A Call for Self-reflection as Professors Engage the Issues
of Science Education Reform
Miguel M. Licona, Ph.D.
The purpose of this study is to consider science education reform from the perspective of those professors who have developed and implemented a reformed science course. I have gained insight and a deeper understanding of the interplay of their individual and collective belief systems with theory and practice. The gap that exists between theory and practice must be addressed. Through awareness of their actions and recognition of the lack of congruence with their explanations, practitioners may begin to create the possibility for genuine transformation (Caine & Caine, 1997a, 1997b).
Inherent within this process is an acknowledgment that there is no single location at which to arrive. Instead, transformation can be understood as a journey of reflection and de/reconstruction. Transformation is at the heart of educational reform. I believe reform is not possible to achieve without the transformation of university professors’ mental models that represent the deep-seated beliefs that affect their behavior (Caine & Caine, 1997a; Crowell, Caine & Caine, 1998). These beliefs and perceptions are formed through a lifetime of experiences, and my intention is not to look for professors to “change their minds,” but for them to become critically aware and mindful in order to enhance the transformational process (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Hart, 1998).
This research was based on the following questions:
interdisciplinary learning and teaching of science to students not intending to major in science?
success of this reform initiative?
reform?
mental models regarding teaching, learning, and students?
chemistry perceive their practice?
A reflective practice that allows for the identification of convictions on issues that define one’s philosophy of education must be a starting point for transformation. How can we know where we are going if we do not know where we are?
McGinnis and Watanabe (1996) studied math and science faculty in order to paint a picture of the discourse landscape that higher education teachers inhabit in reference to their thinking. They did this in order to understand the teaching faculty’s beliefs and actions in designing and implementing undergraduate teacher preparation science classes. They found that faculty transformations are affected by differing beliefs, which ultimately impact the collaboration between the disciplines. I found evidence of this in my research. Science professors do not hold other disciplines in the same hierarchical regard as their own. This seems to be one of the components of their belief systems that must be better understood in order to remove this obvious constraint from the reform process.
Studies of professors’ belief systems seem to be rare, while studies of students, pre-service teachers, teaching assistants, and in-service teachers are more abundant. Watanabe, McGinnis & Roth-McDuffie (1997) conducted research with teachers and instructors participating in the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation (MCTP). They found that teachers who teach other teachers have a profound indoctrinating effect (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; McGinnis & Watanabe, 1996). They also found that the instructors accepted the idea of modeling good instruction, and this experience actually impacted their teaching in general. My research captures the belief systems of reform-oriented professors as they enter these new teaching experiences. It is important to understand their belief systems because they must transform their pedagogical stance that has long been in place while they are trying new practices. What are these belief systems based on? In the Watanabe et al. (1997) study, some professors taught the science class with intentions of teaching college students while others taught the college students as if they were teaching students in the middle grades. This was also observed in my study.
McClurg (1991) reported on an NSF funded initiative that identified an important perspective that must be assimilated into our collective thinking about the issues and problems that the current reform movement is attempting to address. She calls for a more cohesive model of science education to replace the existing adhesive one. Pre-service elementary teachers presently enroll in approximately nine hours of science in a haphazard way during the first two years of college and in one science methods class during their final two years of college. They are then placed in student teaching with teachers who do not teach science well, if at all. As the picture of reform issues becomes less blurred, more cohesive programs for our future teachers can be better planned.
Conceptualization of the Study
The reformed Arts and Science course was taught for the first time during this study. It was unique in that six professors from four different departments collaborated to develop and teach it using an integrated thematic approach. I became involved in subsequent meetings as a representative from the education department.
Procedure 1: Survey/Questionnaire
A survey of thirteen questions was given to each professor. Each was asked to provide narrative responses. Written or word-processed responses were either handed to me during the first interview or emailed to me at a later date.
I used Seidman’s (1998) in-depth interviewing technique. This required that I conduct three 90-minute tape-recorded interviews with each instructor. Each interview was guided by one main question.
Procedure 3: Classroom Observation
A third component of this research involved approximately 47 classroom observations of the Arts and Science course. Informal observations and interviews with participant instructors and students were conducted during this phase of the research. This research component yielded information that helped build an understanding of instructors’ theories-in-use (mental models) dealing with reformed science teaching.
Assessment
Living on the edge of possibility means that we have an organized and authentic philosophy of learning and teaching that allows us to use, invent, and create approaches that apply what we know about learning. (Crowell et al., 1998)
Professors recognized the need for alternative forms of assessment, but cited constraints to implementing them in the courses with the most diverse student populations. They thought of the CETP reformed course as an opportunity to try something new, yet could not apply it to their regular courses due to perceived and actual constraints. They talked about using alternatives in the honors and upper division major’s courses because of the reduction in class size. Students in these classes are not necessarily those students who need diverse pedagogical methods because they are the ones that persisted in a traditional system. In a way these students weathered and even excelled in the self-selection process.
A question of honesty appeared on several occasions. The professors seem to be caught in a paradox. They either stay with traditional assessment methods that they know produce an environment in which cheating is inherent, and that they know does not reflect conceptual knowledge attainment, or move to try an alternative where the element of control may be lost. According to Crowell et al., “When we change our perceptions of the world, our approaches to living in the world also change” (1998, p. 102). This suggests that even though there is a lack of certainty in what to do, the fact that the problem is obvious gives hope that the search for these new methods will be pursued.
We must move beyond allowing a perception that a small percentage of students that “cheat” drive our pedagogical model and prevent us from growing as educators. Some professors assume that students have a predisposition towards cheating, yet alternatives to assessment are still not valued. Their confidence to consider and to implement alternatives increases with the course level towards those students who have done well and remained throughout the self-selection process. Evidence appeared to highlight the deep-seated belief that quantitative proof is needed to show that a new method will work better than an existing one.
Adrienne’s view of the purpose of assessment includes preparing students for stressful times in the work place. Encountering this revelation through reflective analysis might cause her perception to be altered toward a more productive understanding of assessment. She alludes to this more productive approach to assessment in that she believes it should show what the student understands. The focus of the search for an ideal should include the brain-based principles, in particular, student choice.
Assessment remains an important issue in education, and we must move beyond the notion of incremental change if we are to embrace science education reform for all. Through reflective practice, belief systems can come to be more fully understood and practitioners can then compare what they say to what they do. When these two perspectives do not coincide, the opportunity to select alternative methods that accommodate a broader base of learners is made possible. As Kuhn (1996) has identified in the discourse of scientific revolution, anomalies must be seen before we can act to understand them.
A contradiction emerged when these professors stated that the only alternative seems to be to continue the use of multiple-choice exams as the “method of choice.” It is suggested for the larger classes, which are the most diverse. These are the courses that need methods aligned with the goal of reform. It is the smaller upper level courses that get alternative methods applied (due to their smaller size) and these are the classes that have narrowed student diversity through the self-selecting process.
Constraints .
Orientation Three thinking…happens through a deliberate response to what we know and a willingness to look at ourselves, our schools, and our world with new eyes. (Crowell et al., 1998)
Constraints analyzed below are those that were explicitly articulated by the professors. Interestingly, professors most frequently addressed the social aspects of reform as having constraints. They were not as prepared to consider the cognitive or mental model constraints. In fact, they looked to others as constraining reform efforts and goals without deeply considering that which may be constraining them from more meaningfully embracing reform efforts. Reform oriented thinking must embrace a broader view within the cognitive domain as well as in the social realm. In this way, educators will better understand the relationships between the cognitive and the social as well as how the two together have the potential to impede or advance reform efforts. These identified constraints are external to the people involved and make it easier to draw conclusions that preclude broad-based reform. Believing that not much can be done about these external conditions causes these goals of reform to be considered unattainable. The perceptions of the constraints seem to give them a legitimized reality. Inherent constraints were evident, but were not articulated by the professors.
All professors identified time and class size explicitly while implying that lecture is not a good method. They indicated that their pedagogical repertoire is lacking alternatives that might address the problem.
Educational practitioners must look through new eyes in order visualize the possibilities that are driven by a different mental model. If we espouse that we want to change, but convince ourselves that the constraints are the reasons that we cannot, little will be done towards true transformation of students and educators together.
Reifying existing conditions will serve to convert hope into hopelessness (Freire, 1994). It is for this reason that professors must be supported to participate in meaningful professional development that will provide the experiences necessary to forge new mental models, not just espoused ones. It is the latter that are embedded in the rhetoric of contradiction that sustains resistance to reform.
University Culture.
Another aspect of the science reform culture is that recommended changes are often out of context, both in terms of institutional limitations and the needs and abilities of students and faculty they are supposed to serve. This indifference to context may also reflect the habits of doing science, for it appears to rest on the unexamined belief that, once articulated, the “right way” will be self-evident, teacher-proof, and appropriate for a wide variety of institutions. (Tobias, 1992a, p. 16)
Adrienne reveals the specialized nature of a department full of Ph.D.s and characterizes it interestingly–as narrow. She also shows how the system can be rigid and limiting to those who do not “comply.” It is possible Adrienne is experiencing marginalization similar to that of non-science major students. Her competence is questioned due to her lack of research. Moreover, she appears to get plenty of the routinized work for the department. Tenure and promotion is commonly tied to research and publication.
Although academic inbreeding is espoused as undesirable, it apparently occurs quite often. Several of the professors have not only attended but also have only taught at this university. The reasons against inbreeding are to keep the diversity of thinking high so a department does not stagnate or get too narrowly defined. This contradiction seems to work against diversity, and more solidly positions existing practice to perpetuate self-selection.
Adrienne is relegated to teach lower level courses now. This practice must be questioned, not only because of the apparent injustice done to a professor by devaluing teaching in such a manner, but also because of the message to students regarding who advances, who publishes, and what role women play in engineering.
The lab is where hands-on activities help students understand the concepts. This is accomplished with the help of TAs that probably have even less pedagogical training than professors. Adrienne admits that faculty deal mostly with the transmission portion of the course. Opportunities to do something besides lecture, as well as to get to know the students within a dynamic and less certain process, are consequently missed. This cultural practice is highly suspect in developing negative attitudes towards the discipline while failing to build positive ones. Even when the department offers professional development, it is not well attended.
When the existing faculty culture is challenged in meaningful ways, the roots of reform may begin to spread from within, and the long anticipated top down reform can be abandoned. Energy can then be used to continue growth in a collaborative way. Reform oriented teaching allows for teachers to become involved with their students as co-learners rather than transmitters of text-based knowledge (Gardner, 1998; Tobias, 1992a). The modeling that takes place in this new relationship can enhance the development of those nuances and understanding. “Rather than relying on convention or tradition or what seems to work, it is more effective to look to research for improving teaching” (Nieto, 1999, p. 4).
The university science culture values research over teaching ( Jennings, 1997; Mattson, 1997). This is why most seem to support the scramble to get research and publications while affording little effort to their re/education to improve instruction. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) provide evidence that students leave the sciences (and many that persist feel similarly) primarily due to poor teaching. Since most students will not become scientists, it seems prudent to address a broader base of students with the intention of guiding them towards science literacy.
The interviews identified professors’ belief that 10% of the students persist in science, and a professor can expect 10% to get Ds and Fs. This can be interpreted as scientists teaching to 10% of the population. A question of democracy in education arises when 90% of the students do not have their needs met. If those 90 % of students were to become science literate, would it potentially demystify the discipline and tumble the pillars of this hegemonic process?
David has been teaching at this university for three years and has mentored one student. It brings contradiction to the notion of expense of reform as considered in the context of lowering class size. Consider that this department is supporting a professor over a span of three years who is teaching upper division classes in order to get one student through the program. The ideas incorporated into this mental model serve to resist the notion of science for all as well as protect his position by aligning closely with the cultural values of the discipline ( Jennings, 1997; Lasley, Matczynski, & Benz, 1998).
This descriptive account of the university culture shows how aware practitioners are of the current state of science in higher education. Sophia points to the administrative prestige assigned to research within disciplines while the teaching of science is relegated to a secondary status. The gap between the espoused and mental model needs to move from awareness to praxis in order to narrow the incongruence that is evident (McLaren & Leonard, 1993). The result is a tension between reform and science. The culture is in need of review and deconstruction. Only then can the dominant view that supports the status quo in valuing scientists over science educators be effectively challenged (McLaren, 1994).
Sophia identifies another significant reality that has become a major obstacle for furthering the science education of educators through a self-selecting process. This constrains the university’s ability to produce science literate K-12 educators. This important contradiction keeps us in a “catch-22” situation. Pre-college educators are blamed for not preparing the students for college, yet the people responsible for the teachers’ education embrace pedagogies of selection and separation.
The self-selection machine is evidently secure. It will effectively impede reform efforts, lest an emancipatory dialogue pervades to produce an active discourse of reform. Problematizing this component of resistance to reform holds much promise to moving from a language and practice of indoctrination towards one of possibility (Freire, 1993; McLaren & Leonard, 1993).
In science and mathematics education, traditional curriculum development still occurs, as these privileged areas still receive significant amounts of federal and private grant monies…. However, the general field of curriculum…. is no longer preoccupied with development … the field today is preoccupied with understanding. (Pinar, 1995, p. 6)
The constraints articulated by the respondents inhibit the understanding of curriculum as it applies to the relationships among school subjects and the relationship between curriculum and the world (Hurd, 1997; Pinar, 1995). These same constraints serve to perpetuate the ordered, and highly organized, developmental curriculum common in the first half of this century.
Again there is evidence that class size is the reason for not using non-lecture methods. I must reiterate that professors cannot afford to apply best practice methods that are more conducive to learning for understanding only after the selection of students has occurred.
It is important to note that often professors appear to have adopted the language of reform without really incorporating needed changes to make reform a meaningful reality in their classrooms. Poor results are tied to poor and inadequate techniques that remain unchanged even when they are questioned. That these professors acknowledge flawed methods and still rely on them is an alarming signal that beckons resources and support to provide opportunities for re-education in order for reform to have lasting systemic ramifications.
Multicultural education…becomes a central and essential element in any consideration of educational reform. (Cummings in Nieto, 1996, p. xvi)
Adrienne presents evidence that self-selection appears to be widespread in SMET courses. She seems fairly confident that those students who persist have some learning commonalities, especially if there is only one general pedagogical perspective that they are exposed to. The question that emerges is: Do these students end up in the upper level courses with students similar to themselves because they have been selected by having their needs met over others, or are they at this point due to common interests?
Values and expectations develop and support a belief system that not only separates students by learning style, but also by gender. Of the few females that Adrienne sees in her classes, some do very well. Deprivation and selection have already had their effects on those that did not make it to her classes. Professors may espouse equity, but it is their mental models as well as the system of which they are a part that produce behavior that divides and separates students. Perpetuation of gender stereotypes is a major force towards limiting access in the sciences (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1992a, 1992b). An equal opportunity for each student can and should be provided. The present reform initiative is attempting to effect changes in the early university exposure of students attending SMET courses. Many of these students will be education majors, and they will in turn effect changes in the K-12 student populations.
The call is for professors to make liberal changes in the way they perceive students who are different – those that do not “look and act like” scientists and engineers. The perception of diversity must also broaden so that the process of education is more inclusive of difference. The system is not set up to be democratic when it bases its methods of assessment on competition and knowing facts rather than on democratic processes where students can form learning communities and have choices surrounding how they will demonstrate knowledge understanding.
The students in these classes do not come close to representing the demographic make-up of the local community. One professor “does not see many minorities interested in applying” because of his expectations in their outward appearance as well as in their attitude. This practice of intolerance is self-selection at its most effective point.
Science is for everybody, not just a few. If the suggestion that students “ought to be doing something else that they would be better at” were applied on a broader basis, it would have devastating effects. Pedagogues must have an understanding of how learning occurs in order to avoid relying on notions that can further marginalize students. Diamond and Hopson (1998) have done much to advance our understanding of how enriched environments enhance learning. The problem is that teachers are not having meaningful science experiences during the years they are studying to be teachers, yet the university professors would like for them to provide an enriched pedagogy of innovations. University science educators must move beyond only being scientists and pursue teaching along with advancement in their disciplines. This will require that their mental models change along with their knowledge base regarding learning and teaching.
The critical shifts required to guarantee a healthy world for our children and our children’s children will not be achieved by doing more of the same. “The world we have created is a product of our way of thinking,” said Einstein. Nothing will change in the future without fundamentally new ways of thinking. (Senge, in Caine & Caine, 1997b, p. 14)
Reform is still thought of in terms of an exclusive population of students; namely those who are most likely to succeed under the current system. Are we just training students for the job market, or are we participating in a learning environment where we move beyond surface knowledge towards acquisition of dynamical knowledge? Our mental models, or theories-in-use, are aspects of our perceptual or dynamical knowledge, while our espoused theories are essentially surface and technical knowledge (Caine & Caine, 1997a, 1997b). Dynamical knowledge allows students to connect to the real world. Teachers must not get in the way of meaning-making and allow students to make connections between what they experience in school and the knowledge and experiences they bring with them. It seems clear that the purposes for schooling must cast the widest net possible. Teachers must therefore move away from a narrow view of simply preparing students for the job market. We must bring into question our methods of motivating students so that all students can have the choice of participating rather than having the choice made for them.
We began learning about age three that schools were “normal” and commenced attending them by age six or sooner….We didn’t question the existence of classrooms, fixed groups, grades, periods, subjects, courses, evaluations, or junior highs and high schools, any more than we questioned lamp posts, fences, green grass, or the warm sun of summer. These things were. Those opting for teaching or related careers come to college with a dozen years of things-as-they-are experience. Most return to the school milieu at around age 22—a time when real-world experience may be scant and contact with real children at the lowest point. After some 16 or more years of status quo exposure to education’s structures and procedures, and the ideas that support them, what is accepted as normal without much question. This is powerful indoctrination. (Hart, 1998, p. 29)
The participant professors recalled experiences from grade school, high school, college, and their professional development initiatives. Most of them showed evidence that they developed and changed their pedagogical style and underlying belief system due to these experiences. The effect of indoctrination was quite visible as I talked with them and observed their classes (Bruckerhoff & Bruckerhoff, 1996, Hart, 1998; McGinnis & Watanabe, 1996). They identified that they teach the way they were taught, and any change that has occurred was due to frustrations along the way as they taught their college courses. They also showed awareness of the need to reform the science education practice at the university. There appears to remain little support for them to become involved in transformative experiences.
Most of the professors participate in outreach programs they have developed, and said that it was not valued in their departments. The present culture in the departments expects professors to spend five percent of their efforts on service, fifty percent on teaching and forty-five percent on research. It is easy to see conflict arising from spending “valuable” time on an endeavor that collectively has less value. Some of their desire to help the teachers in the public schools also brings frustration since they have more “teacher preparation” than the university faculty. The efforts get reduced to trying to help out with content and occasionally with methods of experimentation.
Professional development experiences were limited in scope and number. All participants belong to their respective professional societies. Most find the time to attend their conferences and have noticed that workshops and breakout sessions are increasingly dealing with science education. Adrienne rarely attends because she feels that they are held at times that interfere with her teaching and does not have any research to present. Hobart attends and presents on topics dealing with science education. Patrick mentioned that he attends his society’s conferences and has noticed increasing devotion of presentations dealing with education. David generally attends more specific presentations that deal with his area of specialization. Sophia presents content specific papers and has attended workshops by her professional society. William attends the society’s annual conferences and even presents his innovative lecture/demonstration techniques. These are presentations done by the scientists themselves that may be affected by cultural constraints that limit broad-based experience and knowledge about learning. This aspect of science and education must also become integrated so that those that have done the research on learning and teaching within as well as outside of the science arena can participate in the dialogue of reform.
Other experiences that inform their methods of teaching and learning are limited to one or two memorable ones. During the interviews it became apparent that they have not had exposure to meaningful professional development because of perceived constraints and departmental expectations dealing with research, tenure and promotion. Adrienne did not mention any workshops of this nature, but her involvement with public schools seems to occupy any free time that she has. Hobart has worked for the Educational Testing Service on AP exams. Patrick recalled a lasting impression made when he participated with Writing Across the Curriculum. This moved him to adopt a new aspect to his teaching and evaluation methods. Sophia recalled a workshop that drew her attention to innovative ways to deal with large classes. She is also participating in a collaborative research project sponsored by her professional society. Most of these professors mentioned that their college sponsors presentations and seminars that deal with topics of science education. These presentations are attended on a volunteer basis and some apparently did not sound appealing or were repeats of previous ones. The biology and chemistry professors mentioned that their departments have monthly seminars.
All of these professors had commentaries of their involvement with the CETP reformed science course. They viewed it as an opportunity to shed their perceived constraints and try some of the innovations. They were given latitude to develop an innovative course that would develop science literacy to pre-service teachers using a thematic and integrated approach. They were constrained by their limited knowledge and experiences about teaching and learning.
It is difficult to predict how participation in one course will affect teacher transformation, but it did provide a forum for letting go of tradition and constraints in order to try innovations. The problem is that the repertoire of selections is limited by the lack of experiences and knowledge dealing with teaching and learning. Professors and teachers in general are not provided with support in these areas. When they are, practitioners do not fully embrace or participate in them because this aspect of education is less valued than pure science and research. This paradox exists and will limit the transformation of our educational system until the collective body of science recognizes this and changes the values that make up the culture of scientists/educators within our universities. Although initiatives such as CETP are addressing administrative support and institutional buy-in, there is a lack of institutional response to changing times and research on the brain and learning. Instead, many reform efforts are largely being lead by individuals pursuing their personal visions (Hart, 1998). Research on learning and understanding has experienced growth due to recent developments in technologies that allow researchers to gain greater insight into learning processes and effects. New kinds of interdisciplinary research collaborations have provided the basis for supporting best practice pedagogies (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council, 2000).
We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. (Martin Luther King in Giroux, 1997)
The professors were aware of many of the issues that the present reform effort is attempting to address. Collectively, these issues emerged: alternatives to lecture, equity, student quality, teacher effectiveness, content vs. process, K-12 teaching and learning, assessment, university culture, tenure and promotion, education based on learning rather than high scores, animosity towards education department, compartmentalization of science disciplines, research valued over teaching, depth vs. breadth of science content, curriculum integration, tracking, high failure rate, diversity, indoctrination, and the decreasing number of “competitive” American students in the sciences. Individually, each of these issues could spawn new research.
Though the participants were aware of some of these issues, none seemed aware of all of them. The level of understanding of the issues seemed limited or superficial because to do this at a deeper level takes time to read, research, and participate in discovery activities. The practice of action research could accelerate the reform process by internalizing a deeper understanding of issues related to teachers and students.
We need some new thinking about science education reform in general … we need to find new ways to nurture departments and faculty who are committed to lasting change. New thinking begins with a critique of old thinking. (Tobias, 1992a, p. 13)
Literature and learning were combined due to the limited references to them in the data. It seems appropriate to say that what is important here is not what was articulated during this study, but actually what was omitted. There was almost a total lack of relatedness to any sort of research on learning, teaching or other aspects of reform. It is obvious that the research literature most scientists spend time reviewing is within their areas of specialization. Three professors referred to Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t (Tobias, 1992a).
Part of the problem is this lack of exposure to the theories that inform learning and teaching. Who better to interpret these theories than the practitioners? Although there are many references to learning in the interview data, most are based on notion and definitions developed from experience. Some professors have tried to incorporate what they encountered in their professional development, but such a limited exposure to new ideas will not provide enough understanding to sustain the development of knowledge and practice that addresses learning. Many times these professors are using what Freire (1994) calls the language of critique, but what is missing is the language of possibility.
The importance of developing a theory of science education is to provide a framework in which elements of reform may find meaning and viability. It provides a means for making consistent choices likely to improve the course of reform. In other ways it makes it possible to distinguish buzzword, slogans, postulates, and clichés from rational thought. It also provides for debates, deliberations, and reflection on problems in place of “instant philosophies and “off the top of the head” responses. (Hurd, 1997, p. 23)
Without intentional inquiry into new knowledge and participation in new experiences in order to sustain a new consciousness, reform cannot enjoy sustained and widespread acceptance. We cannot simply critique what we feel is not working and expect change without a recontextualization of the landscape in which the conflict emerged. We need to see the present with new eyes. It is not until the system dynamically reaches critical stages in reflective terms that transformation begins. We must not focus our attention on external relationships and ignore the internal changes and processes that occur as a system becomes different. We must initiate individual substantive changes in our lives through a combination of external conditions and deep personal reflection (Crowell et al., 1998). When we go through transformations of this nature we create a new personal history with new challenges and possibilities.
A new pedagogy will emerge from the clash of what we have been doing and our new understandings of learning and teaching. Responsive learning will be clarified as we confront our assumptions, our practice, and our learning environment.
Teachers have a sense that they can do much more than they are doing if there were more support, freedom, and time to work more collaboratively with colleagues. This is what current reform initiatives intend, yet the necessary transformation that must occur is caught in a contradiction. Teachers believe they cannot practice what they intuitively know is good for students due to perceived constraints. On the other hand, teachers say they experience great autonomy once they are in actual practice in their classrooms (Crowell et al., 1998).
The foundation for the traditional mental model is deteriorating. The needs of an increasingly diverse student population are not being met. We must learn to live in a new landscape. “But as new skills and perceptions are created, we may find that these changes represent a range of new possibilities for each of us and the institutions that make up our lives” (Crowell et al., 1998, p. 22).
It is obvious from participants’ comments that there is a wide range of ideas regarding the existing problems in the practice of education. However, it is still very difficult to see the range of possibilities from a position so close to the problem. Those who have moved their experiences away from the extant practices and constraints have the greatest chance for reform-based transformation.
Considerations of the Need for Self-Reflective Practices
The components of the belief system as they were revealed in this study are part of an over-arching theme of resistance to meaningful science education reform. The implications of resistance as expressed through the incongruence between the espoused theories and mental models of each participant deserve our individual and collective attention. We as professors need to engage in a meaningful and personal effort of self-reflection. Only then can we begin to uncover and critically examine how we have been able to enjoy the prestige of a system of self-selection without the awareness that it was, in fact and indeed, unaccommodating to others.
Before they can engage meaningfully in reform, professors must go through the process of self-reflection and critical analysis of their own behaviors (Freire, 1994; McLaren & Leonard, 1993). Professors on this self-critical path can more accurately assess and critique present exclusionary practices. They might then acknowledge how a move toward a pedagogy of possibility will not limit scientists. Instead, a pedagogy of possibility will serve to broaden the base of those who will call themselves scientists while educating all towards science literacy in a democratic and socially responsible way.
Dealing with student diversity has presented a problem. Professors dichotomized students into majors and non-majors, lower-division and upper division, those that do and those that don’t want to learn, poor students and the better ones, and education students versus the rest of the student population. These categories were apparently used to help explain why some students do not do well in these traditional courses, even if innovations have been implemented. Valuing a single way of knowing marginalizes the majority. If professors are not teaching from a socio-cultural perspective, blame cannot be placed solely on the student when he or she does poorly (Nieto, 1999; Rodríguez, 1998). Teaching for understanding is at the base of reform, yet present assessment methods are discriminatory in that students’ ways of showing understanding are not valued and the bottom line is still grading and scores. Minorities will soon comprise 40 percent of the student population and as the student population becomes more diverse, the teacher population becomes less (Clark & O’Donnell, 1999; Hodgkinson, 1993; Weiss, 1993). Since this is the case, researchers in this venue are calling for professional attitudes to become more aligned with the reform goal that all children can learn (Schmieder, 1993).
Reform is in order, considering that current curriculum is a result of a “200 year-old goal prescribing that school science should be taught as an occupational subject, oriented towards the preparation of scientists” (Hurd, 1997, p. 34). This research found that professors could identify or espouse alternative objectives for instruction, such as for becoming life-long learners, but their practice was limited to the objective of the above quote. Axtell suggests that we “speak and listen in a different way” if we are to uncover what we don’t know that we don’t know (1993). Others have suggested that we speak in terms of “seeing with new eyes” (Crowell et al., 1998). These and other education-based researchers are calling for the inclusion of knowledge from areas such as social, cognitive and developmental psychology as well as neuroscience and anthropology when considering efforts to understand learning and teaching (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council, 2000). Crowell et al. (1998) have produced five guiding principles that educators can integrate into their new practice and school culture (p. 177):
Science education professors must use reflective practices to gain an understanding of the harmful effects of a pedagogy of contradiction. Educators can no longer hold onto practices that serve only the few. Lindquist (1978) called for challenging the existing reward system to be part of a strategy for change. Twenty years later the call remains unanswered, though still pertinent. He further suggests that educators adapt rather than adopt as they participate in change efforts and that “most people feel uncomfortable when they leave secure ground” (p. 240). Even though educators may feel uncomfortable, as change agents they must begin to look at the issues in new ways based on self-reference and self-efficacy (Caine & Caine, 1997a).
Toward a Pedagogy of Possibilities
In her seminal book Tobias (1992a) says, “Trained in problem definition and problem solving, scientists inevitably bring the habits of doing science to the problem of reform” (p. 16). These scientists often frame complex issues in terms of problems and solutions. Reform is not a scientific enterprise. Professors in my study wanted proof of programs that exist that have been studied “scientifically.” Hart (1998) suggests that educators must not only look towards innovation in our practice. They must also reflect on and retain effective existing practices and eliminate those practices that are not.
Aronowitz and Giroux (1991) speak toward making science accessible and available to all students, but only when scientific knowledge is removed from its “absolute pedestal” (p. 22). They present the progressive notion of making room for the excluded within the established culture as well as the postmodern stance that asserts no privileged place for science (Aronowitz, 1988). A first step in transformation for a democratic education is the recognition of multiple perspectives. We as educators must come to know our position with regards to reform issues and identify those convictions that ultimately make up our mental models. This can only be done through praxis. Aronowitz and Giroux further suggest that schools become places where students discover a public voice without making many compromises. I think professors cannot be left out of this dialogue and analysis. Schools can no longer devalue diversity and serve an elite group that has bought into a self-serving curriculum. This serves to allow students to lose their cultural identity in order to be successful (Nieto, 1996).
This study shows professors hold a limited understanding of diversity. It goes beyond ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. We must question the position of power and privilege and hence the process of self-selection. “Learning to teach for diversity implies learning to implement more culturally inclusive and socially relevant pedagogical strategies. Learning to teach for understanding involves learning to implement more critically engaging and intellectually meaningful pedagogical strategies” (Rodríguez, 1998, p. 590).
I also found professors willing to try to reform their classes because it has become obvious to them that something is not right. But good intentions do not make learning for understanding happen. Their efforts must be coupled with the knowledge of teaching and learning, new experiences and the resources to support and sustain new pedagogies. Most of the participant professors admitted that they teach the way they were taught. Aldridge (1993) suggests that the most serious thing wrong with science education today is the failure to teach science built on experience. This eludes many of the professors at the university and to a lesser degree the professors involved in reform because the call for critical constructivist pedagogies has been made. The problem seems to be the lack of understanding of constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives of learning (Nieto, 1999; Rodríguez, 1998). Traditional science teaching has been undertaken whereby terms come first and not actual experience. The mystique is compounded by setting up relationships among things that aren’t understood in the first place and by attempting enormous c overage (Aldridge, 1993).
Bybee (1997) calls for practitioners to internalize the idea that we are the reform. Reform is not out there. It is what we do in our daily work. Educators must move toward a collaborative practice within the teaching ranks as well as with student learning (Beane, 1997; Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1990; Stepans, McClurg & Beiswenger, 1995 ). Fedock, Zambo & Cobern (1996) studied professors who were willing to do what was necessary to move towards transformation. It was not until they realized that they were part of the problem that they were to make meaningful reform-oriented change in their mental models. It is possible that these professors were able to participate in reform more freely because they were at a community college where the cultural constraints are less when compared to university science professors who practice in a system that values research over teaching.
NSF guidelines for the CETP collaborative initiatives require that there be collaboration between science methods professors, science content professors, and public school teachers that include exemplary educators. In the present study, science professors met a few times to plan the reformed course. There was no visitation of schools, no inclusion of outside teachers, no evidence of literature review, and no collaboration with science methods professors. Fedock et al. (1996) feel that the potential benefits of these collaborative efforts will not be fully realized unless science professors become more knowledgeable about children, teachers, and schools. Science professors must come to see the need for reform in their own science departments at colleges and universities, not only in elementary and secondary schools. These community college professors were aroused to learn more about science education based on their dissatisfaction with their own students’ content knowledge. This arousal only set the stage for change. It did not come until they were introduced to important literature in science education, met classroom teachers, and entered into serious dialogue about effective classroom instruction. This is similar to what compelled the professors in my study to move, but they lacked these important factors that seemed to precipitate a new vision for science teaching. They must move from seeing themselves as part of the solution to seeing themselves as part of the problem (along with teachers, schools, and other educators). Teachers have much to learn from scientists and scientists have much to learn from working with teachers. It is important they participate in reform that must include changes at all levels, K-16.
NSF (1996) has expanded our vision that science education should concern itself with all of our students, not just those who historically have been represented in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Additionally, the debate over “teaching vs. research” in faculty workloads and in faculty rewards is being considered by those controllers of educational purse strings. Some universities are making significant changes in the internal culture dealing with the way faculty are evaluated and rewarded. Promotion and tenure policies are beginning to be scrutinized by initiatives from the American Association for Higher Education ( Jennings, 1997). These efforts are few and resistant forces are present to counterbalance them, nonetheless, efforts are underway to recognize educational achievements and validate faculty reward systems similarly to the publication of research results.
The educational community must move towards addressing the needs and issues that have been identified in this research. This can be done on at least two fronts; individual and group efforts to improve practice and advancing the research on learning and teaching. The NSF report, Shaping the Future (1996), calls for changes in SMET faculty, departments, businesses, schools, government, and foundations and agencies. Although broad in scope, it does not embrace the notions of reform from a total community perspective. This call for change is based within the existing culture. To move beyond how science is practiced today, Hurd (1997) calls for critical studies within contexts that serve to integrate contemporary science with human welfare and social progress. NSF’s proposal lacks the language that includes schooling and education from a more integrated perspective (Beane, 1997). Scholars suggest reform initiatives should value and include teachers as part of the dialogue, revisit professional development and in-service, and identify and support innovators and risk takers (Hilty & Gitlin, 1995; Lind, 1993). I am suggesting that the changes in society and science have made it necessary to move education in a way that is informed by recent research on learning. Hurd (1997) supports this notion:
Before new science curricula can be developed, an expanded agenda of educational research will be needed and findings must be integrated with the cognitive sciences in ways that identify compatible styles of teaching and modes of learning. (p. 45)
Science is an innate way for humans to come to know the world (Kovalik & Olsen, 1994). Science becomes distorted and undemocratic when it becomes categorized into disciplines producing borders that create conditions of inequality for the general population. It is along these borders that future research on belief systems must reside.
References
Aldridge, B. G. (1993). Scope, sequence, and coordination as it relates to elementary school science. In P. R. Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall (Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 21-24). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Axtell, P. (1993). Inventing new paradigms. In P. R. Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall(Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 15-19). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, G. (1993). In search of understanding: A case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bruckerhoff, C., & Bruckerhoff, T. (1996, September). Connecticut academy for
education in mathematics, science, and technology: Project construct 1991 to 1996. Chaplin, CT: Curriculum Research and Evaluation. (EDRS No. ED 406 402).
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices.
Portsmouth , NH : Heinemann.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997a). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997b). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The potential of brain-based teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Clark, C., & O’Donnell, J. (1999). Rearticulating a racial identity: Creating oppositional spaces to fight for equality and social justice. In C. Clark & J. O’Donnell (Eds.), Becoming and unbecoming white: Owning and disowning a racial identity (pp. 1-10). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Crowell, S., Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1998). The re-enchantment of learning:
A manual for teacher renewal and classroom transformation . Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind. New York: Dutton Books.
Fedock, P. M., Zambo, R., & Cobern, W. W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education80(1), 5-19.
Freire, P. (1993). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, M. B. (Ed.). (1998). Journeys of transformation: A statewide effort by mathematics and science professors to improve student understanding. Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Channel surfing: Racism, the media and the deconstruction of today’s youth. New York: St. Martins Griffin.
Hart, L. A. (1998). Human brain & human learning (Updated). Kent, WA: Books for Educators.
Hilty, E. B., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Teacher education: What is good teaching, and how do we teach people to be good teachers? In J. L. & S. R Steinberg (Eds.), Thirteen questions: Reframing education’s conversation (2nd ed, pp. 97-119). New York: Peter Lang.
Hodgkinson, H. (1993). Who are we preparing our programs for, anyway? In P.R. Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall (Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 49-53). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Hurd, P. D. (1997). Inventing science education for the new millennium. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jennings, J. D. (1997). Faculty productivity: A contemporary analysis of faculty perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1990). Circles of learning. (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kovalik, S. J., & Olsen, K. D. (1997). ITI: The model: Integrated thematic instruction 3rd ed.). Kent, WA: Books for Educators.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Lasley, T. J., Matczynski, T. J., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Science teachers as change-ready and change-resistant agents. The Educational Forum, 62, 120-130.
Lind, K. K. (1993). What change research means to education reform. In P. R. Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall (Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 55-58). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Lindquist, J. (1978). Strategies for change. Santee, CA: Perfector Web Printing.
Mattson, S. A. (1997). When world views collide: A study of interdepartmental collaboration to develop a biology course for prospective elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
McClurg, P. A. (1991). The development of a cohesive science education program for elementary education majors. In Critical Issues in Reforming Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics and Science: Conference Proceedings (pp. 163-172). Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.
McGinnis, J. R., & Watanabe, T. (1996). College science and mathematics teaching faculty talk about science and mathematics: An examination of the role of
discourse in an upper elementary/middle-level teacher preparation program . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (2nd ed.) White Plains, NY: Longman.
McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter. New York: Routledge.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (NSF Publication 96-139). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pinar, W. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Rodríguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counter resistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 6, 589-622.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schmieder, A. A. (1993). America 2000 and the elementary school science students: The most critical target population in science education reform. In P. R.
Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall (Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 25-27). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Stepans, J. I., McClurg, P. A., & Beiswenger, R. E. (1995). A teacher education program in elementary science that connects content, methods, practicum, and student teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 158-163.
Tobias, S. (1992a). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don’t. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Tobias, S. (1992b). Science education reform: What’s wrong with the process? Educational Change, 24(3), 13-19.
Watanabe, T., McGinnis, J. R., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (1997). University faculty “modeling” good instruction is mathematics and science courses for prospective middle grades teachers: Voices from the mctp. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Weiss, I. R. (1993). What data tell us about elementary school science. In P. R. Marcuccio, & M. S. Marshall (Eds.), A Strategy For Change Proceedings (pp. 32-40). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association