Preface
When research scientists involve themselves intensely in science-education reform, their perceptions change. Improving science education is not as simple as doing experiments in the laboratory. Data are harder to collect and interpret. Educational improvement is difficult to quantify, and the important variables are hard to sort. Scientists are accustomed to science as the "art of the soluble," where formulating a problem correctly often leads more or less automatically to its solution. In science education, both problems and solutions are embedded in the context of the individual teacher, his or her classroom, and the school and school district. Formulating problems correctly does not necessarily lead to their solution. In fact, the simple logic of problems and solutions can often impede reform. As Sheila Tobias has put it, "since [scientists'] thinking is in terms of solutions rather than strategies, their recommendations are not expressed as options; nor are they rooted in the pragmatic, the real, the here and now. They do not offer people in the field (as one person I interviewed put it) any suggestions as to 'what we can do tomorrow.'" (Tobias, Revitalizing Science Education, p. 16)
We have prepared this report as a guide to help scientists and other science educators know "what they can do tomorrow" to support the professional development of their teacher colleagues. Our analysis and recommendations are based on review of almost 200 programs for teacher enhancement and the collective experience of the committee members. Although we focused our study on biology-education programs, and the name and makeup of our committee reflect this focus, we found that many of the issues we address apply to education in all sciences. Thus, we chose a broader title addressing all scientists to encourage their interest in professional development.
Our findings reveal several contradictions. On the one hand, much effort and much money are going into professional-development activities for teachers; hundreds of scientists, thousands of teachers, and scores of federal and local funding agencies are involved. Many dedicated people have worked diligently to improve how teachers teach and how students learn science. On the other hand, few programs last more than a few years, and even fewer are linked with lasting reform. Substantive program evaluation has been scanty because appropriate methods are lacking and funding is inadequate. Thus, the conclusions we have reached cannot be established with the certainty we are accustomed to in science laboratories. Yet the committee has come to a clear consensus about what works and what does not and how scientists can contribute most effectively to the professional development of teachers. We need not wait for the definitive proof of what program works best. Many programs work. Use this guide now to develop practical strategies for scientists and teachers to work together to promote their own professional development and thus enhance the education of their students.
The committee met and wrote its report between November 1991 and October 1993. Unanticipated circumstances delayed its release. As this report was nearing completion, the National Science Education Standards underwent their national review and redrafting. By that time, however, our committee had finished its deliberations. As a result, this report refers to the Science Education Standards but does not fully integrate them into the description and discussion of professional-development programs we describe. I and several other committee members were involved in the national review of the standards draft between December 1994 and February 1995. I am confident that this report is consistent with the content and teacher-preparation sections of the national standards. It will provide valuable guidance for scientists and teachers as they work together in professional-development programs to improve science education for all students.
I thank the members of the committee for the collegial spirit in which they addressed our tasks. The comments of the anonymous reviewers were thoughtful and thorough, and we thank them for their contribution to this report. Special thanks are due the Commission on Life Sciences staff: Donna Gerardi, whose familiarity with all the communities involved in education greatly assisted the committee in its work; Norman Grossblatt, who edited the report; Karen Goldberg, who served as research assistant; and Jeff Peck, who was the project assistant. We also thank Kirsten Sampson, who updated Appendix A.
Samuel Ward, Chairman
Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs
NAS Home Page | NAP Home Page | Reading Room | Report Home Page