doctoral Funding and Mentoring
10. What types of assistantships, fellowships and grants are available to doctoral
students? How many are available and what is the focus of each.

Please use the key above to identify the focus of work.

 

Total Number Mentoring Support Focus of the
available given to students work/Research

 

Teaching
assistantships
Research
Assistantships
Fellowships
Grants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please mail this completed questionnaire and requested materials and information to
Yovita Gwekwerere, 118 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI

48824.

Thank you for your time and effort.

307

APPENDIX B

FACULTY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Faculty’s Views about issues in Science Education

1.

What do you consider to have been the most important issues confronting the
ﬁeld of science education in the past 10 years? What are your views about each of
these issues?

What issues may be more important to the ﬁeld of science education in the next
10 years?

As a science educator, what are your ideas about how these issues can be
addressed?

Who should take leadership in addressing these issues? What knowledge, skills or
other abilities should they possess?
Preparing future Leaders for the ﬁeld

4.

What roles are doctoral graduates from your program being prepared for?
Does your program require all doctoral students to do teaching

assistantships/practicum and research assistantships/practicum?

5.

6.

7.

9.

How are doctoral students from your program mentored in each of these areas:
0 Teaching assistantships
- Research assistantships
o Fellowships
In what direction would you want to see your doctoral program go, considering
the issues you mentioned earlier?
As a science education community, what balance should exist between the work
of preparing science education faculty, science teachers for the schools, and
carrying out research related to science education?
Over the recent years, several reform documents have received attention by the
science education community, for example the National Science Education
Standards, Project 2061, and other Science education reforms. How are these
reforms incorporated into the ﬁamework for courses and research in your doctoral
program?
Do you have discussions about these reforms in or outside your classes
either pro or con? Would you want to see any changes in how your
doctoral program deals with the reforms? If so how?

What are your views about these science education reforms ﬁ'om the past 10years;
namely: Project 2061, and the National Science Education Standards?

10. What are your views about the No Child Left Behind and other recent policy

11.

developments? What is your reaction to the science education component of the
No Child Left Behind?

Considering the achievement gap that exists among American schools today, do
you see any of these reforms as closing/narrowing the gap?

The science education community has responded to the National Science
Education Standards in various ways. On one end there are optimists who have
embraced the reforms while on the other there are skeptics and opponents and yet

308

others in between. What would you attribute these differences in opinions and
views to and why/.7
Probe: In your view, what would be the most effective way to close this gap?

12. Finally, I would like to know what your ideas are about these issues in science
teaching and learning at K-12 education:

0 How should science should be taught and learned effectively at K-12 level?
Also why is there much widespread concern about low-level effectiveness in
science teaching and learning?

-What should be done to address these concerns?

0 How should doctoral programs respond to reform initiatives directly related
to K-12 science learning?

0 How has your doctoral program changed or needs to change in order to
accommodate these reforms?

o Are other changes in doctoral programs desirable?

Thank you for your assistance in this study and for the time and expertise you have given
in this interview. Do you have any last words you wish to give at this time?

Thanks again for you help.

309

APPENDIX C
RECENT GRADUATES INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Thank you for agreeing to this interview. I appreciate your willingness to be a part of this
study. Also thanks for returning the IRB Consent form.
Name (Optional)
Current position
Institutional Afﬁliation
Years in current position:
PhD institution PhD Graduation Date
Dissertation topic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date of Interview
Recent Graduates’ Views about Issues Confronting Science Education

1. What do you consider to have been the most important issues in the ﬁeld of science
education during the past 10 years? What are your views about each of these issues?
What issues may be more important to the science education community in the next 10
years?

2. As a ﬁeld, do you think we are prepared to address these issues? Why?

Choose one issue that you may have attempted to address, and share your

experiences/struggles addressing it. Share your successes/failures.

3. Who do you see as leaders in addressing these issues? What knowledge, skills or other

abilities should they possess?

Preparing future Leadership in Science Education

4. What roles did your doctoral program prepare its graduates for?

5. Were the following a requirement of your doctoral program: teaching assistantships/

practicum, Research assistantships/practicum
- Do you think science education programs should make teaching and research
assistantships/practica compulsory for all doctoral students? Why/why not?

6. How were doctoral students from your program mentored in each of these areas:

0 Teaching assistantships
0 Research assistantships

7. In what direction would you want to see the doctoral program courses and research
expectations go?

8. As a science education community, what balance you think should exist between the
work of preparing science education faculty, science teachers for the schools, and
carrying out research related to science education?

9. How were the reforms incorporated into the framework for courses and research in
your doctoral program: the National Science Education Standards, Project 2061, and
other Science education reforms?

Probe: Was there much discussion about these reforms either pro or con?

310

IO.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

What are your views about the science education reforms from the past 10years;
namely: Project 2061, and the National Science Education Standards?
What are your views about No Child Left Behind? Is your doctoral program or
science education department concerned about the science education component of
this reform?
Considering the achievement gap that exists among American schools today, do you
see these reforms closing/narrowing the gap?
Probe: What would be the most eﬁective way to close this gap?
The following phrases have been used in the current reforms and have dominated the
science education jargon of our time, what is your deﬁnition of each of these phrases:
a. The Nature of Science
b. Teaching science for understanding?
c. Science literacy for all
(I. Scientiﬁcally literate citizens
e. Inquiry
The science education community has responded to the National Science Education
Standards in various ways. What would you attribute these differences in opinions
and views to and why?
Describe how the science education community from your doctoral program reacted
to the NSES? Is this different from your current institution?
Finally, I would like to know what your ideas are about:
0 How science should be taught and learned effectively at K-12 level and why?
0 How doctoral programs should respond to reform initiatives inﬂuencing K-
12 science learning?
0 How can your doctoral program be changed to accommodate these ideas?

Thank you for your assistance in this study and for the time and expertise you have given
in this interview. Do you have any last words you wish to give at this time?
Thanks again for you help

311

APPENDIX D
DOCTORAL CANDIDATES INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Thank you for agreeing to this interview. I appreciate your willingness to be a part of
this study. Also thanks for returning the IRB Consent form.

Courses taken so far: Could you please send me a copy of the courses you have taken
or your program plan if you have completed one. Also could you send me a copy of
your CV. Thanks.

Doctoral Candidates’ Views about issues Confronting Science Education

1. What do you consider to have been the most important issues in the ﬁeld of
science education during the past 10 years? What are your views about each of
these issues?

2. What issues may be more important to the ﬁeld of science education in the next
10 years?

3. As a future leader in the ﬁeld of science education, what do you consider to be
some of the more effective solutions to addressing these issues?

Who do you see as leaders in addressing these issues? What knowledge, skills
or other abilities should they possess?
Preparing future Leaders for the ﬁeld

4. What roles are doctoral graduates from your program being prepared for?

5. In what direction would you want to see your doctoral program go, considering
the issues you mentioned earlier?

6. As a science education community, what balance should exist between the work
of preparing science education faculty, science teachers for the schools, and
carrying out research related to science education?

Doctoral Study and Current Reform initiatives in Science Education

7. How were/are these reforms incorporated into the framework for courses and
research in your doctoral program: the National Science Education Standards,
Project 2061, and other Science education reforms?

Was there much discussion about these reforms either pro or con?

8. What are your views about the science education reforms from the past 10years;
namely: Science for All Americans, Project 2061, and the National Science
Education Standards?

9. What are your views about the No Child Left Behind policy and other recent
policy developments? Is your doctoral program or science education department
concerned about the science education component of this policy?

10. Considering the achievement gap that exists among American schools today, do
you see these reforms closing/narrowing the gap?

Probe: What would be the most effective way to close this gap?
The following phrases have been used in the current reforms and are commonly
used in the science education community, what is your deﬁnition of each of these
phrases:

312

The Nature of Science
Teaching science for understanding?
Science literacy for all
Scientiﬁcally literate citizens
11. The science education community has responded to the National Science
Education Standards in various ways. On one end there are optimists who have
embraced the reforms while on the other there are skeptics and opponents and
yet others in between. What would you attribute these differences in opinions
and views to and why?
12. Finally, I would like to know what your ideas are about:
0 How science should be taught and learned effectively at K-12 level and why?
0 How doctoral programs should respond to reform initiatives inﬂuencing K-
12 science learning?
0 How can your doctoral program be changed to accommodate these ideas?
Thank you for your assistance in this study and for the time and expertise you have given
in this interview. Do you have any last words you wish to give at this time?

9'???

Thanks again for you help.

313

APPENDIX E
ADDITIONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR CENTER FACULTY

Interview Questions
1. What were the key factors that prompted you to write a proposal for the Center for
Learning and Teaching?

2. What Concerns were you hoping to address or what problems were you hoping to
resolve? C) What do you feel made your proposal outstanding? D) How is your center
addressing these problems?

2. How have the national reform efforts such as National Science
Education Standards, Project 2061, No Child Left Behind and other programs inﬂuenced
the work of your center? Are these reforms incorporated in the work you do in the center?

3. What have been the major obstacles in implementing your Center's work? How have
you dealt with these obstacles?

4. How will your future doctoral graduates differ from those who earned their degrees

prior to the establishment of your Center?
What is your ﬁnal goal at the end of the project?

314

APPENDIX F
LETTER TO SENIOR FACULTY
Dear Professor xxx

This email is a follow up to a discussion I had with you some time ago about my
dissertation study. I am inviting you to participate in an interview and data collection for
my doctoral dissertation study entitled “Response to Current Reform Initiatives: Case
Studies of H ow Three U. S. Science Education Doctoral Programs are Preparing
Future Leaders for the Field”. The study is going to explore how science education
doctoral programs are responding to the current reform initiatives as they prepare teacher
educators, and why. I am planning to interview six-science education faculty, 9 doctoral
candidates and 9 recent graduates from three different institutions. In addition to the
interviews, I am also requesting you to complete a survey that I am using to gather
information about your doctoral program. I am also requesting for course materials that
have been used in the doctoral courses such as course syllabi, course descriptions, and
reading lists.

My study includes a select group of science education doctoral programs that
were part of the Leadership Development Study that was conducted by faculty at
Michigan State University two years ago. Based on several criteria, I would like to
include the science education doctoral program at Michigan State University as a part of
this study.

I am hoping that this study of will yield systematic data that can serve as reference
on faculty’s views about current issues in science education, what they think about
the current reform initiatives and how or whether the reforms impact the way
doctorates are prepared.

To express your willingness to participate, please could you complete the enclosed
consent form and return it to me. Please also send me a current copy of your curriculum
vita when you return the consent form.

I am looking forward to learning more about your views and ideas about issues in science
education. I will establish time for an interview soon. I anticipate that the interview will
last about an hour and will be audio taped.

Attached Documents:
Dissertation summary
Consent form

Sincerely,
Yovita Gwekwerere
PhD Candidate

Michigan State University, College of Education

315

APPENDIX G
CONSENT FORM

Response to Science Education Reforms: The Case Studies of T hree-Science Education
Doctoral Programs in the United States.

You have been selected to participate in this study either as a science education
faculty, recent graduate or doctoral candidate from a doctoral program that I am
interested in studying for my doctoral dissertation. Your participation in this study is
voluntary and you are free to discontinue participation at any time without penalty. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. I promise to preserve
conﬁdentiality of your responses. All data reporting will be anonymous. I will not use
your name or the name of your institution in my ﬁnal report or in any other fonrm.

The study investigates how a selected number of science education doctoral
programs in the US. are responding to the current reform initiatives as they prepare
future leaders in the ﬁeld. Case studies of three science education doctoral programs that
were selected from a group of 10 programs studied three years ago as part of the
Leadership Development Study will be conducted. The study will investigate science
educators’ visions of the future of science education; how their doctoral programs are
preparing future leaders, and how they are responding to the current reform initiatives
and why? Data will be collected through questionnaires, face-to-face as well as telephone
interviews with faculty, advanced doctoral candidates and recent graduates. The
interviews will be audio taped and will last about half an hour. The tapes will be
destroyed at the end of the study. I will also be requesting for course documents,
including course syllabi, reading lists, program descriptions and doctoral program
requirements for this study. These documents will be used solely for this study and will
be destroyed at the end of the research.

If you desire further information about this research, you may call or write my
dissertation committee chair Dr. James Gallagher at: College of Education, Michigan
State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, M148824-1034, Phone: (517) 432-
4871.

For questions about your role as a subject in this research, you may contact Peter
Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
Michigan State University; 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034. E-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu Phone: (517) 355-2180. Fax: (517) 432-4503

To indicate your agreement to participate in this study, please either sign the
following statement and return it to Yovita Gwekwerere at the following address: College
of Education, Michigan State University, 118 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-
1034, or send me an email to gwekwere@m8u.edu with the following indication that you
have given your informed consent:

316

 

I agree to participate in the study, “Response to Current Reform Initiatives: Case Studies
of How Three U. S. Science Education Doctoral Programs are Preparing Future Leaders
for the Field.”

Name Date

I agree to be Audio taped in this study.

Name Date

317

APPENDI H
LETTER TO RECENT GRADUATES
Dear Dr. xxx

Dr. gave me your name as one of their recent graduates in science
education who could help me with data collection for my study. I am inviting you to
participate in an interview that is part of my doctoral dissertation study entitled:
“Response to Current Reform Initiatives: Case Studies of How Three U. S. Science
Education Doctoral Programs are Preparing Future Leaders for the Field”. The study
is designed to explore the views of science education faculty, recent graduates and
current doctoral candidates about how science education doctoral programs are
responding to the current reform initiatives as they prepare new leaders in the ﬁeld.

I am going to interview nine recent graduates who were identiﬁed by their faculty
mentors as having a strong leadership promise in preparing teachers for the broader
vision of science education. You are one of this select group. This study will yield
systematic data that will serve as reference on what science educators think about the
current reform initiatives and whether these reforms impact the preparation of science
education doctorates and if so how.

I hope you will agree to be interviewed for this study. To express your willingness
to participate, please complete the enclosed consent form and return it to me via e-mail
(Our IRB permits returned e-mail forms with your typed name as sufﬁcient consent.)
Please also send me a current copy of your cuniculum vita when you return the consent
form.

We will establish a day and time for a telephone interview, as soon as I hear from you. I
anticipate that the interview will last about an hour and half and will be audio taped.

I look forward to learning more about your background and aspirations in the near ﬁiture.
Attached Documents:

Dissertation proposal summary
Consent form

Sincerely,

Yovita Gwekwerere
Doctoral Candidate

318

APPENDIX J

LETTER TO DOCTORAL CANDIDATES

Dear xxxx

Your professor Dr gave me your name as one of their doctoral
candidates in science education who could help me with data collection for my study. I
am inviting you to participate in interviews that are part of my doctoral dissertation study
entitled “Response to Current Reform Initiatives: Case Studies of How Three U. S.
Science Education Doctoral Programs are Preparing Future Leaders for the Field”.
The study is a continuation of the Leadership Development study that Teachers College
participated in 3 years ago. I am collecting data on 3 of the 10 programs previously
studied to explore the views of doctoral candidates, recent graduates and faculty about
how their science education doctoral programs are responding to the current reform
initiatives that focus on reducing the achievement gap in K-12 science.

I hope you will agree to be interviewed for this study. To express your willingness
to participate, please complete the enclosed consent form and return it to me via e-mail
(Our IRB permits returned e-mail forms with your typed name as sufﬁcient consent.)
Please also send me a current copy of your curriculum vita and program plan (a list of the
courses you have taken and plan to take for your program) when you return the consent
form.

We will establish a day and time for a telephone interview as soon as I hear ﬁ'om
you. I anticipate that the interview will last about an hour and half will be audio taped.

I am looking forward to learning more about your background and aspirations in the near
future.

Attached Documents:
Dissertation proposal summary
Consent form

Sincerely,

Yovita Gwekwerere

Doctoral Candidate

College of Education, Michigan State University

319

BIBLIOGRAPHY

320

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Algozine, B. (2003). Scientiﬁcally based research: Who let the dogs out: Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28 (3), 156-60

Ayers, W. &Ford, P. Ed. (1996) City Kids, City Teachers: Reports from the Front Row.
The New Press, New York.

Anderson, R. D. (2003). Systematic reform: Good education practice with positive
impacts and unresolved problems and issues. Review of Policy Research, 20 (4),
61 7-2 7

Anderson R. D. and Helm J. V. (2002). Open questions in science education. ERIC
Digest

Anderson R. D. (1975) The Science Education Doctorate: Competencies and Roles.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12. (4) 399-405

Atwater, M. M. & Crockett, D. (2005). Prospective teachers’ education worldview and
teacher education programs: Through the eyes of culture, ethnicity, and class: In
Hines, S. M. (Ed) Multicultural science education: Theory, practice, and promise.
Peter Lang, New York.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientiﬁc literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Barton, AC. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press, New
York

Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientiﬁcally Based Research: ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, Eugene, Oregon.

Benchmarks for Science Literacy. (1993). American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Oxford University Press.

Biddle, B. (1997). Foolishness, dangerous nonsense, and real correlates of state
differences in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan 79, 8—13

Bransford, J ., Brophy, S., and Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the
learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 21 (I), 59-84.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

321

Brown, I. 5., Collins, A., 8: Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1) 32-42.

Brickhouse, N. (1994). Bringing in the outsider: Reshaping sciences for the future.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26 (4), 401-16

Brickhouse, N. (2004). Science for all? Science for girls? Which girls? In: In Roger C.
(Ed) A Vision for Science Education: Response to the work of Peter F ensham.
Routledge Falmer, London

Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Buchanan, A. L. & Herubel, J .V. M. (1995). The doctor of philosophy degree.
Greenwood press, Westport Connecticut

Butts, David P. and Yager Robert (1980) Science Educators Perceptions of the Graduate
preparation programs of science Teachers in 1979. 1 7, 529-536

Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientiﬁc knowledge.
Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.

Carter, A. (1960). In Osteriker, J .P. and CV. Kuh. (2003). Assessing research doctorate
programs: A methodology study. The National Academic Press, Washington, DC.

Clarebout, G. & Elen, J. (2006). Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances
in studying and designing (computer-based) powerful learning environments.
Sense Publisher, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge
Falmer, New York.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the crafts 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.

Connell R.W. (1993). Schools and Social Justice. Temple University Press. Philadelphia

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:
Choosing Among Five Traditions. SAGE Publications. Thousand Oaks

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice.
New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

322

 

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.

Dickson, P. (2003). Sputnik the Shock of the Century. Walker Publishing Company, Inc.

Duit, R. (2005). In Roger C. (Ed) A Vision for Science Education: Response to the work
of Peter Fensham. Routledge Falmer, London

Feurzeig, W., & Roberts, N. (Eds.). (1999). Computer modeling and simulation in
science education. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Edelson, Gordin, & Pea 43 Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning
through the adaptation of science practice. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.),
lntemational Handbook of Science Education, Dordrecht, N. L: Kluwer.

Gallagher J. J. & Gwekwerere, Y. (2003). Development of Leadership in Mathematics
and Science Education. A Paper presented at the National Association for
Research in Mathematics and Science Education. Vancouver, 2003.

Gallagher, J. J ., Floden, R., Ferini-Mundi, J. & Anderson, C. (2003). Development of
Leadership in Mathematics and Science Education. A Paper presented at the

National Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education.
Philadelphia, PA (2002).

Gallagher, J. J. (2006). Teaching science for understanding: a practical guide for middle
schools teachers. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Galosy, J. A. (2005). Between a rock and a hard place: Learning to teach science for all
in an urban district. A Dissertation submitted to Michigan State University

Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In Mitchell, C. & Weiler, K. (Eds.) Rewriting literacy:
Culture and the discourse of the other. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvin

Gilbert, A., & Yerrick, R. (2001). Same school, separate Worlds: A sociocultural study of
identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, (5), 5 74-598.

Goodland, J. I. (1975). In: Taylor, P. H. Tye, K. A. (Eds). Curriculum, School and
Society: an introduction to curriculum studies. NFER Publishing Company,
Windsor, England

Grifﬁths, M. (2003). Action for social Justice in education: Fairly different. Open
University Press, Maidenhead, Philadelphia

Halladay, M. & Martin, J. (1994). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

323

Haury, D. L. (2001). Teaching science through inquiry with archived data. Eric Clearing
House

Hug, B. Krajcic, J. S. & Marx, R. W. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to
promote learning and engagement in urban science classrooms. Urban Education.
40 (4), 446-72

Hughes (1925) In Osteriker, J .P. and Kuh. CV. (2003). Assessing Research Doctorate
Programs: A Methodology Study. The National Academic Press.

J ablon, P. C. (2002). The status of science education doctoral programs in the United
States: The need for core knowledge and skills. Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 7(1), 1087-3430

Johnson, E. G. & Siegendorf, A. (1998). Linking the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) and the Third lntemational Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). US Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Education Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC

Kahle, Jane Butler, and Yager Robert E. (1981). Current indicators for the discipline of
science education. Science Education, 5 (1), 25-31

Keegan, L.G., Orr, B.J. and Jones, B.J. (2002). Adequate Yearly progress: Results not
process. US District of Columbia 2002-02-13

Kesidou, S. & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs
measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching 39 (6). 522-49

Kincheloe, J .L and D. Weil (2004) Critical Thinking and Learning; An Encyclopedia for
parents and teachers. Greenwood Press, London

Klein, H. & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principals for conducting and evaluating
interpretive ﬁeld studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1) 67-94.

Kozol, J. (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in American schools. Crown Publishers,
New York.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of Apartheid schooling in
America. Crown Publishers, New York.

Lanier, J. and Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3“1 ed., p. 527-69). NY: Macmillan.

324

Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J ., and Simon, D. P. (1980). Expert and novice performance in
solving physics problems. In H. Simon (Ed.). Models of T hought, 2. Princeton,
NJ : Yale University Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S.(l986). An anthropologist visits the laboratory. In B. Latour &
S. Woolgar, Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Volume 5: Educational design and
cognitive science (pp. 101-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S. & Bell, R. (2004). Constructing science in elementary
classrooms. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Lee, 0. (2005), Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda.
Journal of Education for students placed at risk. 10 (4) 431-440

Lee, 0. (2003), Equity for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students in Science
Education: A research Agenda. Teachers College Record, v105 n3 p465 -89

Lee, 0. (1998). Current conceptions of science achievement and implications for
assessment and equity in large education systems. National Institute for science
Education, Wisconsin-Madison. www.wcer.wisc.edu/nice/+mrblications

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science
education,’ Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 38 296-316: In Roger C.
(Ed) A Vision for Science Education: Response to the work of Peter Fensham.
Routledge Falmer, London

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Ablex. Norwood,
NJ:

Lewis, B. F. & Collins, A. (2001). Interpretive investigation of the science-related career
decisions of three Aﬁican American college students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38 (5), 599-621

Llewellyn, D. (2002), Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards.
Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California

Luesdorf, B. (2006). Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21.

Lynch, S. (2001). Science for all is not equal to one size ﬁts all: Linguistic and cultural
diversity and science education reform. (Journal of research in science teaching.
38: 622-7: In Roger C. (Ed) A Vision for Science Education: Response to the
work of Peter Fensham. Routledge Falmer, London

325

Malcolm, C. (2003). Science for all. Leamer-Centered Science. In Roger C. (Ed) A
Vision for Science Education: Response to the work of Peter Fensham. Routledge
Falmer, London

Michigan Curriculum Frameworks (1996). Michigan Department of Education. Lansing,
Michigan

Mitrnan, A. L., Mergendoller, J. R., Marchman V. A. and Packer M. J. (1987). Instruction
addressing the Components of Scientiﬁc Literacy and its Relation to Student
Outcomes. American Education Research Journal, 24. (4), 611-633

National Research Council (2002). Investigating the Inﬂuence of Standards: A
Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education.
National Academy Press

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards:
A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press, Washington DC

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC

Oakes, J. & Rogers, J. (2005). John Dewey speaks to Brown: Research, democratic social
movement strategies and the struggle for education on equal terms. Teachers
College Record v.107 n.9 p 21 78-203

Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2003). Teaching to change the world. 2“d Edition, McGraw Hill,
United States

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher,
21,(8), 5-14.

Osteriker, J .P. and CV. Kuh. (2003). Assessing research doctorate programs: A
methodology study. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Paine, L. & DeLany, B. (2000). Rural Chinese education: Observing ﬁom the margin. In:
Liu, J ., Ross, H. A. & Kelly D. P. (Eds) The Ethnographic eye. Interpretive

studies of education in China

Porter, A. C. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-leam standards. Education
Researchers, 24, 21 —7

Reys, R.E., Glasgow, R., Ragan G. and Sims, K. (1999). Doctoral Programs in
Mathematics Education: A Status Report.

326

Rodriguez, A. J. (2005). “Science for all” and invisible ethnicities: How the discourse of
power and good intentions undermine national science education standards. In
Hines, S. M. (Ed) Multicultural science education: Theory, practice, and promise.
Peter Lang, New York.

Roth, K. J. et. al. (1999). Trends in lntemational Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC.

Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: knowing and learning in open-inquiry
science laboratories. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational reform
to close the black-white achievement gap. Teachers College Press, Washington,
DC.

Rowlands, B. H. (2005). Grounded in practice: Using interpretive research to build
theory. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3, (I), 81 -92

Rutherford, F. J. (1990). Science for All Americans: Scientiﬁc Literacy, What is it? Why
America needs it? Oxford University Press

Russel, T. & Korthagen, F. (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reﬂections on teacher
education. Falmer Press, Washington

Russel, M. L. & Atwater; M. M. (2005). Travelling the road to success: A discourse on
persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at
predominantly white institutions. Journal of Research in Science T caching, 42

(6). 691-715

Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing Practice: Reading teacher education as a text. Peter Lang,
New, New York

Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’
understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science

classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.

Schwab. J. J. (1973). The practical; Translation into Curriculum. School review 81, 501-
522

Schwarz, S. V. and Gwekwerere, Y. (2006). Using the Guided inquiry and instructional
model for K-12 preservice science teacher preparation. (In Press)

Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European
Journal of Science Education 4 (3), 431-240

327

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 5 7, 1-22.

Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Stanley, W. B. & Brickhouse, NW. (2001). Teaching sciences: the multicultural question
revisited. Science Education. 85 (I) 35-49

Staver, J. R. (2005). Lets change before its too late: A speech given at the awards banquet
at the 2005 annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science
Teaching, Dallas, TX, April 7. E—NARST News 48, (2)

Strike, K. & Posner, G. (l 982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European
Journal of Science Education 4 (3), 431-240

Tellis Winston (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative
Report, Volume 3, Number 3.

Therstron, A. & Therstron, S. (2003). Book review by Frederick M. Hess: No Excuses:
Closing the racial gap in Learning by Abigail Themstron and Stephen Themstron.
Simon and Schuster 352pp.

Thomson, C. L., Spillane, J. P., & Cohen, D. K. (1994). The state policy system affecting
science and mathematics education in Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State
University.

Tobin, K. (2000). Interpretive Research in Science Education: In: Kelly, A.E. and Lesh,
R. A. Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (Ed).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey

US. Department of Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Ofﬁce.

White, R. & Gunstone R. S. (1992). Probing understanding. Falmer, New York.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiske, M. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking practice with research. J ossey-
Bass: San Francisco

Woolnough, B. E. (2000). Authentic science in schools-an evidence-based rationale.
Physics Education, 35 (4), 293-300

Yager, R. E. & Butts, D. P. (1982). Comparison ofTwenty-two Doctoral Programs over
a Fourteen Year Period. Science Education, 6 (2), 261-68

328

Yager, R. E. & Gallagher, J .J . (1982). Status of Graduate Science Education:
Implications for Science Teachers. In: Yager R.E. [Ed] What Research Says to the
Science Teacher. Vol. 4. National Science Teachers Association. Washington.

Yager R. E., Bybee, R., Gallagher J. J. & Renner J. W. (1982). The current Crises in the
Discipline of Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19. (5)
3 77-395

Yager, R. E. & Zehr, E. (1981). Science Education in US Graduate Institutions during
two decades 1960—1980. Science Education 6 (2)

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks California

329