Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
THE ROLE OF S0lENTISTS IN THE PROFESSIONAL DEUEIOPMENT OF SCIENCE TETHERS Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs Board on Biology Commission on Life Sciences National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sci- ences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This study by the Board on Biology was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant TPE-9150186. Dissemination of the report was supported by the National Research Council's Frank Press Fund for Dissemination and Outreach. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers / Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs, Board on Biology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-309-04999-7 1. Biology teachers In-service training United States. 2. Science teachers In-service training United States. 3. Biology Study end leaching (Continuing education) United States. 4. Science Study end leaching (Continuing education) United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs. QH315.25.R64 1996 574'.071'55 dc20 Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences Printed in the United States of America 96-4530 CIP
COMMITTEE ON BIOLOGY TEACHER INSERVICE PROGRAMS SAMUEL WARD (Chairman), University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ JEAN BEARD, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA ROBERT D. BONNER, Hampton University, Hampton, VA JAMES M. BOWER, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA COLEMAN GENN, Center for Educational Innovation, New York, NY GEORGE B. JOHNSON, Washington University, St. Louis, MO JOSEPH D. MCINERNEY, BSCS, Colorado Springs, CO DAVID MICKLOS, DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor, NY WENDELL G. MOHLING, National Science Teachers Association, Arlington, VA GARY NAKAGIRI, San Mateo County Office of Education, Redwood City, CA NANCY RIDENOUR, Ithaca High School, Ithaca, NY BARBARA SCHULZ, Shoreline High School, Seattle, WA MARE TAAGEPERA, University of California, Irvine, CA JON THOMPSON, Silverthorne, CO National Research Council Staff DONNA M. GERARDI, Study Director NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Editor KAREN GOLDBERG, Research Assistant ALVIN G. LAZEN, Study Director for completion of the report KIT LEE, Administrative Assistant JEFF PECK, Project Assistant KIRSTEN SAMPSON, Special Assistant . . .
BOARD ON BIOLOGY MICHAEL T. CLEGG (Chairman), University of California, Riverside, CA JOHN C. AVISE, University of Georgia, Athens, GA ANANDA M. CHAKRABARTY, University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, IL GERALD D. FISCHBACH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA DAVID J. GALAS, Darwin Molecular Corp., Bothell, WA RICHARD E. LENSKI, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI BARBARA J. MAZUR, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE DANIEL MORSE, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL ROBERT R. SOKAL, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY SHIRLEY M. TILGHMAN, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ National Research Council Staff ERIC A. FISCHER, Director PAULETTE ADAMS, Administrative Assistant V
COMMISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES THOMAS D. POLLARD (Chairman), Johns Hopkins Medical School, Baltimore, MD FREDERICK R. ANDERSON, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington DC JOHN C. BAILAR III, McGill University, Montreal, Canada JOHN E. BURRIS, Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole, MA MICHAEL T. CLEGG, University of California, Riverside, CA GLENN A. CROSBY, Washington State University, Pullman, WA URSULA W. GOODENOUGH, Washington University, St. Louis, MO SUSAN E. LEEMAN, Boston University, Boston, MA RICHARD E. LENSKI, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI THOMAS E. LOVEJOY, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC DONALD R. MATTISON, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA JOSEPH E. MURRAY, Wellesley Hills, MA EDWARD E. PENHOET, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA EMIL A. PFITZER, Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., Hackensack, NJ MALCOLM C. PIKE, USC School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA HENRY PITOT, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI JONATHAN M. SAMET, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD HAROLD M. SCHMECK, North Chatham, MA CARLA H. SHATZ, University of California, Berkeley, CA JOHN L. VANDEBERG, Southwestern Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, TX National Research Council Staff PAUL OILMAN, Executive Director ALVIN G. LAZEN, Director for Program Operations SOLVEIG M. PADILLA, Administrative Assistant v
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating soci- ety of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing service to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer- ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. vim
Preface The Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs was a combination of teachers, research scientists, teacher educators, and educational administra- tors. As we worked together with our combined experiences and observations to learn how to improve biology teaching, we recognized that our efforts in learning to understand each other's perspectives were a microcosm of how science-educa- tion reform must proceed: with mutual understanding and respect. 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 op- tions; 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 devel- opment of their teacher colleagues. Our analysis and recommendations are based on review of almost 200 programs for teacher enhancement and the collective . . vat
. . . vile PREFACE experience of the committee members. Although we focused our study on biol- ogy-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 meth- ods are lacking and funding is inadequate. Thus, the conclusions we have reached cannot be established with the certainty we are accustomed to in science laborato- ries. 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 strate- gies 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 Octo- ber 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 fin- ished 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 pro- fessional-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
Contents SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Charge, 10 The Committee's Methods, 10 Inservice and Professional Development, 13 Issues in Professional Development, 14 Professional Development and Science-Education Reform, 24 Individual and Systemic Programs, 24 Using Educational Research, 25 CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 3 A GUIDE FOR SCIENTISTS Getting Started, 30 Contributing Most Effectively, 37 Types of Professional-Development Programs, 39 Recommendations, 48 4 ADMINISTRATORS' AND OTHERS' RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENCOURAGING SCIENTISTS' PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Internal Rewards, 49 Mix 9 26 30 49
x External Rewards, 51 Professional-Society Recognition, 51 Recommendations, 53 5 STRATEGIES FOR ATTRACTING TEACHERS TO AND INVOLVING THEM IN PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS How to Attract Teachers, 55 How to Involve Teachers in Planning and Developing Programs, 57 Practical Considerations, 57 Enlisting the Support of Administrators, 58 Recommendations, 59 6 SYSTEMIC PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE-EDUCATION REFORM The Past as Prologue, 63 Systemic Change, 64 Professional Development as a Component of Systemic Reform, 66 Focusing on Elementary Schools for Systemic Change, 71 Recommendations, 72 7 EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Forms of Program Evaluation, 74 Evaluators, 78 Evaluation Tools, 79 Funding and Administrative Issues, 80 Recommendations, 80 8 A VISION OF THE FUTURE A Future Teacher, 82 A Future Classroom, 84 A Future Scientist, 85 Preparing Future Teachers, 87 REFERENCES APPENDIXES A Professional-Development Programs that Responded to the Committee's Request for Information, Organized by Geographic Location A-1 Professional-Development Programs, Organized by Grade CONTENTS 55 62 73 82 89 93 173
CONTENTS A-2 Professional-Development Programs, Organized by Subject Matter B Committee's Methods C Glossary D Suggested Reading List E University Statements of Policy Regarding Recognition of Faculty Contributions to Professional-Development Programs F Organizations that Support Activities in Science and Mathematics Education G An NSTA Position Statement on Science Teacher Professionalism H-1 Example of an Inquiry-Based Laboratory Exercise H-2 Example of a Traditional Laboratory Exercise I Funding of Professional Development INDEX x~ 174 177 185 189 204 209 217 221 225 228 235