A
blue-ribbon panel formed by the National Academy of Science at the request =
of a
pair of
=
ACI is
the latest political response to a growing concern for the quality of physi=
cs
and physical science education at the secondary level has steadily increased
over the past twenty-five years (McDermott & DeWater, 2000; Mestre, 199=
1)
to the point that some are claiming a “general crisis in physics
education” (Nachtigall, 1990). Tibell (2000) and others cite the numb=
er
of unqualified teachers trained in other disciplines being asked to teach
physics as a result of fewer people entering physics education programs. The
shortage of qualified candidates is complicated by what many researchers
believe are inadequate teacher preparation programs (Stein, 2001; Adams &am=
p;
Krockover, 1997; Wilson, 1991; Nachtigall, 1990). Recognizing a general discon=
tent
with the current status of physics and physical science education, we feel =
it
is important to further investigate the way these subjects are taught at the
secondary level and propose an innovative way to prepare preservice teacher=
s to
teach these subjects.
=
New
research attempts to verify the cliché, “teachers teach as they
were taught” (Stein, 2001; McDermott, 1990). Teachers tend to imitate
their instructors in both style and content (Mestre 2001; Nachtigall, 1990)=
. If
teachers are taught physics one way, and they never see a differing
instructional approach, why would they teach differently (Mestre, 1991)?
Stand=
ard A for
professional development for teachers of science from the National Science
Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) identifies undergradu=
ate
science courses as defining what science content is learned and urges the
redesign of these courses so they may be the model for how science should be
taught. The science courses taken by most physics and physical science teac=
hers
were content and teacher-centered approached, so by example they continue to
perpetuate these traditions. This teaching model, called the transmission
model, consists of lectures, presentations, and readings, all of which are
designed to transmit knowledge to the students. Under pressure from educati=
onal
reformers, many classroom teachers have sought to add laboratory-based acti=
vities
to complement their curriculum, but many of these activities fail to provide
opportunities for genuine inquiry.
Many of them are verification exercises that reduce the inquiry proc=
ess
of laboratory research to following a cookbook recipe to verify a predeterm=
ined
physical constant or mathematical relationship. The message transmitted by =
this
approach to science teaching reinforces the misconception that the nature of
science is positivist, deterministic, and without anomaly; science is merel=
y a series
of facts to be memorized and reproduced.&n=
bsp;
Secondary teachers perpetuate the lecture-verification format becaus=
e it
is familiar and the only proper way to learn physics at the university leve=
l.
=
The
transmission model fails to address the reality that very few children can
actually learn well through these methods. Except for the fewer than one
percent of high school students who might become physicists, one class in
physics is all most high school students will ever learn of physics, and su=
ch a
teaching style develops poor conceptual understanding and negative attitudes
toward the physical sciences (Nachtigall, 1990). Constructivists contend that stude=
nts do
not need elegant derivations and equations; they need relevance to their own
lives and experiences. This psychological model of learning is rooted in the
belief that individuals “actively construct the knowledge they
possess” (Mestre, 2001), meaning that instruction is much more meanin=
gful
when the teacher provides opportunities for the students to construct their=
own
ideas. When students participate in the creation of their knowledge, science
becomes an active process as opposed to a distant body of knowledge (Etkina,
2000).
=
In
order to help students construct their own correct knowledge base in physic=
s or
physical science, it is important for secondary teachers to understand the
difficulties that a certain concept may present to students (McDermott, 199=
0).
Students enter the classroom with various preconceptions of how the universe
operates, developed through years of formal and informal observations of th=
eir
environment. These preconceptions serve as the foundation for the assimilat=
ion
and accommodation of new knowledge. Erroneous preconceptions, or
misconceptions, complicate the learning process. Successful secondary teach=
ers
anticipate and address common misconceptions and conceptual difficulties
(Mestre, 2001) through their extensive pedagogical content knowledge.
=
; The
ability to recognize and address difficulties in learning and common
misconceptions about concepts is a part of teaching that is unique to each
subject area within science. =
In
1986 Lee Shulman first offered a new model of teacher knowledge that refers=
to
these skills as pedagogical content knowledge or PCK (Gess-Newsome &
Lederman, 1999). Since
Shulman’s groundbreaking notion first appeared, several researchers of
preservice teachers have investigated the intricacies of PCK in chemistry (=
van
Driel, De Jong, Verloop, 2002; De Jong, 2000; Jones, Buckler, Cooper, &
Straushein, 1997; Tuan, 1995), physics (Mestre, 2001; Valk, 1999; Veal,
Tippins, Bell, 1999) and physical science (Magnusson, 1994). Each of these works attempt to bet=
ter
understand the development of PCK in the preservice teacher.
=
; Veal,
Tippens, and
=
; Valk
and Broekman (1999) focused their research on methods of building on the
existing knowledge base of preservice teachers developed over the course of
lifelong learning in and outside of the school setting. They use an instrument developed a=
t the
1995 Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) conference in
Mestre (2001) examines the PCK of coll=
ege
physics professors and sharply criticizes the lack of formative assessment =
and
the failure to examine physics qualitatively. After reviewing his own and existi=
ng
research, Mestre constructed nine recommendations to improve the physics
instruction of prospective teachers.
Among these is the integration of physics content with engaging peda=
gogy
in the college classroom, encouragement of the construction and sense-makin=
g of
physics knowledge, and “ample opportunities” for learning the
process of doing science and the opportunity to apply their knowledge across
multiple contexts.
=
Included
in the constructivist way of thinking and teaching is a call for deeper
conceptual understanding (Bisard, Aron, Francek & Nelson, 1994). Three
researchers in the field of physics education suggest conceptual understand=
ing
can only be achieved by letting the students fight through the misconceptio=
ns
and figure concepts out for themselves.&nb=
sp;
=
Lillian
McDermott has spent the past thirty years designing, teaching, and revising=
the
lessons she published in a two-volume text titled Physics by Inquiry (McDermott, et al, 1996). Physics
by Inquiry addresses the call for a physics and physical science course=
at
the undergraduate level to serve as an example for how to teach by
constructivist inquiry methods.
Research published by McDermott, Shaffer, and Constantinou (2000)
suggests that preservice and inservice teachers who complete the course hav=
e an
improved conceptual understanding of electronic circuits. Further, they report that educatio=
nal
methodology without an emphasis on concept development is no more effective
than standard physics instructional methods.
=
Jose
Mestre (2001), associate professor in the department of physics and astrono=
my
at the
Ali
Eryilmaz (2002) developed a treatment to remedy common student misconceptio=
ns
in high school physics and tested it using appropriate research designs and
statistical methods. The treatment included two approaches to misconception=
s:
conceptual change discussions (CCDs) between the students and teacher, and
conceptual homework assignments.
Classes were divided into four groups, with one participating only in
CCDs, the second participating only in conceptual homework, the third
participating in both, and the fourth serving as a control and participatin=
g in
neither approach. Teachers we=
re
trained to facilitate the twenty-minute conceptual change discussions and a=
sked
to conduct them during the 3rd, 5th, 7th, =
8th,
and 9th weeks of the semester. The conceptual homework assignmen=
ts
asked the students to perform and/or observe a real life phenomenon related=
to
force and explain it, differing from quantitative assignments that asked
students to calculate values for forces using formulas. In order to assess impact of each
approach, Eryilmaz developed a Force Achievement Test (FAT) and a Force
Misconceptions Test (FMT) and administered them as a pretest and posttest to
the 396 high school physics students participating in the study. The statistical analysis suggests =
that
CCDs are effective in reducing the number of misconceptions and improve phy=
sics
achievement, though impact of conceptual assignments on student achievement=
or
reduce misconceptions was not determined to be statistically significant.
&nb=
sp; Each
researcher advocates learner-centered personal concept investigation with t=
he
goal of deeper understanding and connection to the surrounding world. Allow=
ing
the students to discover ideas on their own is no easy feat. It requires a
trained teacher who is willing to refrain from just giving correct answers =
and
interested in directing students to further investigations.
=
We
concur with these researchers that the constructivist model is the correct =
way
for children to learn physics and physical science. At least as far as phys=
ics
education researchers are concerned, we recommend that this is how teachers
should be teaching their students. But how can teachers be expected to mast=
er
these complex education theories without proper instruction? If teachers
develop their PCK primarily through emulating the way it was taught to them=
as
students, how can the system ever change? The only logical step is for pres=
ervice
teachers to be taught in the same manner they should teach.
=
Physics
and physical science teachers tend to learn their physics content completely
separately from instructional methodology, which some argue decreases the
effectiveness of both (McDermott, 1990). Although subject content knowledge=
is
important, it does not insure that a teacher will be able to teach as descr=
ibed
above. Prospective teachers must learn elementary physical concepts in dept=
h to
explain the underlying reasoning (McDermott, 1990). Depth requires a lot mo=
re
time per topic than traditional introductory physics classes allow, thus su=
ggesting
that a separate experience should be created especially for prospective
teachers that delves deeply into a smaller number of topics (Zollman, 1994;
McDermott, 1990; Mestre 1991). Such
a course should “emphasize the content the teachers are expected to
teach” (McDermott, 1990, p. 737), should present topics “in a w=
ay
that is consistent with how they [the preservice teachers] are expected to
teach that material” (McDermott, 2000, p. 412), and should certainly =
be
hands on and laboratory based (Wilson, 1991; McDermott, 2000).
=
Normal
college laboratory based physics courses do not adequately prepare future
teachers. Not only do these labs often just verify previously introduced
concepts, but they often use equipment that is not available to most public
school teachers (McDermott, 1990). Prospective teachers would be better ser=
ved
if their training involved simple, inexpensive experiments that they can
thoroughly master and take with them to the classroom (
Misconceptions
=
Due to
the constant bombardment of new information, students are forced to constru=
ct
understanding to explain the world around them (Trumper, 1996). As new
information is received, students have to construct and deconstruct their
current understanding so as to accommodate the new information
(Gonzalez-Espada, 2003). Without proper scientific guidance, the frameworks
formulated by student minds diverge from those commonly agreed upon by the
scientific community.
=
These
frameworks of inquiring minds are often called preconceptions or
misconceptions, the earlier being all self-created beliefs of students and =
the
later being those beliefs that are generally accepted to be incorrect
(Eryilmaz, 2002). Other names for these include alternative conceptions,
children’s scientific intuitions, and spontaneous knowledge. Regardle=
ss
of the selected term, the inability for preservice teachers to dismiss
misconceptions easily is especially worrisome (Bisard, 1994). Studies
concerning scientific misconceptions are well documented (
Physi=
cs and
physical science misconceptions have a tendency to be consistent across div=
erse
samples of peoples, including average students, honors students and even
teachers of those subjects (Eryilmaz, 2002). This consistency suggests that the
average course of study fails to challenge the most common scientific misco=
nceptions
held by all people.
=
The
misconceptions of preservice and inservice physical science and physics
teachers are an especially interesting topic. The misconceptions of these teache=
rs have
been studied in great detail in a variety of physical science topics, inclu=
ding
force and motion (Eryilmaz, 2002), moon phases (Trundle, 2002), heat and
temperature (Jasien, 2002), and atomic structure (Niaz, 2002). The general
conclusion is that these science educators lack a solid understanding of the
concepts and are desperately clinging to misconceptions. Herein lies a grave
problem; the teachers are themselves holding misconceptions concerning topi=
cs
that they are expected to teach their students (Trundle, 2002). In one stud=
y of
common misconceptions, preservice middle school teachers scored significant=
ly
lower than undergraduate science majors and remarkably close to the scores =
of
the middle school students they intended to teach (Bisard, 1994).
It is=
clear
that teacher educators must identify and address this cycle of
misconception. One strategy f=
or
correcting misconceptions involves formally identifying the misconception a=
nd
then explaining why it is incorrect (Bisard, 1994). Another generally accep=
ted
method for overcoming misconceptions is a five part process that involves (=
1)
probing for the misconception, (2) asking questions to clarify the beliefs,=
(3)
suggesting events that contradict the beliefs, (4) encouraging debate and
discussion, (5) and guiding to a new scientific conception (Mestre, 1991). =
This
constructivist approach affords preservice teachers the opportunity to face=
and
challenge their misconceptions. This basic strategy is the focus of our stu=
dy.
Bridges:
Preparing Teachers through Immersion in Engineering Education Classes
Program Description
=
; Recognizing
the need for students to construct knowledge through inquiry and project-ba=
sed
methods, the questionable current experiences of preservice teachers in the
physical sciences, a shortage of teaching assistants in the college of
engineering, and the need to experience and emulate successful methods for
teaching physical science, the education and engineering colleges of a large
southeastern university wrote an NSF grant proposal to fund Bridges, an uni=
que
and innovative program to hire and train preservice science teachers to ser=
ve
as teaching assistants (TA’s) in the freshman engineering curriculum.=
The
name for the program was selected by the principal investigator to reflect =
the desire
to “build bridges between people in engineering and education.”=
The program was funded by NSF in July =
2003
and participants were selected to begin in August. Three preservice teacher=
s and
one doctoral education student, all of whom majored in biological sciences,=
received
a weeklong training in the teaching methods employed by the innovative fres=
hman
engineering program. Upon completion of their initial training the teachers
were employed by the engineering department to serve paid ten hour appointm=
ents
as teaching assistants for the fall and spring. Participants received both a
generous stipend and a tuition fee waiver.
The education students were assigned to
the hands-on laboratory component of the freshman engineering program, call=
ed
“Physical Homework.” In order to serve effectively as TA’=
s,
the participants spent three hours per week attending class lectures,
completing homework assignments and taking all quizzes and tests. They serv=
ed
as teaching assistants in the Physical Homework sessions for five hours a w=
eek.
The other two hours of their appointments were spent debriefing on the even=
ts
of the week and planning for upcoming Physical Homeworks.
In addition to their responsibilities =
to
the engineering department, the participants enrolled in a three-hour speci=
al
topics course through the education college. One purpose of this course was=
to
assist the participants in adapting the Physical Homework assignments for t=
he
middle and high school classroom.
Another purpose was to provide experiences in the urban classroom
setting. The program particip=
ants
field tested their lesson plans and activities in this environment, generat=
ing
feedback from the mentoring teachers and classroom students that was used to
further refine the lessons. T=
he
final product of the course was the creation of a set of Physical Science k=
its
to be left with the mentoring teachers. The kits included the equipment
necessary to conduct several simple but significant hands-on inquiry
activities.
The home state of the university expec=
ts
all certified secondary science teachers to be able to teach physical scien=
ce,
regardless of undergraduate coursework and specialization. Most state
candidates have a degree in biology or a related field (animal science,
ecology, etc.) The project was expected to
· Improve
the preservice teachers’ backgrounds in basic physics.
· Provide
preservice teachers with hands-on teaching experiences in engineering educa=
tion
pedagogy by tutoring freshman engineering students.
· Better
prepare them to teach physical science.
· Place
preservice teachers in an urban classroom to co-teach with mentors.
· Make
them aware of the many opportunities available in engineering careers so th=
ey
may share it with their students.
· Cultivate relationships between engineering faculty members and preservice teachers.<= o:p>
· Demonstrate
how math and science are applied in the engineering classroom.
· Model
how to incorporate hands-on activities to reinforce abstract concepts and
illustrate applications of math and science.
· Allow
the preservice teachers to recognize the high level of academic preparation
needed for engineering studies so they may structure elements of future cou=
rses
to better prepare students for postsecondary education. · Provide
urban teachers with new physical science teaching materials. · Pay
urban teachers for their special mentoring. · Provide
insight into how future collaborative efforts between education and enginee=
ring
should be planned. · Expose
the engineering program to the latest developments in science pedagogy from=
the
Participants =
; The
four persons selected to participate in the Bridges program included three
preservice teachers pursing their Master’s degrees in education. All
three had completed undergraduate degrees in the biological sciences. A fou=
rth
participant was an experienced elementary and middle school math and science
teacher of six years pursuing a doctorate degree in science education. All =
four
participants were female and were enrolled in other courses as they partici=
pated
in the Bridges program. The pseudonym “ Methodology =
; Qualitative
data was collected throughout the program from the Bridges participants, the
university education and engineering faculty, and the mentoring teachers at=
the
urban high school. Each of the aforementioned persons was interviewed
individually throughout the second semester of the project. A unique series of questions were
constructed for the university faculty, urban school faculty, and preservice
teachers. The interviews were conducted orally by a trained qualitative
researcher and recorded on audio cassette. The audio was transcribed by hand
and the transcriptions were read by the authors to construct common themes.=
In addition to the interview data, eac=
h of
the preservice teachers kept a journal of their experiences in engineering =
and
at their urban schools. The journals were read and compared to identify
significant events and recurring themes. Data from the interviews were
triangulated with the journal entries to determine the impact of the progra=
m on
the preservice teachers, the engineering department, and the urban high sch=
ool.
This paper focuses primarily on the impact of Bridges on the preservice
teachers. Common themes Replacing
Fear with Pedagogical Content Knowledge =
; The
Bridges participants each expressed an initial fear of teaching physical
science The
participants cited a lack of coursework or a poor experience with the subje=
ct
as students as being the cause of their anxiety. Each of these fears was
replaced with an improved confidence in their potential to serve as physical
science or physics teachers. =
In her
interview The
challenge for me was just getting over my phobia of things having to do with
physical science because that was just something I wasn’t familiar wi=
th.
Getting over that and realizing that I could do it and the challenge of the
homework from the lectures, that was hard for me. That was good though, even
though it was hard, it was good because I needed that challenge and needed =
to
do that to understand because a lot of times we do give worksheets to kids,=
and
they are going to have just the same problems. If I go through that experie=
nce
of having someone not understanding it, I can understand what kids are going
through, too. Each Bridges participant believed that their experience=
s as
a teaching assistant in the engineering program helped them gain confidence=
in
their command of the subject and their ability to design and implement hand=
s-on
physical science and physics lessons in their future classrooms. Donna shar=
es
how, despite having some of the prerequisite coursework to teach physics, s=
he
lacked any idea how to teach the subject using hands-on activities: The
first two hours of the physical homework lab, I observed someone teaching f=
rom
the group. And then the last two hours I actually taught them. So my
involvement was that I first had to learn the material. Most of it was pret=
ty
straight forward material, stuff that I had already in physics… And t=
he
Physical Homework lab was a little different because I didn’t have so
much hands-on stuff in the calc-based physics class that I took. I
feel like there is a good portion of the class (physical science) that I wo=
uld
be comfortable with. If I hadn’t had this experience, I would be rely=
ing
on the textbook a lot more than my own knowledge. I would do more of a
traditional method as to teaching, reading the textbook, and answer questio=
ns
and lecturing. I would not have as many ideas of what they could be doing
hands-on because the physical homework labs that we did in the engineering
class were helpful, and a lot of these can be done in high school as well or
with younger kids. ( The changes in attitudes toward teachi=
ng
physical science suggest that the combination of engineering and urban high
school experiences develop pedagogical content knowledge. The Bridges progr=
am
affords the participants the opportunity to observe and then teach the Phys=
ical
Homework. The participants become comfortable with the tools and language of
physical science and thus are able to transfer their limited experiences to
their assignments as teaching assistants, as Carmen shares in her interview=
: I
think being able to teach the Physical Homework labs helped out a lot. I ha=
d to
observe two and teach two. By observing the two, that helped me get an
understanding of the material. When I taught two, that helped me reinforce
concepts. Just being in that situation, I enjoyed that. I think I got a lot=
out
of that. It helped me personally understand the material better. I got
a lot out of the lectures and the way they (engineering faculty) taught. It
kind of gave me ideas of ways to teach material and involving the class and
everything. Donna’s experience with high sch=
ool
physics had left her with the opinion that physics is boring. She shared th=
at
she felt she could now teach physical science without boring her students,
thanks to the interesting demonstrations she learned through Bridges. I
don’t want to turn them away from science just because they have a bad
physics experience. And now with this I know of more interesting things tha=
t I
can do with science. So it’s alleviated that fear of putting them to
sleep in their chairs. Developing
Relationships with Engineering Faculty =
; The
value of the time spent communicating with the engineering faculty
I
thought it was really nice of them to take the time to meet with us because=
I
know they were very busy, but they would spend up to an hour talking with t=
he
four of us. It would start out usually with them just asking us how we̵=
7;re
doing. We would have time to tell how we were doing and then if we had any
questions we would spend some time on that. The majority of the time was sp=
ent
discussing the Physical Homework that we would need to be doing on Tuesday =
and
Wednesday. They asked us to go through the written part of it and try to sh=
ow
us… we didn’t have access to the lab so they could not go and s=
how
us any of the material that we would be using… It was a good introduc=
tion
and it was something where they could say, ‘this is where they have h=
ad
trouble in the past.’ And they would say ‘I really want you to
focus on question #1 and question #2 and not worry about #3 and #4. If they=
can
get this concept down, this is what we really want.’ It really helped=
us
focus on what was important in lab and what we should focus on and what we
should leave out.
The preservice teachers cited these
meetings as critical to their ability to understand laboratory activities a=
nd
then assist the engineering students. The conversations with engineering
faculty were positive and engaging, helping them to understand the issues
involved with teaching science. They appreciated the opportunity to talk to
faculty interested in improving science education and the ability to develop
professional relationships with university science professors.
I
think they were very helpful in wanting to make sure that we understoodR=
30;
when we had questions they were very eager to explain. They wanted us to be
able to learn the material and they were excited about helping us learn it =
as
well as helping us teach it.
Carmen was astonished by how much resp=
ect
the professors afforded the Bridges participants and a bit overwhelmed by t=
he
opportunity to be working with college level students.
I was
surprised at how open the professors were to have us in the program and how
they were able to communicate with us. Even though we were lower than them,=
we
were kind of even with them. In my experiences during my undergraduate year=
s, I
had never had any type of relationship with a professor, so it was neat to =
be
able to sit down one on one with them and talk about teaching methods and t=
alk
about what worked and what doesn’t work. I enjoyed that. Just kind of
being on the same level as them, being able to teach college students…
you know, I never imagined I would be in a lab helping out with college
students who are only five years younger than me.
=
; Donna
shares how the relationship she developed with the engineering faculty help=
ed
her overcome stereotypes and recognize the group dynamic necessary to work =
as
an engineer:
It is
not all the stereotypes you see in the media and, you know, in cartoons. I
think that was the best part of it (meeting with the engineers). I’ve
been pretty exposed to engineers because of my fiancé. He’s an
engineering major so I’ve been pretty exposed to them but not on a
working level, more on a friendship level. That was pretty nice to know tha=
t it’s
going into group study, being a group thing. It is not an individual guy wi=
th a
calculator anymore. It is guys and girls and just a whole team of people tr=
ying
to accomplish solutions.
Developing a personal relationship with the engineering
faculty improved the Bridges participants’ understanding of the conte=
nt,
gave pedagogical insight into how to teach the concepts, and cultivated an
understanding of the culture of engineering.
Positive
Experiences in an Urban High School
=
; The
preservice teachers appreciated the welcoming attitude of the mentoring
teachers at the urban high school. The preservice teachers felt very wanted=
by
the high school faculty and gained much confidence and insight through their
conversations with the faculty and their experiences teaching actual high
school classes. They also observed several issues unique to teaching in the
urban environment and found that the hands-on lessons they adapted from the
Physical Homework engaged the students and helped them better understand the
concepts.
=
;
When
I first started to go to
When
I got to
=
; Alice
and Carmen collaborated to adapt a Physical Homework on speed and velocity =
for
use at
What
we decided to do was to adapt one of the labs that was done at the Universi=
ty
and do the same thing but just adapt it a little bit for the high school
students. We borrowed materials from the University. We brought some stop
watches and a ramp and tennis balls and did a lesson. We just adapted it and
did basically the same thing with the high school kids. They were able to d=
o it
just fine. I think some of the calculations… they were doing calculat=
ions
for velocity and acceleration… and they got bogged down a little bit =
with
the numbers because it was a lot of numbers, but they did have calculators =
to
use. I noticed in my group in=
the
first block once they got started doing the calculations they seemed to be =
very
quiet and very into doing it. A lot of times when I had been observing his
class they were kind of loud and rowdy. They got very quiet for this. I was
like, ‘You can talk to each other and work together,’ but they
didn’t really do too much of that. I was afraid it was too hard for t=
hem
or something. I talked to Mr. Black (the classroom teacher) about that. He
said, ‘No, they need this challenge. It’s good for them. They n=
eed
to do this.’ He said it was something
they could do.
All of the Bridges participants comple=
ted
science kits to leave with the mentoring teachers. These kits coupled ideas
from the Physical Homework with lesson plans found on the Internet and other
book resources. The kits contained inexpensive materials and lesson plans. =
The
creation of the kits served as a final product for the special topics educa=
tion
course. The completion of the kits reflects the growth in pedagogical conte=
nt
knowledge and teaching experience of each Bridges participant.
Benefits
to the Engineering Program
=
; Among
the benefits the engineering department received from employing preservice teachers is =
that
they were “inherently good teachers.” One engineering faculty member
contrasted the Bridges participants with the engineering graduate students:=
They
(Bridges) are here because they want to teach. And some of our engineering
assistance are there for a job who really don’t want to teach as such.
They (engineers) are not going to be teachers so my perception was the Brid=
ges
TA’s did probably better than our engineering TAs did in working with=
the
students. They’re just sort of natural gifted teachers so they are go=
ing
to do well.
The preservice teachers displayed a go=
od
attitude, were serious about teaching, and often brought fresh perspectives=
and
innovative ways to demonstrate and explain concepts. The engineering depart=
ment
was pleased to find the quality of their freshman engineering laboratories
improved through the Bridges program.
=
; Initially
the engineering department expected the Bridges participants to serve as
support to the graduate engineering student TA’s. After a couple week=
s,
the Bridges participants expressed a desire to take on their own section and
the faculty decided to give it a try. One faculty member describes the
decision:
I
guess I wanted to assure myself that they had enough background and foundat=
ion
to carry out a lab themselves, so when we started out, particularly myself,=
we
weren’t just going to turn them over with a group of students, so we =
had
them spend several weeks pretty much observing the other groups and joining=
in
as much as they could but not being responsible for groups of anywhere from=
8
to 12 students in the weekly lab. They (Bridges participants) actually
expressed interest in having their own students to work with, and to me that
was positive. I still wasn’t sure how it would work, but I thought,
‘Heck, if they’re willing to try, so will we.’ From there=
on
we broke the students up in pretty much even groups in the lab. As it turned
out we had about 6 students per TA because of that. I saw things working we=
ll,
so I was pleased. They all seemed to have good rapport.
=
; One
hope expressed by the engineering faculty was that they would gain feedback=
and
ideas from the Bridges participants. While the participants had limited
educational backgrounds in physical sciences, each brought a strong sense of
how to communicate scientific concepts. One engineering professor describes=
how
the Bridges participants proved their value as teachers:
The
first week it became clear that they (Bridges participants) should have mor=
e of
a role than just sort of hanging around supporting. We told them what we ne=
eded
to do and so forth. And right off they provided some extra contact. That was
the smaller sort of maintenance groups of students, the better off you are.=
I
remember one physical homework, I walked in, I tried to go in and observe t=
hem,
and one of our engineering TAs was out in left field. And I stepped in and =
just
sort of took over for about 10 minutes.
I got
them back on track and then I walked over to where one of the education
students was running her group. She just had a great illustration of the
concept that I never thought of. I thought it was a very neat way, very sim=
ple
and effective and got a student up there to help illustrate this concept.
That’s
not huge in a sense but it coming at it just a little bit different than us.
They are coming up with other ways of really illustrating concepts, of using
students. To get them involved, actively involved.
=
; Through
the Bridges program the engineering department was able to decrease the siz=
e of
its laboratory sections and infuse interested educators who, while themselv=
es
wrestling with the content, constructed fresh perspectives on the subject t=
hat
they in turn shared with their physical homework groups.
Table 1. =
Common themes observed throughout the interviews and
journals
|
Preservice
Teachers |
University
Faculty |
Urban
School Faculty |
|
Developed a deeper
understanding of physical science content. |
Influenced to beco=
me
involved with the program by their concern that many new teachers were
unprepared to teach physical science. |
Desire to be more
involved with the project and have an improved knowledge of their role. |
|
Increased confiden=
ce
in their ability to teach physical science from their better understandin=
g of
physical science and their improved ability to construct hands-on physical
science activities. |
Recognized that the
preservice teachers were gaining a greater and deeper understanding of
physical science. |
Expressed apprecia=
tion
for the potential of the program. |
|
Importance of gett=
ing
ideas for how to teach using hands-on science from the university enginee=
ring
course and the urban school placement. |
Believe the progra=
m is
a valuable way to provide quality education to engineering students and h=
elp
preservice teachers gain skills and understanding. |
Confessed a lack
personal lack of preparation when they were first asked to teach physical
science and wished that they could have been in such a program when they =
were
interns. |
|
Became better prep=
ared
and aware of what was required from the role of a teacher. |
Viewed the program=
as
a collaborative learning effort, particularly the one-on-one time with the
preservice teachers. |
Shared that a high
school or college teacher positively influenced their decision to become a
teacher and shaped their personal philosophy of science teaching. |
|
Greatly appreciated
the collaboration with engineering faculty and teaching assistants. |
Preservice teachers
improved the quality of the experiences in the engineering courses through
their teaching skills and the smaller TA/student ratio. |
Stressed the
importance of doing hands-on science and providing authentic science
experiences rather than didactic teaching about science from the textbook=
. |
|
Felt very welcomed=
by
the urban school faculty. |
|
|
|
Considered the pro=
gram
a success and a valuable experience. |
|
|
Discussion
=
; A
quick review of the reform efforts of the late twentieth century reveals a =
call
for teachers to facilitate the construction of knowledge through inquiry-ba=
sed
hands-on activities. Recognizing that many secondary science educators fail=
ed
to be taught through such methods in both high school and their undergradua=
te
science coursework, it is apparent that teacher education programs must find
creative ways to afford preservice teachers such experiences. If teachers t=
ruly
teach as they were taught, then preservice teachers must be taught using
inquiry-based science course.
=
; This
need to be taught using methods of inquiry was met for our four participant=
s.
Through attending lectures, then observing and teaching laboratory sections=
in
the innovative engineering program, the Bridges participants received an
opportunity to identify their misconceptions of physical science and learned
how to challenge them through inquiry methods. They further had the opportu=
nity
to discuss any further misconceptions in a comfortable, inviting environment
with the highly skilled engineering faculty.
=
; The
Bridges program developed the physics component of the physical science PCK,
addressed misconceptions, and modeled inquiry teaching. This program is one
solid answer to the need to reform science education. Further research is w=
arranted
to quantify and further detail the specific impact of the programs on the
participants, both during their time as TA’s and longitudinally to
determine how their experiences directly and indirectly influence their
classroom teaching.
Conclusions
=
; The
collaboration between science education, engineering, and the urban high sc=
hool
provided many successes. The Bridges participants established confidence in
their understanding of physical science concepts and developed the PCK
necessary to employ hands-on methods to teach physical science. They also
gained a level of comfort in communicating with university science faculty =
and
practical experience working with urban secondary students. The engineering
faculty gained natural teachers for their freshman engineering laboratories=
and
were able to contribute to the preparation of the next generation of physic=
al
science teachers proven
demonstrations and teaching pedagogies. The urban high school faculty gaine=
d experienced
preservice teachers to help improve their physical science courses through =
new
teaching strategies and the use of science kits. The university science
education department gained a new way to prepare biological science teacher=
s to
teach physical science, improving their graduates’ chance of future
employment while improving the graduates’ potential for success as
physical science teachers.
All participants expressed a belief th=
at
the benefits of the project outweighed any inconveniences to their already =
busy
schedules. Each entity expressed a desire for future communication and
collaboration, a commonality that reflects on the value each places in the
project. The success of Bridges suggests that an investment of student teac=
hers
in the university laboratory will go far in improving the success of future
science teachers who otherwise may not have the confidence or experience to
handle the physical science classroom.
Adams, P.E. & Kro=
ckover,
G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its
origins
in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34 (6),=
633-653.
Bisard, W., Aron, R.,
Francek, M., & Nelson, B. (1994). Assessing selected physical
science
and earth science misconceptions of middle school through university
preservice
teachers. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 24 (1), 38-42
Blosser, P. E. (1987). Research and some implica=
tions
for the teaching of science to elementary students. ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest No. 1, 1987.
De Jong, O. (2000). T=
he teacher
trainer as researcher: Exploring the initial pedagogical
content
concerns of prospective science teachers.&=
nbsp;
European Journal of Teacher
Education, 23, 127-137.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). =
Effects
of conceptual assignments and conceptual change
discussions
on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force
and
motion. Journal of Research in Scie=
nce
Teaching, 39 (10), 1001-1015.
Gess-Newsome, J. &
Lederman, N. (Eds.). (1999). =
Examining Pedagogical Content
Knowledge.
Gonzalez-Espada, W. J.
(2003). A last chance for getting it right: Addressing alternative
conceptions
in the physical sciences. The Physi=
cs
Teacher, 41 (1), 36-38.
Harrison, A. G., Gray=
son, D.
J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11
student’s
evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (1), 55-87.
Jasien, P. G. & Oberem, G. E. (2002). Understanding of elementary concepts in heat
and
temperature among college students and K–12 teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 79 (7),=
889-895.
Jones, L. L., Buckler=
, H.,
Cooper, N. & Straushein, B. (1997).&nb=
sp;
Preparing preservice
chemistry
teachers for constructivist classrooms through use of authentic
activities. Journal of Chemistry Education, 74, 787. Retrieved
Magnusson, S. (1994). Teaching complex subject matter in
science: insights from an analysis of pedagogical content knowledge. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching (Anaheim, CA, March 1994).
McDermott, L. C. (199=
0). A
perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other
sciences:
the need for special science courses for teachers. American Journal
of Physics, 58,
734-742.
McDermott, L. C. &
DeWater, L. S. (2000). The need for special science courses for
teachers:
two perspectives. In J. Minstrell and E.H. van Zee (Eds.) Inquiring into Inquiry in Science Learning and Teaching (pp.
241-257).
McDermott, L. C., Sha=
ffer, P.
S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to
teach
physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics
Education, 35 (6),
411-416.
McDermott, L.C., and =
the
Physics Education Group at the
(1996).
Physics by inquiry. Vols I and =
II.
Mestre, J. P. (2001).
Implications of research on learning for the education of
prospective
science and physics teachers. Physi=
cs
Education, 36 (1), 44-51.
Mestre, J. P. (1991).
Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science.
Physics Today, 44 (9), 56-62.
Nachtigall, D. K. (19=
90). What
is wrong with physics teachers’ education? European
Journal of Physics, 11, 1-14.
National Research Cou=
ncil
(1996). National Science Education
Standards.
National Science Teachers Association (2005) NSTA Express
Retrieved
National Science Teachers Association (2006) NSTA Legislative Update
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002).
resistances,
and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure.=
Science Education, 86 (4), 505-525=
.
Stein, F. M. (2001).
Re-preparing the secondary physics teacher. Physics
Education,
36 (1),
52-57.
Tibell, G. (2000). An attempt at innovation in t=
eacher
training in
Trundle, K. C., Atwoo=
d, R.
C., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary