SUBJECT: Courses for elementary education majors
DATE: 4/95; 3/97

I know some of you on biolab are involved in biology courses for elementary
education majors, and I REALLY need to know what you do in lab. There is a
3-semester science sequence here: physical, earth, and life. This is the
third year for it, and the first time I've taught it. I began trying to plan
for this course in October, but no one could give me any information. I was
finally given a lab manual (written by one of last year's TAs but omitting
much of the best material, I later found out) on the first day of the
semester and it is so bad that we've been trying to use other handouts.
Students come to lab twice a week for 75 minutes each time.

At the end of the semester various people connected with the course will meet
to discuss what to do next fall. Although I want to teach this course and
there is a lot I enjoy about it, the labs have been a huge frustration for
me. Apparently the philosophy in developing the course was to give el ed
majors activities they could take to their classrooms. I think that's a good
idea, but the question I kept asking was: How do you give college students a
grade for doing elementary level work? I was told "you test them on the
concepts from the labs" but that didn't work. What has happened is they get
100% of the lab points. This also reinforces the belief many students have
that they only need to learn science at an elementary level, since that's
what will be in the textbooks they use.

My solution would be to have more challenging college-level labs, then append
to them ready-to-go lab activities that are suitable for young children. That
way students would get the ideas for activities without actually doing them
in lab. For example, one of the labs that was a sore point with the TAs was
"Make A Cell." Students used macaroni, etc, to represent organelles. They
enjoyed it, but when they couldn't answer the exam questions on cell
organelles even the students began to see that maybe their time could be
better spent.

One thing I've done is give students the "Benchmarks" from Project 2061 for
topics we've covered in lecture and asked them to describe an activity they
might do with elementary students. Then their ideas are typed up and handed
out to the whole class. Many students have shown a lot of creativity with
that, so that's another way they can acquire hands-on activities for their
own classes.

I don't really want to write new labs for this, and I certainly don't want to
(can't) write elementary-level activities -- does anyone know of a commercial
manual that's suitable for this kind of course?

If you have a course like this, what's the lab philosophy and how is it
implemented?

Jean Dickey
dickeyj@clemson.edu


Jean -- I don't teach elementary education major science courses, although
I have many el ed majors in my Biology classes. The philosophy under
which our science education folks work is that our students need to learn
how science works, meaning that they need investigative labs -- labs where
they ask a question and work their way through designing and conducting
experiments. Of course, they cannot learn all of this at one time, but
during the second quarter of the two-quarter biology sequence, we begin to
develop these skills. The students begin by identifying variables and
drawing conclusions. Gradually we add other aspects, such as deciding
which variables must be controlled and how, identifying assumptions,
designing data tables, and designing the experiment. By the end of the
quarter, the students have two weeks to do their own project. It makes for
a challenging lab experience, but at the same time models, to at least some
extent, the kinds of lab experiences we would like our students to design.
What you might do is something similar, but then ask students to take
one of the important concepts modeled in the lab and design an exercise
that retains the investigation aspect but for a younger age group.
Good luck!
********************************************************************
Gail Schiffer gschiffe@kscmail.Kennesaw.Edu
Biology, Kennesaw State College 404-423-6167
P.O. Box 444, Marietta GA 30061 Fax: 404-423-6625
*********************************************************************


Hi Jean,

My first thought on reading your post was the Wisconsin Fast Plant
manual for Middle School (Carolina sells this). Also, there is a lot
of "Bottle Biology" activities that are part of the fast plant
manual, or perhaps this is a separate manual now?

When I've done workshops for school teachers they have gotten a lot
of info on plant biology that they never got in any of their college
course, so the elementary nature of the exercises were instructive at
all levels...

Good luck!

Graham R. Kent
Dept. of Biology
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063
gkent@smith.smith.edu


There is a separate manual titled "Bottle Biology". It is
published by Kendall/Hunt and costs about $18.00. The ISBN is
0-8403-8601-X.
The manual has many interesting activities for classes at various
levels.
Helen Pigage
USAF Academy
PigageHK%DFB%USAFA@dfmail4.usafa.af.mil


Jean Dickey's comments on the biolab network this morning about teaching
prospective K-8 teachers bring up an important issue in the teaching
of biology. I happen to think that this group of our students may be
one of the more important groups to which we should be addressing our
effort to improve biology (read science) education. After all, it is
these teachers who will be encouraging/discouraging new generations
of children to become/not become scientists. If we don't do a good
job at our level with the prospective teachers, how can we expect
them to do a good job when they are out in the K-8 classrooms. Would
there be interest amongst the biolab folks planning on attending ABLE
to have a mini-workshop/discussion about these issues?

Ned Lyke
Department of Biological Sciences
CSU, Hayward
Hayward, CA
elyke@csuhayward.edu


Jean,

Dr. Kathleen Fisher at San Diego State University teaches such a course,
for which she has developed a manual under an NSF grant. You can contact
her at the following e-mail address: kfisher@sciences.sdsu.edu

I spent fall semester 1993 in her lab as part of a sabbatical leave. She
does some interesting things, provides students with things they can do
with their own elementary students, but teaches the class at a college
level.

Good Luck!!

Sincerely,

Roger Christianson 503-488-0223 (home)
Department of Biology 503-552-6747 (office)
Southern Oregon State College 503-552-6415 (fax)
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard rchristi@max.sosc.osshe.edu
Ashland, OR 97520


As a component of a large NSF project I am preparing a "workbook" for our
nonmajor's biology course. The philosophy behind the project is to teach
future teachers the way we would like them to teach. For us this means
the use of constructivist and cooperative learning structures. The
workbook is not a lab manual in the usual sense because it contains
activities for both classroom and lab environments. The organization of
the workbook is based loosely on the concept of the "learning cycle".
Each unit begins with a list of specific learning goals. This is
followed by a set of "exploration" activities and problems. In the
learning cycle "term introduction" follows explorations, and I have
included brief definitions and discussions of key concepts. The last
part of each unit are "applications". The applications include (in most,
but not all cases) an investigative lab activity.

We are in the first year of this project and much of the material has not
yet been tested in a classroom or laboratory. I anticipate having a
complete draft version of the workbook available this summer. At present
I do not have a publisher, although a couple of companies have expressed
interest.

I would be interested in sharing ideas and materials with people. If you
will email me I will send you a sample unit of the workbook (and put
you one the list to recieve a copy of the completed workbook when it is
ready.) In return I would like to know what you think of the material
and if you would consider using it in any of your classes.

Richard Weisenberg
Department of Biology
Temple University
rcw@astro.ocis.temple.edu



Hi again:
This is a neat discussion. In our program, elementary education majors
take a "smorgasbord" of science courses, almost always including our mixed
introductory biology course. That's one of the reasons I think it's so
important to emphasize science process in both lecture and lab -- it helps
them understand what science is really about, and seems to go a long way
toward reducing the kind of "science is too hard" attitude that is so
devastating when it's taken into the elementary schools.

Doug's note about teaching materials reminded me of another possibility --
the Project Wild materials. I haven't used them myself, but have heard
rave reviews from former students who have. These were put together by
various Fish/Wildlife agencies and such; I believe they can be accessed by
calling local Fish and Wildlife or Departments of Natural Resources. My
understanding is that they include a variety of lessons and activities for
K-8, and the local coordinator will run workshops and training sessions for
free.

I only wish I were attending the ABLE meetings this summer (unfortunately,
I'll be in the middle of a relocation at the time). Next summer for sure!

Kerry

Kerry S. Kilburn
Department of Biology
West Virginia State College


There are two of us at Ricks College ( Lynn FIrestone and Ririe Godfrey)
who teach a Non-majors biology lecture and lab course ( lab and lecture
taught as two separate classes) to elementary education majors. We
teach between 350 and 400 students a year, in this one-semester course.
We also have our elementary education majors take specialized geology
and physical science courses designed just for them.
In our biology class we cover a few body systems, the cell, cell division
and genetics, and biochemistry of the cell. The material is taught at the
same level as other non-majors biology courses taught on our campus. In
the lab we do experiments in osmosis, microbiology, the cell, a lab on
science investigation methods, one on the senses, photosynthesis, cellular
respiration and fermentation, enzymes, and an acid base lab. The labs are
designed for college students but we try to point out how the basic
principles could be presented to elementary students and how
inexpensive and easily accessible materials can be used to do the
experiments.
At least one of us will be at the ABLE meetings in June and would be
very interested in discussing how to improve our course and in sharing
ideas on how to handle the preparation of elementary teachers so they
will be more effective at stimulating young, budding, scientists.

From: Lynn Firestone
FirestoneL@ricks.edu


I am very interested in the discussion of training elementary teachers,
although we do not have an elementary ed program here. (We do have a
secondary ed program.) I earned my first degree in elementary education
and am very interested in this program. I have run some workshops for
elementary education teachers and hope that we will become involved with
elementary science in the not too distant future.
During my first five years of college teaching, I taught at Plymouth
State College in New Hampshire. It was a teachers college recently turned
liberal arts, but still predominantly teacher ed. There I taught lots of
elementary ed majors. We raised the same questions about curriculum for
them that you folks are now raising. Our solution was to create a set of
half term courses such as garden in a bottle, aquarium in a bottle (and
about 20 more that I can no longer remember). These were designed to
attract elementary ed majors and to apply basic biology about plants and
animals to practical uses they could apply in their courses. I understand
that the mini courses worked out well, but I moved to Michigan and never
got to teach one.
***********************************
Janice M. Glime
Department of Biological Sciences
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
jmglime@mtu.edu
906-487-2546
FAX 906-487-3167
***********************************


I have done some elementary teacher workshops at the schools here
in Boston and this summer will participate in a Math/Science Workshop for
teachers K-8. At the recommendation of my wife (a second grade teacher) I
will be using Science and Technology for Children(STC) materials which
were developed at the National Science Resources Center(NSRC) under the
auspices of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Academy of
Sciences. These are age and grade appropriate kits with materials,
teachers guides and student workbooks. I'll be using the "Life Cycle of
Butterflies" kit which takes the students through the entire life cycle of
the painted lady butterfly. My wife swears by it and I have seen some of
the responses and projects by the kids. This kit is designed for 2nd grade
and there are similar kits available (or under development) for grades K
through middle school(Organisms, Plant Growth, Balancing and Weighing,
Food Chemistry, Weather, etc). Carolina markets the kits, some of which
are fairly expensive, but once you have done it, it is pretty easy to save
money by just ordering the consumable components. I don't believe that the
kits are in the regular catalog but if you call them and ask for the
elementary catalog I'm sure that they will send it along.

G. Douglas Crandall, PhD
Biology Department, Emmanuel College
400 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115
(617) 735-9959


There's no doubt in my mind that Science Literacy starts here, by ensuring
that our children's first experiences in science are rewarding and
informative.

We have a two semester "Teaching Elementary Science" sequence here at
Carlow College: one semester earth/physical science, one semester life
science. This was my first year teaching the life sciences half of it.
Unfortunately I have not found any single textbook or lab manual
particularly suitable for these students. As I see it, we need to provide
them four things through these courses:
1) an understanding of the scientific content (i.e. knowing scientific
concepts at least as well as our non-majors),
2) an ability to apply the scientific method in investigations,
3) a collection of quality science exercises to start using in the
classroom, and
4) an ability to create their own grade-appropriate investigational
exercises for their students which support their learning of these
concepts, and tailored to the students' life experiences and surroundings.

My problem is that any book that's useful in meeting one of these
objectives does little to support the others. I need an introductory
biology textbook (1,2), a lab manual of elementary exercises (3), and a
text on elementary science teaching pedagogy (4), all wrapped up into one
(or even two) affordable books. Any authors out there?

I find my students (teachers and non-majors) rather underprepared in
science. Therefore I am most reluctant to just hand them canned exercises
without them really knowing, at a level far beyond elementary school, the
concepts those exercises teach. (I should state that these two courses are
the only science requirement for these students; they take these in lieu of
the non-majors course.) Are others approaching their courses with the same
general objectives as I've listed? Which do you feel are most important?
What are you using as texts or resources within each of these objectives?

Rick

RICHARD P. HERSHBERGER, PH.D.
_ _ |_ Asst. Prof. of Biology * CARLOW COLLEGE
| |_| | | 3333 Fifth Ave. * Pittsburgh PA 15213
| hersh@telerama.lm.com * (412) 578-8702


Three cheers to Janice who lobbied for offering practical tips to elementary
science teachers! My wife falls in this category and has often lamented in my
direction that there aren't more "easy-to-execute" programs or labs dealing withthe sciences.

In general, she and her colleagues all seem well versed on the importance of
teaching the process of science rather than disconnected facts and terms.
Unfortunately, they lack the time and materials to create effective lessons
that do just that. In fact, they hardly have the time to boil water, let alone make agar or a microscope diaphragm.

I hear them pray that someone clever will create a series of ready-to-use
lessons...preferably reuseable "kits," complete with text and labs materials.
It may sound like a crutch, but that seems to be what the brave folks on the
front line are asking for.

Regards,

Bob Nash

Coast Telecourses
Coastline Community College
Fountain Valley, CA
bnash@cccd.edu


Discussion 3/97

I know a few people on the list besides myself who teach biology courses for
elementary education majors. Off-list we have discussed getting together
while we're at ABLE, and I hope to have some good talks there with anyone who
is interested. On Biolab, I hope we can get some discussion going on both
general and specific issues involved in these courses. The following
questions were suggested as a jumping-off point:
 
Which is more important for pre-service teachers:
- specific background content, chosen because of the fundamental
understandings this content involves
or
-comfort with science, including comfort/skills involved in researching
information and personal learning issues involved when new topics are assigned
to a teaching load.
 
We'd also really like to hear peoples' arguments for and against
establishing these special courses for elementary majors - the term
"education ghetto" is thrown out at course like these, saying that we are
perpetuating the myth that elementry ed majors need easier courses - because
"those who can't, teach".
 
Perhaps people who teach these courses could explain how they differ from the
mainstream non-majors course.
 
Jean Dickey
dickeyj@clemson.edu
 
Comfort with science in my opinion is more important. Once an
individual is comfortable with doing science, I think the individual would
be more likely to gain the background content and fundamental
understanding.
In taking science method courses, there were both elementary and
secondary ed majors. With secondary education, you major in a subject
which is not education. i.e a history teacher was a history major who took
education courses. Elementary education teachers, major in education with
a discipline in an area. My sister who teaches kindegarten, discipline was
in social science. The elementary teachers were at a disadvantage, all the
secondary ed teachers were science majors. When an elementary teacher was
able to explain the difference between an herb and a spice (based on her
cooking background) and realized that was botany, we were off and running.
Children at different ages have differnt learning levels. (I"m not
sure if I'm explaining myself well) You have all commented on the past as
to how the college freshmen think differently than the college senior.
Elementary school age children tend to see everything in terms of black and
white. I also feel that they tend to be more inquisitive and imaginative.
They haven't learned what cannot be done. Things that we accept as truths
are all open for questioning. Anyone who has dealt with the "why" question
from a three year old knows. Its not question of making courses easier, it
is a question of learning to teach science to the different age groups.
For the most part, elementary teachers are jacks of all trades. They are
responsible for teaching reading, writng, arithematic, social skills,
art,science, etc. With all that, it would be hard to become an expert in
any one area. Just look at all the disciplines with in science, within
biology. Those who CAN, teach.
What would happen to society, if only those deemed not intelligent
enough for whatever became the teachers? Both my sister and I ran into the
same comments. " Why do you want to teach , your too smart." Argh!!!
Someone taught Einstien math. Do you remember who taught you to read?
Well enough of the soapbox.
 
Kirsten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Kirsten Mahovlich
Lab Technologist
Department of Biology
University of Toledo
(419) 530-2181
kmahovl@uoft02.utoledo.edu
 
 
This is a course we have taught at SCSU for many years, going on 20. The
activities change but the philosophy has always remained the same. Make
biology approachable by teaching them appropriate concepts with appropriate
methods. So to answer your specific question, its not either or, but both.
The science we choose to teach and more importantly how we teach it, is what
makes them comfortable with it. Teaching the course is a blast! We grow
plants, start aquariums, use mealworms and crickets. We also emphasize the
care of typical and sometimes atypical classroom "pets", gerbils, hamsters,
doves, rabbit, turtle, salamander, rats, mice, snakes, amphibians. Within a
few weeks into the course it is a most wonder-filled room to be in. Again,
after just a few days, class just kind of does it self. The students are
always already there tending to there plants, fish, pet-of-the-week and
making observations. We use the learning cycle as our approach so we always
explore first, then name concepts, and then expand concepts. They actually
forget its a science class, until they come to realize that what they are
doing, the kinds of questions they are asking, is just as much science as
the science done in a chemistry lab.
 
Now on a more pedagogic basis... Within the constructivistic paradigm,
knowledge is best procesed when it is utilized. Meaning, if I know how I
will be using this information I know how and where to save it so that I can
retrieve it when I need it. Kinda, like my kitchen.:+) If I have no
immediate use for the knowledge, or cannot clearly anticipate using it in
the very near future, it gets tossed into the the junk drawer with
everything else I might need some day. So... if we deliver information to
them with the structure, methods and materials that they will be able to use
in their classrooms, even just in field study sites, more of them wil learn
the knowledge. And as importantly, are open to opportunities to learn more
in-service.
 
It always seems so unfair to say, secondary ed folks major in science and
then just take a few ed. courses and and el ed's just major in education.
They in fact major in Child Cognitive Psych, school policy, human relations,
social work, literature, etc. etc. etc.
 
Lest I speak with too much arrogance, let me say that all of this is
supported by some extremly well done published research. My own :+}
 
Pat Hauslein, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Biology & Science Ed
St. Cloud State Uni
St Cloud, MN 56301
 
Jean, I don't teach such a course now, but I have in the past. Many of
the students in my general biology course now are pursuing elementary
education certification, some in science, some in other areas. Many of
our biology majors are pursuing elementary education. In Texas all
candidates for teaching certification, whether at the elementary or
secondary level, must have a major in an academic discipline. There is
no major in education at the undergraduate level any longer, here.
 
For everyone, whatever their goals, I advocate and teach as if science
as process is more important than specific content. Some might argue
that I've spoken and acted otherwise, because I strongly feel that
knowing something is very important!! But the most important thing to
know is the nature of science and the role of science in society. We
certainly teach too little of the latter at all levels.
 
If the future teachers understand the practice of science, and if they
are comfortable with their own ability to learn science, then that will
transfer to their students. Their students, even in upper grades, are
very concrete, so information (in small and understandable doses) for
them is paramount. But all these teachers can read and can experience.
The important thing is to get them to read and experience the stuff that
matters in biology.
 
I say keep them in the same BIOLOGY class as everyone (part of their
general ed requirements), but use up some of their Education hours (many
of which are wasted hours (wrath of the education majors now descends
upon me ;-}), with teaching methods in elementary science. Make those
hours real hands on experiences - in which for example they crawl around
on the ground identifying and counting weeds in a lawn as part of a
biodiversity exercise. Their backs may ache, but if they "take it home"
with them, their students will love it. How do I know? Because MY
students have told me so.
 
The "weed" exercise I adopted from Henry Horn's article in Scientific
American (Horn, Henry S. 1993. Biodiversity in the Backyard.
Scientific American January 1993:150 - 152). I have my biology majors
in ecology do it in one form, and teachers do it on occasion in another
form. You can adopt it to your own groups from Horn's article.
 
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
 
 
Jean,
You are really hitting at the fundamental question of how to best
teach science in the context of an exploding knowledge base. I imagine
that every department on every campus has, is, or will debate the content
versus skills issue.
In terms of non-majors, which includes el ed, the choice seems easy
to me. We are doing them a great injustice if we teach them that
memorizing the big book of facts means that they now understand biology.
(We have already spent time on this list creating an extensive list of
"facts" that are no longer contained in the big book.) We are doing a
better job if we give our students the confidence to ask questions and the
skills to look for answers. It is also imperative that we let them know,
however uncomfortable it may make us and them, that sometimes the answers
don't exist. That is the nature of science. We ask questions and by
asking questions, we hope to find answers.
 
I guess that this is a long way of saying that I believe the
preservice teachers should take, at a minimum, the same "content" course
that the rest of the non-majors take, but that the content for everyone
should reflect development of skills. These skills will help them adapt to
whatever curricular changes are thrown at them by whatever agency.
 
I believe that the modelling we do in the college classroom can
help the preservice teachers by serving as a pattern for their own science
lesson activities. How many of us started teaching using the
lecture/sponge model? We used this model because it is what we knew was
required in a science course based on the evidence of our own experiences
in science classrooms. We can expose all of our students to a model where
the instructor facillitates rather than dictates learning and where the
instructor is also a learner. This should help give everyone a more
realistic view of what science is and what science can do.
 
I agree with Pat that an authentic learning experience is the best
way to retain concepts. In a perfect world, I'd teach a second semester
just for el ed majors that applies the skills developed in the first
semester to the classroom experience. Unfortunately, the real world with
its problems of retention and time-to-degree keeps interferring with the
perfect one.
 
I'm very interested in this thread and am looking forward to
hearing what other people are doing. --cmw
 
Charlene M. Waggoner, Ph.D.
Department of Biological Sciences
Bowling Green, State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
cwaggon@bgnet.bgsu.edu
 
 
Dave wrote:
 
>I say keep them in the same BIOLOGY class as everyone (part of their
>general ed requirements), but use up some of their Education hours (many
>of which are wasted hours (wrath of the education majors now descends
>upon me ;-}), with teaching methods in elementary science. Make those
>hours real hands on experiences - in which for example they crawl around
>on the ground identifying and counting weeds in a lawn as part of a
>biodiversity exercise.
 
 
Dave, Dave, Dave.... With the incredible responsiblities we as a society
MAKE our teachers take on, education classes are hardly a waste. (OK some
are, but you didn't here it from me, an ex-education professor) I don't
like el ed's in gen eds for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but if they
must be, then they should have lab sections just for them where appropriate
methods and materials can be can be coveted. Oops, does that mean the other
methods and materials stuff is inappropriate? ;+}
Pat Hauslein, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Biology & Science Ed
St. Cloud State Uni
St Cloud, MN 56301
 
 
We have been teaching a class in investigative biology to elementary students
for 12-15 years. The content is slim -- simple statistics, scientific paper
writing, use of library, simple lab skills, use of CARL ("telnet
database.carl.org"), experimental design. Students work in groups of 4 for the
first 4 weeks. They do simple one week investigations (leaf sizes from sunny
and permanently shaded sides of trees or bushes, two choice experiments with
sowbugs, tests for allelopathic substances, etc). They take turns writing each
section of the first four papers. For the next 4 weeks, they work in groups of
two and carry out two 2-week investigations, writing 2 papers. The take turns
on each 1/2 of the 2 papers. For the last month, each student carries out an
investigation of her/his own. They write one paper and present their work to
the class or in a poster session. The experiments are geared toward those kinds
of things that can be done with a minimum of equipment and money. No
vertebrates are used. Students work with crickets, sowbugs, crayfish, worms,
brine shrimp and lots of fast growing seeds -- lentil, turnip, radish, mung bean
and alfalfa. The course was so successful that we added a similar course for
non-science majors and for our majors. Often some real discoveries are made.
Some never catch on very well, but many do and the course is fun to teach despite the number of papers involved.
 
From: greggk@winthrop.edu
 
 
I have been following this thread with some confusion. Here at Temple
el.ed. students take a science methods course. It is hands-on,
constructivist/learning cycle based (I know a lot about I because my wife
is teaching it). I, on the other hand, teach a course for all
non-majors, but which includes many el. ed. students. This is a "college
level" course that emphasises core concepts of biology (you know,
evolution and stuff like that). We expect our graduates in all majors to
have an understanding of some science CONTENT. I do not see how we can
expect to have good teachers if they dont have both content and pedagogical
training (I know some ed. courses have bad reputations--but certainly we
want teachers to have formal training in pedagogical methods and
principles of learning). I think if we try to combine the two
tasks--teching content and teach pedagogy--we will likely screw up both.
Richard Weisenberg
Department of Biology Temple University
 
 
Pat Hauslein wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> >I say keep them in the same BIOLOGY class as everyone (part of their
> >general ed requirements), but use up some of their Education hours (many
> >of which are wasted hours (wrath of the education majors now descends
> >upon me ;-}), with teaching methods in elementary science. Make those
> >hours real hands on experiences - in which for example they crawl around
> >on the ground identifying and counting weeds in a lawn as part of a
> >biodiversity exercise.
>
> Dave, Dave, Dave.... With the incredible responsiblities we as a society
> MAKE our teachers take on, education classes are hardly a waste. (OK some
> are, but you didn't here it from me, an ex-education professor)
 
 
Notice, Pat - I said, "MANY of which are wasted hours....," not ALL.
 
I don't
> like el ed's in gen eds for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but if they
> must be, then they should have lab sections just for them where appropriate
> methods and materials can be can be coveted. Oops, does that mean the other
> methods and materials stuff is inappropriate? ;+}
 
These guys still need to know just as much biology and science as anyone
else, for their sake as citizens and people. The SPECIAL sections need
to be classes that help them get started learning how to teach science,
and most students don't need that. The SPECIAL sections need to be IN
ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF the general ed courses.
 
Just my thoughts.
 
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
 
 
Richard wrote:
I think if we try to combine the two
tasks--teaching content and teach pedagogy--we will likely screw up both.
 
Then Dave wrote:
The SPECIAL sections need to be IN
ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF the general ed courses.
 
 
 
And then Pat answered again--
The combination courses have a very long, and documented level of success.
Success
being measured as a positive shift in attitude, an increased willingness to
teach science,
and an increased ability in science.
But let me make sure we're clear about something, I'm not talking about a
methods class.
These are science classes that model methods. They work best when science
methods is
taken concurrently.
 
The original plan at SCSU was to have el ed majors take three quarters of
content for
teachers, biology, physical science and earth science. Hands on
instruction all the way,
modeling quality instruction. As the years went by the Board of Teaching
(State) says,
but they need a class in this, and one in that, and yet another in this. So
we lost a science.
In a year, we go to semesters and we lose all the science content. Because
the BOT has
put in even more requirements. The bottom line, is that if we want them to
have a content
specific, exemplary method experience the course has to double count for the
major and as
a gen ed. As I said before, we are asking our teachers to take on too many
roles, family,
church/community, police/government.
 
For me, two assertions continue to hold true. 1) We teach the way we were
taught,
especially when times get tough. 2) I really learned this stuff when I had
to teach it. If we
only have 1 or 2 chances for them to experience science I want them to have
the best
experience possible. And I apologize to many of my colleagues, but the sad
fact is too
many of them can't teach. If they are turned off to science, we don't just
lose a teacher
here or there, we also lose the generation of students that teacher never
taught science
too. The kind of science that all of us are passionate for. The research
indicates that if we
have not influenced them by 6th grade we have lost them. The change in science
education that many of use, those in this discussion included, what to see
requires
generational change. I think it is only the student of the future teacher
in my class, who
becomes a science professor and teaches the way she was taught, that change
will occur.
 
Thanks for the discussion folks, it really feels good to think for a change.
 
Patricia (Pat) Hauslein, Ph.D. The greatest danger for those of us
trying to
Dept. of Biological Sciences bring about change is to be afraid to
St Cloud State University speak out. Carolyn Heilburn
St Cloud, MN 56301
 
 
 
Greetings:
 
I have been lurking for several months and thoroughly enjoy the many
discussions on this list! I have chosen to respond to a topic near and
dear to my professional heart, preservice science training.
 
Having worked with hundreds of teachers in previous occupations, in my mind
the critical understanding needed for educators (esp. elementary level) is
that science is doing not reading (and memorizing). Inquiry-based
activities are needed to convey the excitement, wonders and discovery of
science. We have to understand that in the process of letting our students
discover science through inquiry activities not all content will be
covered.
 
I know this discussion of content versus process is going on at all levels
of science education, elementary, secondary and post-secondary. If we are
to have students interested in science at the undergraduate level however
we can't lose them during their critical elementary-age exposure to
science. How many of us remember having fun doing science in the early
grades? I think perhaps many of us became scientists in spite of our early
experiences with science. We as scientists need to become aware of the
science training that our future teachers receive. One of my projects here
at the Center is to devise ways to expose our preservice teachers to
inquiry science, i.e. research, and vice versa, expose our science faculty
to the teaching and classroom practices of our teachers. Hopefully the
reform efforts of all of us lead to a scientifically literate next
generation.
 
Finally, a couple of questions, how many schools and universities treat the
preservice teachers differently in their biology courses? Do you have
special (hopefully additional) sections for preservice teachers that covers
the content that they are learning and laboratory activities that they are
doing in a pedagogical framework? We are wrestling with this issue here at
UW-Madison.
 
Thanks for your feedback.
 
Kevin J. Niemi, Ph.D.
Center for Biology Education, UW-Madison
Room 1272, Genetics/Biotechnology Building
425 Henry Mall
Madison WI 53706
email: kjniemi@facstaff.wisc.edu
Telephone: (608) 262-5480, FAX (608) 262-6748
 
 
.
>
>It always seems so unfair to say, secondary ed folks major in science and
>then just take a few ed. courses and and el ed's just major in education.
>They in fact major in Child Cognitive Psych, school policy, human relations,
>social work, literature, etc. etc. etc.
>
>>
>Pat Hauslein, Ph.D I have gone out
>Associate Professor to look for me
>Biology & Science Ed In case I should return
>St. Cloud State Uni before I get back.....
>St Cloud, MN 56301
> Hold me until I get here!
 
 
No! I'd didn't mean to say that el ed majors only major in education. I do
realize what all that entails. What I was trying to point out, is between
all the education classes, most el ed majors have had very little science
and thus are uncomfortable when thrown in with a group of people who have
taken a lot of science courses. Something else I would like to bring up,
is that "a lot" secondary ed teachers end up being 5 year students in
order to meet all the requirements of a science major as well as taking the
education courses. And believe me I didn't take just a few education
courses. I have a degree in biology and I am certified to teach secondary
education, at least that is how the program I was involved in worked.
 
It was my 5th -6th grade science teacher who sent me along the path I
travel now. I hated science until I was fortunate enough to meet Mr.
Melcher. I can't pin point why he sparked my interest. Maybe it was
because he made it fun?
Or that he was an amateur rock hound, like myself and could appreciate my
collection of rocks. My mother didn't, especially when she opened a
dresser drawer and the bottom fell out on her foot along with my rock
collection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Kirsten Mahovlich
Lab Technologist
Department of Biology
University of Toledo
(419) 530-2181
kmahovl@uoft02.utoledo.edu
 
 
Hi Jean and Biolabbers,
 
Before the discussion really kicks in about elem ed majors course in biology,
it might be wise to consider three issues:
 
1. A lot of people have been thinking about science education--scientists,
teachers, science educators. Two results of their efforts, the AAAS
Benchmarks and NRC National Science Standards, should be the backbone of any
science course for future teachers, regardless of whether the course is
specifically for them or for non-science majors in general.
 
2. Do we in biology need to convey the nature of science differently than
our physical science counterparts? Because of our study of living things
which change over time, teaching biologists have distinctly different
pedagogical challenges. Conveying the nature of science is crucial, esp. how
we know what we know. PLEASE do not limit "scientific method" to
experimental inquiry. The naturalistic side of biological inquiry (e.g. that
of Darwin, E.O. Wilson) is historically short-changed. As a skin-in person,
I have forgotten that side too for a long time.
 
3. Finally, any science course for future teachers should MODEL instruction
for meaningful learning by employing reform measures as prescribed by the
standards. If we decry mind-numbing worksheets, recipe labs, rote
memorization, and a mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum in K-12, then we better
walk the walk by modelling a better way in post-secondary ed.
 
Thanks, Jean, for starting the conversation.
 
Phyllis Baudoin Griffard, M.S. Biochemistry
Doctoral Fellow in Biology Education
Louisiana State University
griffardp@aol.com
504-866-3571
 
 
Here at the University of Washington, we have provided a
special biology course for pre-service elementary teachers, Biology 104
for the past 20 years. I have taught this course for the last 4 years. It
is offered twice a year, to 20 students (that's the maximum that fit into
one lab section) and it is always full, with a long wait list. Like
Kenneth Gregg's course at Winthrop U., it is an investigative science
course, not a methods course. At least half of the course is devoted
to what I term "Forward science", i.e. how we discover new knowledge
in science; while the other half deals with "backward science" or content,
i.e. things we already know and are important for them as future
elementary teachers to know about life science (such as the life
cycle of butterflies etc. We base this part of the course on the
recommendations from The National Science Education Standards and it is
taught in a "hands-on" format using activities, equipment and living
organisms appropriate for K-6 classrooms).
But it is the "forward science" part of the course that is the
most rewarding (and I think most valuable) part. Many elementary science
programs call for students to perform simple investigations with living
organisms. These are inherently interesting investigations but unless
teachers understand how scientists ask and answer questions, they are at a
disadvantage in guiding students in these investigations. Teaching science
as a process of investigation requires elementary teachers to understand
experimental design. You can't after all "be a basketball coach if you
haven't played the game". Students in Biol 104 are introduced to specific
concepts in scientific investigation (testable hypotheses, variables,
constants, controls, repeated trials, quantitative measurements etc.)
through the use of guided inquiries. These are followed by independent
inquiries in which students apply concepts they have learned to research
questions of their own. They do four independent investigations (two on
animal behavior, one with plants and a term project on a topic of their
choice). They work in small cooperative groups, design their own
experiments, write lab reports and make presentations defending their
results to their colleagues. The course is very successful, and the term
projects are displayed on posters in the halls of the biology building for
everyone to see and admire.
I believe a first-hand experience with
scientific investigation is ultimately more important for preparing
elementary teachers to teach science than all the well designed
laboratory activities or inspiring lectures that typically accompany
introductory biology courses. I can think of three reasons: first, it
builds confidence in "science as a way of knowing"; second, it engages
the students in a very personal way - they have a stake in the outcome of
their investigations because these are their own questions; and
third, it gives them a model for teaching that is student-centered rather
than teacher-centered.
------------
Helen Buttemer
Biology Teacher Preparation
Biology, Box 355320
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 543-1689
 
 
(Helen Buttemer's) is the most sensible and valuable explanation of what
college science teaching should be that I have ever seen. I hope the
University of Washington is doing this in all its science curricula. I
know that we are not at my university. (I've just got to work harder at
getting this sort of thing seen as valuable by my colleagues).
Certainly, this should not be restricted to elementary education
students.
 
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu


 

Return to Biolab Home Page