The Need for Reform in Science Teacher Education

R o b e r t E. Y a g e r

The University of Iowa

The calls for reform in science education have never been more intense. These calls indicate more urgency and they arise from many divergent sources. The President, the nation's governors, and the U.S. Congress have identified the need for reform in science and mathematics as one of six national goals to meet economic and educational challenges which threaten our world leadership. Such calls for reform often carry condemnation for common teaching practices and the teacher education programs that prepare our teach- ers. Many colleges/schools of education have experienced severe cuts in staffand funding. In Texas, teacher education programs have been slashed with a maximum cap placed upon credit for certification of teachersIa lmost a statement that the less work in education the better the teacher is likely to be!

So this is the current situation and the challenge as science teacher educators re-think their profession and plan to assist with reform aimed at the year 2000. Perhaps the challenge has always been present for professionals. But how many professionals do we really have? What are their characteristics? Where is the leadership in science teacher education?

There are relatively few graduate centers for the prepa- ration of science teacher education leaders; nearly 80% graduate from 35 institutions (Yager, 1980). And although there are numerous institutions with science teacher educa- tion programs, the vast majority employ a single professor of science education. In fact, many small institutions with preparatory programs, do not even have a science educator with preparation (Ph.D. in science education) and/or teach- ing experience in K-12 settings. Such institutions prepare one-third of the newly certified science teachers each year (Brockway, 1989).

A major study of science teacher education was com- pleted nearly three decades ago. Newton and Watson concluded their study in 1965--perhaps the first of its kind in the U.S. The study involved 922 institutions with teacher education programs in the U.S. and included on-site visits with faculty and students at 37 institutions selected to represent all sizes and types of schools and to provide geographical distribution. The report, published in 1968, concluded with these generalizations:

1. There are examples of every conceivable pattern some- where in the U.S., whether referring to methods courses, student teaching arrangements, course requirements, or program sequences.

2. There is ahnost a complete lack of objective evidence on effectiveness of programs, though students are de- manding information concerning the effectiveness of their programs.

3. Science educators involved in teacher education in the U.S. appear to be isolated from their counterparts at other institutions.

4. There are neither agreed-upon goals nor structures for science teacher education in the U.S. (Newton & Watson, 1968). The Newton and Watson study is significant as an

independent observation of teacher education across the nation. It represents a unique contribution and offers a baseline with which observations since 1965 can be com- pared. There is no similar report and no comparable study in the literature prior to the 1968 report. The study is unique in its magnitude (i.e., national in scope, the objectivity of an independent investigator, and the synthesis and analysis accomplished (not merely an elaboration of a series of individual observations).

The questions for 1994 are: How has the situation changed? What evidence is there that improvements have occurred? We are drastically in need of continued studies, greater dialogue, more collaboration, and more efforts of defining science education as a discipline.

A status study of science education programs was conducted with National Science Foundation (NSF) support in 1980; (Yager, 1980); a follow-up study was completed in 1985 (Iskandar, 1986). These studies indicated that there are few differences among the programs in terms of structure. And, as indicated previously, most are headed by a single faculty member. The faculty is committed to teacher educa- t i on -bu t there is little time for research, reflection, or program development.

Few see science education as a discipline with its own focus, research base, and philosophy. Few have adopted the view that science education is a discipline which studies the interface between the world of science and the rest of

144 Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Robert E. Yager, Science Education Center, 450 Van Allen Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1478.

Journal of Science Teacher Education • Autumn 1993 Volume 4. Number 4, Pages 144-148

Copyright © The Association for the Education of Teachers in Science

society. This includes a study of society and its impact on science as well as the impact of science on society as a whole. Yager (1984) has used the cell membrane as an analogy; Welch has used the conduit metaphor to describe the same relationships. Such views of science education can provide an important perspective as improvements in science teacher education are sought.

Reform in teacher education should be based on re- search, hopefully research that is reported widely and which can affect practice generally. We have too many science teacher educators who do what they do because it represents the way they teach and/or were taught. Too few question the effects of their preparatory programs. Most of the effort centers upon a single methods course, supervision of student teaching--often with a weekly seminar (Yager & Penick, 1990).

Is the typical science education faculty adequate for the task? Can the preparation of science teachers be improved if the professional preparation in the discipline is restricted to one three semester hour methods course and student teaching where the impact of the cooperating teacher(s) is/ are more of a factor on how the student teacher teaches than is the university offerings in science education?

One of our greatest problems in science teacher educa- tion (perhaps teacher education generally) is the large num- ber of institutions with programs. Currently this number is about 1,250 separate institutions. Interestingly, just over 500 programs are approved by NCATE, about 40% of the institutions with programs. The number of teacher educa- tion programs exceed medical college by a factor of 10. There are 126 medical colleges, 176 law schools, and just under 300 engineering colleges in the U.S.. It is interesting to ponder why we need over one thousand science teacher education programs with a large number producing under ten new science teachers per year.

Can we ever achieve quality with such a collection of programs and institutions? Can real programs be built with one or no science educators involved or in charge? One idea for reform would be to insist upon certain program features, a specific faculty committed to and involved with the pro- gram, and one utilizing emerging research relevant to qual- ity programs.

Four factors should be considered to hasten real reform in science teacher education. These reforms include: a) defining leadership, b) forming partnerships, c) using what we know, and d) building collaboratives. Each of these factors is elaborated further.

Defining Leadership

The business model for leadership has no place in education. Leading by directing, by setting standards, by evaluating those "under" the leader describes leadership at

its worst. Sergiovanni identified such "direct" leadership as alien to what schools and professional teachers are abotit. He argues that the more professionalism is employed the less leadership is needed. Conversely, the more "direct" leader- ship is employed, the less likely that professionalism will develop (Sergiovanni, 1992).

Traditionally leaders are served. But if we are to have reform, i.e., an idea-based organization or a community enterprise, the person with moral authority is cast in the role of serving the enterprise even more than others who serve the particular enterprise. This suggests that what makes a leader special is that he or she is a better follower. This means better at articulating the purposes of the community, more passion- ate about them, and more willing to take time to pursue them. Real leaders provide a set of conceptions that become an idea structure for their programs. The structures were not just those of the leader; instead there was group ownership with some not accepted at all by the "leader." What persons in a group believe in and feel passionate about is the real source of authority.

Where are the "leaders" in science teacher education? Where are the idea structures? Where are the common beliefs? Where is the passion? Where is the cadre of professionals working together at improvement and reform?

Forming Partnerships

Even with but 100 science teaching centers, each with a minimum faculty of 10-15 persons, reform of science teacher education would not occur miraculously. But such a cadre of professionals with the kind of leadership described above would be a fine position of enlarging the complete team of players needed if the whole preparatory program were to be improved. This team of players for preparing science teachers would include a core of persons from the science departments as partners in planning and carrying out the program. A partnership does not mean science faculty on one side defining a discipline-based major--and education on the other defining a program to meet certification in a given state. A total of five science faculty for each major area of science would provide a critical mass at a given center; and such a cadre of scientists could become full partners in the preparatory program.

Other partners should include advocacy groups for reform, such as Project 2061 (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989); Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (Pearsall, 1992); and similar reform projects for school science. The partnership should include professional societies and general school reformers (effective school centers). Projects that call for "education for all" and "schools for all" should be partners in specific reforms such as the ones in science education. A partnership with persons from State Departments of Educa- tion and intermediate science centers should be developed.

Journal of Science Teacher Education • Autumn 1993 145

And lastly, partnerships are needed with in-service teachers who will head field experiences and student teach- ing. Too often there is a major chasm between pre- and in- service programs. Too often in-service teachers tell student teachers and/or first-year teachers to forget the "ivory tower" ideas from their university training. The partnership with in- service teachers must also include a partnership with rel- evant boards of education or with community and business leaders from a given school center.

Science teacher education is too important for a single staff of science educators. It is impossible to develop an ideal program without the involvement of many--many other than science educators per se, many from schools and intermediate educational units. A large team is needed at each center specializing in science teacher education.

Using What We Know

More research has been completed during the past ten years that is relevant to science teacher education than was known for the earlier 100 years. And yet little of these newer discoveries have impacted preparatory programs. Too little has changed since the 1968 study by Newton and Watson. What are some of the major studies?

The work of Jon Miller (1989) identified all kinds of failures from science classrooms and programs. It is pos- sible to say that over 90% of all high school graduates are scientifically/technologically illiterate. And the situation has worsened over the past decade. If one of our goals is to produce scientifically and technologically literate graduates (as per the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Position Paper for the 80s, 1982), then we are failing with all but 7%-10% of the graduates. This suggests the need for major changes--not just minor adjustments.

In attempts to find out how learning occurs in the most gifted students, cognitive scientists have found that 85%- 90% of physics undergraduates and engineering majors can not apply what they seem to know and seem able to do to real world problems. Originally this work was designed to study how the minds of "expert" students worked in order that the less gifted (novices) could be helped. Instead we found that we fail with even the most interested and the most gifted 85%-90% of the time (Driver, 1990; Mestre & Lochhead, 1990; Resnick, 1987; Yager, 1993). Again, this information suggests the imperative for change in what we do in schools and classrooms.

Other research reports by constructivists have effec- tively changed programs and instruction in mathematics. Constrnctivist teaching is now offered by many as a way of reforming science education (Yager, 1991). Basic to this view of learning is the idea that each learner must construct meaning for him- or herself. Learning can not occur by simple transmission of information from teacher or textbook to the brain of a student. Instead there must be internaliza-

tion, or explanations generated by the person, or some interpretation by the learner. As more evidence is collected on the Constructivist Learning Model it is apparent that changes are needed in common teaching practices. Teachers and students must be more reflective if they are to learn (Sparks-Longer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton & Starko, 1990).

Curriculum and instructional theorists also add much to our knowledge base. It is now apparent that curriculum is but a vehicle to accomplish certain goals. And if teachers are not important ingredients in constructing it, it is rarely a useful or appropriate vehicle. Current ideas on instruction are mindful of the past failures, and the promise ofconstructivist ideas. Apparently what a teacher does and how he/she does it in the classroom is far more important than what a teacher knows or the curriculum he/she uses.

A final line of research focuses on teacher assessment practices and abilities. Assessment is often not seen as related to instructional goals or instructional strategies. It is more often related to curriculum--what students remember from it. Teacher training is unsuccessful in offering assess- ment as a part of instruction or helping pre- and in-service teachers improve in their abilities to assess the learning of their own students (Simmons & Resnick, 1993; Stiggins, 1991; Trumbull & Slack, 1991).

We must figure out better ways of using information about learning, instruction, and accessment of both. It is unforgivable to ignore research and to continue practices known to be ineffective.

Building Collaboratives

One solution to the failures with the three previous problems may be in linking all science teacher education programs. This could be by states or some other geographi- cal function. This could permit all 1,250 institutions to be involved--but in some way other than responsibility of an entire program without adequate staff, facilities, or students.

Perhaps states could decide based upon population and resources what number of science teacher education pro- grams can and/or should be supported. If this number were but one (like many states and other professional colleges-- i.e., medicine, law, engineering), this would be a way of affecting state certification standards without the usual give and take between large and small institutions--all of which need to be accommodated.

Currently there is much talk and action concerning standards--regarding school science, teacher preparation, and staff development (National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Although these initiatives are not without contro- versy, they are encouraging organizations, professionals, and individuals to work cooperatively as consensus is sought.

Perhaps one of the most important developments is the decision of NSF to encourage collaboratives for science

146 Journal of Science Teacher Education • Autumn 1993

teacher education as a new program. Such collaboratives can receive funding of several million dollars over a five- year period. If such projects are funded for purposes of stimulating real reform, we could be entering an era of change, that will address real problems. The problems are many; but so far the would-be reforn~s seem to be minor adjustments. Unfortunately, only three programs were funded in 1993 in Maryland, Louisiana, and Montana. It remains to be seen what these huge collaborative efforts produce.

In summary, we need uncommon leadership if our current problems are to be resolved. We also need partner- ships which will provide a staffof a critical size befitting the enormity of the problem and the number of science teachers needed. We need to use what we now know; to be sure the current research results are publicized across the nation and in a way designed to affect practice. We must be willing to form collaboratives that will bring all professionals together to produce fundamental reform.

A few years ago Tamir synthesized a list of features that an exemplary science teacher education program would include (Yager, Lunetta & Tamir, 1979). Perhaps the time is right to realize them now. These general features of exemplary science teacher education programs include:

1. The program is based upon stated objectives, generally expressed in performance terms that delineate a variety of instructional skills and competencies.

2. Experiences in teacher education are planned for a span of several years and are integrated with the total aca- demic program.

3. The program consists of a broad curriculum that goes beyond the separate science disciplines.

4. The nature of science in a historical, philosophical, and social perspective is a central component.

5. Experiences for improving communication and inter- personal relationships are included.

6. Preservice teachers are actively involved in a variety of teaching experiences; a significant number of these occur with students in the public schools.

7. Experiences are provided in evaluation and in the appli- cation of research to learning and teaching.

8. The preservice program is but a first step in a continuous cycle of professional growth and inservice.

9. The program is based upon a continuing evaluation of needs and program effectiveness; it includes the con- tinuous assessment of the skills of individual preservice teachers.

In 1993 the Department of Education funded a major research effort called "Linking Teacher Preparation Out- comes and Teacher Performance". The project will provide a careful look at the new graduates of ten institutions. The philosophies, demonstrated skills, and perceptions will then

be related to specific facets of their teacher education pro- grams. In addition, ten of the new graduates who are employed as new teachers will be studied during their first three years of teaching to determine the effect of their programs upon their teaching and upon learning that their students can demonstrate (Yager & Apple, 1993). This major research effort promises to shed more light on science teacher education as reforms are contemplated.

Our successes with reforms in science teacher educa- tion will be determined by our abilities to work together to realize common goals. We are doomed to failure without change, collaboration, and a strong research base. Such conditions will hasten our maturity as a discipline and provide new teachers who are desperately needed if school reform is to be realized.

References

B rockway, C. (I 989). Tile status of science teacher edaca- tion hz 1owa-1988. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Driver, R. (1990), The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Dohlg science: hnage of science in science education. London, En- gland: Palmer Press.

Iskandar, S. M. (1986). The status of science education in the United States colleges and universities hz 1985. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Mestre, J. P., & Lockhead, J. (1990). Academic preparation in science: Teachingfortransition from high school to college. New York, NY: College Entrance Examina- tion Board.

Miller, J. (1989, April). Scientific literacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1992). National science education stan- dards: A sampler. Washington, DC: National Re- search Council.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1993a). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1993b). National science education standards: July '93progress report. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1994,January). Nationalscienceeduca- tion stamlards: State focused review inquiIy. Paper prepared for the Joint State Con ference Meeting. Wash- ington, DC.

Journal of Science Teacher Education ° Autumn 1993 147

National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science- technology-society: Science education for the 1980s.

(Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author. Newton, D. E., & Watson, F. G. (1968). The research on

science education sta'vey: The status of teacher educa-

tion programs hz the sciences, 1965-67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Pearsall, M. K. (Ed). (1992). Scope, sequence, and

coordination of secondary school science: Volume II.

Relevant research. Washington, DC: National Science

Teachers Association. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learnhlg to think.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989), Science for all

Ametqcans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes

for leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 41-45. Simmons, W., & Resnick, L. (1993). Assessment as the

catalyst of school reforna. EducationalI_x, adership,50(5),

11-15. Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton,

A. & Starko, A. (1990). Reflective pedagogical think- ing: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of

Teacher Education, 41(4), 23-32. Stiggins, R.J. (1991). Facing the challenges of a new era of

educational assessment. Applied Measttremetzt in Edu-

cation, 4(4), 263-273.

Trumbull, D. J., & Slack, M. J. (1991). Learning to ask, listen, and analyze: Using structured interviewing assignments to develop reflection in preservice science teachers, hltenlational Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 129-142.

Yager, R. E. (1980). Status stttdy of gra&tate science education in the Uaited States, 1960-80final report. (NSF Contract #79-SP-0698). Washington, DC: Na- tional Science Foundation.

Yager, R. E. (1984). Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education, 68(1), 35-37.

Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.

Yager, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). 1Vhat research says to the science teacher, Vol. 7. The science, teclmolog), soci- ety movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Yager, R. E., & Apple, M. A. (1993). Linking teacher preparation outcomes attd teacher performance. (A proposal prepared for the United States Department of Education.) Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center.

Yager, R. E., Lunetta, V. N., & Tamir, P. (1979). Changes in science teacher education 1967-1977. School Sci- ence attd Mathematics, 79(4), 308-312.

Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1990). Science teacher education. In. W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 657-673). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

148 Journal of Science Teacher Education • Autumn 1993