Academic
Exchange Quarterly Winter 2010
ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 14, Issue 4
To cite, use
print source rather than this on-line version which may not
reflect print copy
format requirements or text
lay-out and pagination.
|
This
article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale
without author's explicit permission. Anyone may view, reproduce or store
copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the
"Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright
law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may
impose usage fee.. See also |
Effective teaching through investigative science
Bruno Borsari,
Winona State University, MN
John Nosek,
Winona State University, MN
Matthew Halverson, Winona State
University, MN
Bruno Borsari, Ph.D. is an
Associate Professor of Biology, John Nosek, Ph.D. is
an Assistant Professor of Biology and Matthew Halverson is a recent graduate
from the Biology Department at Winona State University.
Abstract
This study evaluated professors’
teaching effectiveness among science faculty at a liberal arts university where
a science curriculum was designed for pre-service elementary education majors.
Quantitative data from students’ course evaluations in 2008 and 2010 complemented
qualitative data from a review of curricula at other institutions in 2009, and
interviews conducted with six professors who taught the curriculum during the 2010
spring semester. This study inspires educators to appreciate the idea of
curriculum becoming the vehicle for faculty professional development in science
education.
Introduction
Science professors are very
knowledgeable in their content area, yet they come from an academic culture
that is often oblivious of pedagogies (Baumgartner, 2007), challenging educators
to make their teachings inclusive and engaging for students. Some studies showed
the educational gaps between science professors and the future teachers they
prepare (Baumgartner, 2007; Umbach & Wawrzysnki, 2005). Additionally,
science courses remain assignments for professors who hold teaching posts in science
departments and these instructors are often ill prepared to present science in
a manner that is effective to the preparation of future teachers. McDermott (2006) conceded that due to their substantial
influence on a large number of students, K-12 teachers should have a strong
command of science, suggesting that needs abound for a special course for education
students in college curricula. The
preparation of pre-service elementary teachers remains a focal point for improving
science education programs (Baumgartner, 2007) although many challenges still affect
the development of excellent science teachers and these are often rooted in the
attitudes that pre-service elementary teaching students are not very
knowledgeable, nor particularly enthusiastic about science. Additionally, it may take some time for
professors to develop into effective teachers because initially, their focus is
on themselves rather than students and their learning (Kugel,
1993). In a course where the goal is to prepare future teachers ‘how to teach’,
it is imperative for instructors to have a student-first approach. This
objective may remain unattainable however, as science professors are ‘trained’
to convey knowledge in a pragmatic manner, often oblivious of affecting
students’ emotions and attitudes towards learning. Thus, a renovated culture in the science
classroom for students majoring in education could inspire professors to seek
different ways of imparting knowledge, as people model the best behavior and
one that is most effective when learning something new (McDermott, 2006). Consequently, professors should master effective
instruction approaches because these may become the style that their students adopt
when embarking in teaching careers. The
purpose of our study consisted in evaluating instructors engaged in teaching a
science curriculum for pre-service education students and present implications
this experience had to foster their professional growth.
Methodology
This study employed a combination
of quantitative and qualitative methodologies for acquiring data. Course
evaluation surveys served to provide some measure of teaching effectiveness in
two investigative science courses (Inv. Sc. 201 and Inv. Sc. 203). The qualitative component of this
investigation was initiated in 2009 with a document analysis review of the
foundations of science teaching for education majors who were enrolled in similar
programs. Interviews conducted with six professors (n=6) who taught
investigative science in the spring semester 2010 allowed us to collect more
qualitative data, which insured the trustworthiness of the study.
Research
Context
The study took place at a comprehensive
liberal arts institution in the upper Midwest region of the U.S., which has an
enrollment of about 8,500 students. This institution was initially conceived as
a teacher’s preparation school and maintains notable emphases to continue preparing
high quality educators.
The
subjects
Six instructors (n=6) who taught either
course in the spring semester of 2010 served as respondents for a phone
interview. Three males and three females constituted our sample and they
represented various science departments at our study site. Students were also involved in this study (n=
78). These were mainly women (96%) enrolled in two sections of investigative science
201 taught in the fall semester of 2008, and two sections of investigative science
203 that were taught in the spring semester of 2010. All participants volunteered for the study. The
protection of human subjects was assured through approval of the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) of the institution where the study took place.
The
Instruments
Nine multiple-choice questions were
considered from the 28 question evaluation survey. These questions aimed at
assessing instructors’ preparedness and enthusiasm at teaching. Learners’ satisfaction, preparedness, and
enthusiasm as a direct consequence of instruction were also assessed.
Q. 1.
Hands-on activities helped me understand the course materials.
Q. 2.
Instructors are enthusiastic about this course.
Q. 3.
Instructors are prepared for class.
Q. 4. I am satisfied with the instructors’ dynamics
during class.
Q. 5.
Instructors are modeling activities that will be useful in my future
elementary
classroom.
Q. 6.
More direct lecturing would be helpful to my learning.
Q. 7. As a result of this class, I feel
more prepared to do science activities with my students.
Q. 8. As a result of this class, I am
more likely to do science activities with my students.
Q. 9. I am excited about teaching
science to elementary students.
Additionally, an interview protocol was
designed with a list
of five questions that were meant to collect qualitative data. The interview
method can become an appropriate research tool when investigators work with
human subjects (Glesne, 1999). Twelve faculty members
involved in investigative science were invited via e-mail in January 2010 to
participate in this study. This approach
provided an opportunity to discuss with each interviewee the needs and purposes
of the research, while verifying the respondent’s willingness to participate. The investigators identified five areas of interest
for the interview portion of the study.
a.
How has your approach
to teaching other classes and labs changed since your involvement in the
investigative science?
b.
How has your approach
to measuring students’ knowledge changed since your involvement in
investigative science?
c.
What effects has this
experience exerted upon your research agenda?
d.
How has this program
assisted you to become more sensitive and knowledgeable to the needs of
preparing future teachers?
e.
What professional and
attitudinal attributes would you seek in an instructor teaching this
curriculum?
Interviews Results
The interviews were conducted by
telephone in the second half of February, 2010.
The investigators remained attentive to maintain a neutral stance in
asking the questions and responding to any interviewee concerns or
questions. The interviews were recorded
on audiotape with the interviewees’ permission and were then reviewed by the
investigators in conjunction with notes taken during the interview to guide the
interview process.
The most common response (83.3%) from
the professors to the first question suggested that they were better able to
work with other instructors. This course is primarily team -taught, professors
are committed to collaborate with colleagues. Most interviewees (83.3%) were also
satisfied with the professional relationships they established when co-teaching
investigative science. They praised the benefits of a weekly meeting, which
involved professors and one student assistant per class. These meetings aimed at sharing the teaching
experience and challenges, while attempting to maintain consistency with
instruction within the two sections of each course. Some respondents (35%) had minimal exposure
to this type of pedagogy when they taught the course. However, they understood its legitimacy when
teaching science to elementary education majors. Half of the respondents (50%)
admitted that since teaching either course they employed similar science
inquiry-based teachings in their specialty courses. One professor pointed out that ‘this course
[science 201], made me think more critically on how I teach all my other
classes’, while a second pointed out the benefits of co-teaching with a more
experienced instructor.
The second question asked how
professors’ approach to measuring students’ knowledge had changed since their
involvement in this curriculum. Although
half of the respondents (50%) stated they did not change how they evaluate students’
understanding, other professors indicated they made adjustments to include
formative assessment. Many realized the importance of the inquiry approach to
learning and taught the future teachers not only science content, but also the
way scientists think. Two of six (33.3%) assessed students not only on
curriculum content but about the way they solved problems, and the process by
which these were resolved.
When answering the third question over
half of the respondents (66.6%) indicated that their involvement in
investigative science did not affect their research, however, they read and
looked further into science teaching methods and became more interested in
sharpening their teaching skills. Those
professors whose research agenda was affected (33.4%) conceded that they looked
at more studies on the effectiveness of inquiry-approach instruction. Two professors were also involved in grant
writing collaborations which were awarded as a result of participation in this
program.
To the fourth question all six
interviewees (100%) declared that they were accustomed to teaching only classes
for science majors. However, after getting involved with investigative science professors
realized how students across curricula have different learning styles and
needs. Nearly all of the interviewees (66.6%) declared that their style needed
to be modified to accommodate the educational needs of future elementary
teachers, As a result of this experience, most respondents (83.3%) indicated
they changed their approach to instruction.
The responses to the fifth question revealed
a common attribute that professors think necessary (83.3%) for teaching investigative
science and this was flexibility. One said ‘First of all there are times when
using the inquiry method where great questions are asked and it is good to keep
the conversation going [despite the risk of jeopardizing the amount of content
being taught]’. Interviewees (50%) also mentioned that flexibility was needed
as far as selecting course topics as the investigative science curriculum is
broad. For this reason, flexibility, as
far as what is taught, is always a priority.
Another common trait that was stated by a majority of interviewees
(66.6%) was that a professor must be knowledgeable about science and willing to
prepare unfamiliar topics and being open to embarking into new learning venues
was echoed many times by most respondents (83.3%).
Document
Analysis Review
Preparing professors for teaching science
courses to students of education is not an easy task and some institutions have
tackled this issue with a focus on graduate students, who are enrolled in
science programs (Baumgartner, 2007; Sales et al., 2007). Other universities instead have been investing
energies to design the most effective curriculum for preparing future science
teachers and this has been emerging into a course, or simply a revision of
existing science courses and laboratories to better connect general education
with the preparation of science teachers.
More possibilities have included an integration of service-learning into
a model of instruction for pre-service science teachers as a compelling need to
build connections with the community (Handa et al.,
2008). Therefore, it appears that the
efficacy of preparing science teachers can be truly maximized when students’
needs are prioritized.
Students’
Evaluations
Students’ survey responses at the end of
their courses served to assess instructors’ abilities and enthusiasm to teach. Students were pleased with opportunities to do
hands-on activities in investigative science, although (6.5%) in investigative
science 201 took a neutral stance when asked this question. Also, students were
satisfied with instructors’ enthusiasm for both courses and a majority of all
responses to this question were in the ‘Agree’ (44%) or ‘Strongly Agree’ (47%)
categories. Some students (3%) in the first science course (201) selected the
‘Disagree’ category while a few (6%) remained neutral when they answered this
question.
When students were asked to evaluate
instructors’ preparedness for class most responses were in the ‘Agree’ (37%) and
‘Strongly Agree’ (50%) categories. Some students
(2%) disagreed and 12% remained neutral when they were asked this question.
Students’ satisfaction with instructors’ teaching showed a positive outcome,
with a majority of responses in the ‘Agree’ (44.5%) and ‘Strongly Agree’ (42%)
categories. About 2% of students
selected ‘Strongly Disagree’ and another 2% disagreed when they were asked this
question, whereas 11.5% remained neutral.
The ability of instructors to model activities that are useful to teach
science in elementary schools was evaluated but 80% of students disagreed, and
9% remained neutral in science 201, whereas a majority of students agreed
(42.3%) and 37% strongly agreed in investigative science 203.
When students were asked whether more
lecture-based classes would have been more helpful for their learning 6% marked
‘Strongly Agree’ on the course evaluation survey and 22% selected ‘Agree’. Thirty percent remained neutral, 33.3%
disagreed, and 8.7% strongly disagreed. Most
preferences for a lecture-based instruction were in investigative science 201
(28%) and about 25% in investigative science 203. Students were asked also to evaluate their
own preparedness to do science activities and although 15.2% in investigative
science 201 did not feel prepared to teach science at the end of their course
and some remained neutral (8.7%), a majority of students appeared to feel
comfortable teaching science to students in elementary schools, as indicated by
60% of responses in the ‘Agree’ category and 22% in the ‘Strongly Agree’
category, in science 203.
When students were asked whether they
would be more inclined to do science activities with their students, as a
result of the investigative science courses, most agreed (25% selected
‘Strongly Agree’ and 59% chose ‘Agree’).
A small number of students (11.5%) remained neutral and only a minute
number of responses (2.5%) included ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’. Indecisiveness (39%) characterized the
attitude of students in investigative science 201 when they answered the ninth
question. One student of forty six (2.1%) disagreed with the statement, whereas
most students (47% ‘Agree’ and 18% in the ‘Strongly Agree’) were enthusiastic
about teaching science in elementary schools, in both courses.
Finally, a test for goodness of fit was
employed and from this analysis, data indicated that there was a significant
difference in students’ responses as proposed by the survey, among learners in the
two different investigative science courses (201 and 203). Chi-squared equaled 42.35 therefore the p
value was .01. These data suggest that most
education majors are unable to fully understanding learning with an
inquiry-based approach when enrolled in investigative science 201. When students completed their second science
course their level of comfort and enthusiasm for science teaching increased.
Discussion
The data analysis of this study
revealed students’ appreciation about professors’ efforts to prepare them to
teach science in elementary schools. Quantitative
data illustrated the strengths and weaknesses of professors who teach science
courses for pre-service elementary education students. The document analysis review demonstrated efforts
and concerns by universities to enhance the quality of their science teachers’
education programs. Interview data
verified professors’ commitment and dedication to enhance critical thinking and
inquiry-based approach to learning. Initiatives to enhance the quality of teachers’
education programs have been given different levels of emphasis, with various
reasons given to explain this trend.
According to Borsari (1998), curricular changes
are inevitable because educators will remain engaged as life-long learners. These data provided only an assessment of the
institution under study, however.
Conclusion
Our assessment study focused on
evaluating instructors engaged in teaching a science curriculum for pre-service
education students. Quantitative data
from students’ course evaluations provided information about professors’
preparedness and capabilities of engaging students in inquiry based
learning. Document analysis review data
presented strategies and approaches by similar institutions to better prepare
their elementary education graduates. Interview responses highlighted
implications this experience had to foster professors’ professional
growth. Despite its limitations, some implications for further research
have emerged from this initial investigation.
From this consideration the following recommendations are proposed in
order to stimulate more research efforts in support of science education:
·
The
incorporation of more institutions in future evaluation studies will contribute
to the expansion of the knowledge base in the foundations of science education and
philosophies.
·
The
study of the career path of new science teachers will demonstrate the interest and
commitment of these professionals to pursue careers in science education.
Ultimately, an enhancement of
inquiry-based learning and critical thinking in science education will have to
rely more on the quality of the faculty and on opportunities that universities
will be capable of providing to foster the professional growth of science
teachers.
References
Baumgartner,
Erin. “A Professional Development
Teaching Course for Science Graduate Students” Journal of College Science
Teaching. Vol. 36, No.6 (May/June
2007).
Borsari, Bruno.
“Teaching
Introductory Agriculture Courses through Distance Education Technology at
Louisiana State University” Journal of
College Science Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 1(September/October, 1998).
Deming, John and Cracolice, Michael. “ Learning How to Think” The Science Teacher.,Vol. 71 No. 3, 2004.
Glesne, Carol. Becoming
Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction.
2nd Ed. White Plains,
NY: Longman., 1999.
Handa, Vicente, Tippings,
Deborah, Thomson, Norman., Bilbao, Purita, Morano, Lourdes, Hallar, Brittan,
and Miller, Kristen. “A Dialogue of
Life. Integrating Service learning in a
Community-Immersion Model of Preservice
Science-Teacher Preparation” Journal of
College ScienceTeaching, Vol. 37 No.6, 2008.
Kugel, Peter.
“How Professors Develop as Teachers” Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 3 (1993).
Lawson, Alfred and Musheno, Benjamin. “Effect of Learning Cycle and
Traditional Text on Comprehension of Science Concepts by Students at Different
Reasoning Abilities” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 36 No.1 (1999).
McDermott,
Lillian. “ Preparing K-12 teachers in
physics: Insights from history, experience, and research” American Journal of
Physics, Vol.74, No.9 (2006).
Sales,
Jessica, Comeau, Dawn, Liddle,
Kathleen, Perrone, Lisa, Palmer, Katrina, and Lynn, David. “Preparing Future Faculty: An
Interdisciplinary, undergraduate science course taught by graduate and
postdoctoral teacher-scholars” Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol.36, No.4
(January/February 2007).
Umbach, Paul
and Wawrzysnki, M. Ronald. “ Faculty Do Matter: The Role of College
Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement” Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 2, (2005).