 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
How Can Universities Improve Schoolteachers in Math and Science?
Thursday, May 26, at 2 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
In this year's budget, Congress cut spending for a National Science Foundation program in which universities and school districts collaborate to improve schoolteachers' knowledge of mathematics and science. Congress increased by the same amount funds for a version of the program that is run by the U.S. Department of Education. That program, though it reaches schools in all 50 states, is more narrowly focused on helping teachers prepare students to pass state tests on mathematics that are required by the No Child Left Behind Act.
Supporters of the shift in funds say that the Education Department is in a better position to work with school districts, and that the NSF is a research agency, not an education agency. But advocates of strengthening the NSF program, called the Math and Science Partnerships, argue that not enough is known about how to improve student performance in math and science, and that the NSF program is better designed to provide answers. Without such understanding, they say, giving schoolteachers more training in those subjects may not produce significant progress.
What role should university researchers play in improving elementary and secondary education? Should the emphasis be on improving teachers' knowledge of their subject or on their teaching methods? Or, as some critics suggest, are universities not necessarily the best partners in school reform? Can college professors, in turn, learn a lot about math and science instruction from schoolteachers -- and are they willing to listen?
» Juggling the Numbers (5/27/2005)
Gordon A. Kingsley is an associate professor in the school of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where his teaching and research focus on science and technology policy and organizational theory. He is principal investigator on a project financed by the National Science Foundation to study the impact of educational partnerships, including those between universities and schools, on the development of math and science instructors and teaching.
Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
Hello, everyone. Thanks to all of you joining us for today's discussion, especially our guest, Gordon Kingsley. I am a reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education and will act as moderator. Let's get talking.
Question from Jeffrey Brainard, Moderator:
Gordon, let's start with a basic overview. The Math and Science Partnership programs are a federal effort to encourage university faculty members in departments of mathematics and science to work with school teachers to improve instruction in those areas. Colleges have long been involved in various programs like these -- to develop new school curricula, for example. What's different and important about these new efforts?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
The key differences associated with the NSF MSP is that the incentives aimed at promoting a partnership between higher education and K-12 faculty are much larger. This means that the partnerships have a fairly high profile in institutional terms. By fostering direct communication between teachers and professors of math and science the goal is to strengthen the content knowledge of K-12 teachers. A second goal in fostering this community there is that the higher education faculty will learn lessons of instruction from K-12 faculty and bring those lessons back to the university. In this way the MSPs are aimed at fostering a two-way flow of communication.
The Department of Education is not quite as ambitious in terms of the scope of any one intervention, but it is trying to create numerous smaller scale partnerships. A key difference in the Department of Education's MSP program is the emphasis on randomized control trials as a preferred evaluation method. Here the intent is to establish a basis for assessing the impacts of either the partnership or the programmatic interventions provided through the partnership.
Question from Francis E. Gardner, Jr. Ph.D, Columbus State University:
A significant amount of research indicates that teachers teach the way they are taught. Most science and math instruction that teachers receive is from disciplinary practioners. Since education is basically within the behavioral science realm shouldn't science faculty teaching courses for teachers in math and science be knowledgeable about such topics as appropriate methods of pedagogy, the nature of the learner, behavioral assessment methods, K-12 curriculum, NSES, etc.? If they aren't, shouldn't they be partnered with educators and behavioral scientists who are? A related question is whether education faculty should be independently offering disciplinary instruction in which they have little or no knowledge, education, or experience in that specific content area? How much content background is necessary to qualify one to instruct pre-service teachers?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
One of the interesting aspects of the math science partnerships being promoted by NSF, and to a somewhat lesser extent by the Department of Education, is the desire for the partnership to influence the behavior of the higher education institutions. There is a fair amount of research that suggests that K-12 teachers who have stronger preparation in math and science content are more effective in presenting math and science curricula. And both forms of MSPs seek to encourage this content development. However, there is also this desire for the higher education institutions and faculty to become better teachers. An observation that underlies this desire is that teachers, at least in the early stages of their career, tend to mimic the ways in which they were taught. This has contributed to the NSF being very explicit in wanting for higher education faculty to become better teachers. The hope is that K-12 institutions might have something valuable to offer higher education in this regards.
Question from Fernando Espinoza, Lehman College, CUNY:
How can partnerships in MSP (we are part of MSP in NYC), between education and natural sciences faculty develop if the perception is that educational research does not carry the value of scientific research in tenure and promotion decisions for natural sciences faculty?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
This is a real problem. NSF hopes that by creating learning communities that this bias in schools and departments of science can be changed. I am doubtful that the MSP's will have enough institutional heft and staying power to change such long standing attitudes. It seems to me that it is unlikely that the natural sciences will ever see educational research as having the same weight as traditional research. If universities do begin to pay attention to the challenges associated with undergraduate instruction there may be more sympathy towards education research. Whether this will be sufficient to make promotion and tenure decisions more receptive to education research is an open question and will certainly be one that evaluations of MSPs should explore.
Question from Frank Sutman, Stockton College of New Jersey:
In general do universities and their faculty model the approach to instruction that research has shown can begin to change how school level instruction should occur,especially in science and mathematics?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
No. In my experience universities are not very aware of advances in pedagogy and learning. Most of us learned to teach on-the-job with little or no instruction in how to be a teacher. This is especially true in science and mathematics.
Question from Jeffrey Brainard, Moderator:
Gordon, what are some of the major challenges for universities as institutions to work effectively with schools and lead these partnerships as required by the NSF Math and Science Partnership grants? And how can universities overcome these obstacles? Some experts have said that previous efforts to improve schools provided mixed results because universities were not always fully engaged and there was inadequate planning for how to sustain these projects after the grants that funded them ended. Are there cases where universities have chased the big dollars offered by some of these NSF grants, but don't have the institutional wherewithal to work with schools for a long-enough period to see results?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
There are major challenges to getting universities (and particularly the math and science faculty) to engage with K-12 schools on math and science education. Perhaps the biggest is the professional incentives. In many major universities professors are rewarded for research and publications and must do a reasonable job of service and teaching. There is a fear among junior faculty that engaging in education research is an excellent way to scuttle your career.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your last question concerning the length of institutional engagement. Most of the MSP's we have observed have a long history of working together and often have an extensive resume of grants and contracts funding their collaboration. More than one MSP has been working together under one program or another for over 10 years.
Comment from Kris Grabarek, MIT:
Having taught high school chemistry and now working within a research university setting I have had the opportunity to see what the result of traditional "college prep" science instruction can lead to. The college prep science I was asked to teach in HS was exam-focused, because "that is what is done in college". Mastery of a subject was demonstrated by showing mastery of an exam. The result of that type of teaching is that now at the college level I see students who do not understand what science is about and are afraid to solve problems that are slightly out of the cookbook format that was presented in lecture. The rote memorization that helped them succeed in HS no longer works.
Universities can help schoolteachers by recognizing that HS does not have to be like college. In HS students need to learn how to learn, because by the time they get to higher ed. it is not taught. In science education learning to learn means learning how to draw on available resources (data, experts, books, etc) to answer a particular question of the natural world. Universities can help schoolteachers by helping develop curricula that focus on interesting questions that students can focus on for more than once or two class periods. The development of curricula (especially in first year science classes vs. APs) that focus on scientific process, and less on the breadth that is currently taught, would go a long way in capturing more students' interest in science. Achievement would follow.
Question from Lynn Elfner, The Ohio Academy of Science:
As a representative of the science community that depends on peer review to assure quality, what assurances can you give us that the Dept. of Educ. program will come anywhere close to the standards of peer review practiced by NSF and accepted by the science community at large? Isn't a program to improve schools run by the Dept of Educ like a henhouse guarded by a fox?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
Since I'm not a representative of the Department of Educaiton I can give no assurances. I do know that the Department is encouraging state programs to use randomized control trials as the preferred method for evaluating Department of Education Math Science Partnerships. States are also being advised that for most trials 60 teachers and their classes should be included in the study (30 in the treatment group and 30 in the control group). They have also noted that this type of evaluation can be done inexpensively (in the $50k to $75k range). Since most state MSP grants are pretty small I'm not sure how many of the sites will engage a sufficient number of teachers and classes. Perhaps the plan is to do an evaluation across several sites. One of the interesting contrasts here is that NSF is the most directive in the early stages of the proposal/project process using peer reviews as a form of quality control. The Department of Education is being more directive on the back end of the proposal/project process in an effort to determine impact. I suspect the Department of Education approach reflects pressures for accountability that extend beyond the science community. It will be interesting to see how effective this approach to evaluation will be.
Question from Jeffrey Brainard, Moderator:
Following up on that last question, federal funding for the Math and Science Partnerships run by the National Science Foundation has declined, leaving no money to start new projects. Meanwhile, President Bush wants to continue to increase funding for partnerships offered through the Education Department. Some people see that pattern of funding as problematic. Do you? Don't the existing NSF projects represent a sufficient base to develop and study new approaches for getting universities and schools to work together? Won't the Education Department projects yield some of the same insights?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
One of the big questions associate with MSP grants is how important is the role of the partnership for affecting change. NSF and the Department of Education are pursuing very different policies with regards to the partnership. In the NSF model the partnership plays a critical role in delivering the program and in fostering a climate to support institutional change. In the Department of Education model the partnerships are smaller and less invasive, but there are more of them scattered across a state. So which is more likely to produce changes? What will be the nature of the changes (if any)? And how sustainable are these changes? We have a bit of a natural experiment going on between the two approaches.
But there are two problems that may limit our ability to compare the two programs. First, it is not clear that the treatments across the partnerships will be similar. Many of the NSF partnerships are pursuing a range of interventions including professional development, curriculum development, and improving student achievement. There are likely to be synergies or interaction effects across multiple interventions. The Department of Education MSPs are smaller in scale and less likely to have multiple interventions. Second, the evaluation strategies are quite different. NSF is paying a good deal of attention to formative evaluations with an eye towards understanding the role that partnerships play in achieving outcomes and impacts. The Department of Education seems to be more focused on programmatic interventions that may be delivered through the partnership and establishing a sound basis for linking programs to impacts through randomized control trials.
Question from Jenna Seymour, Iowa State University:
What are the different definitions of "improve" the key people or programs are using?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
This is a really important question. In the Department of Education Math-Science Partnerships a great deal of emphasis is placed upon improving student achievement as evidenced through performance on standardized tests. The DoEd MSPs also emphasize the use of randomized control trials in an effort to establish the strength of the relationship, if any, between partnership activities and student achievement. They also allow for other approaches to measuring improvement such as gains by teachers in content knowledge.
The NSF Math-Science Partnerships also places a strong emphasis on demonstrating evidence of improvement in either student achievement or teacher professional development. But the NSF MSPs allow for a greater variety of evaluation methods. They are also more interested in evaluating the formation and progress of the partnerships. One final aspect of the NSF approach that would, I believe, be an indication of improvement would be evidence of the creation or enhancement of "learning communities" between K-12 schools and universities. Improvement could be observed through greater interaction between faculty in math with K-12 math teachers in which teachers were improving content and professors were learning a thing or two about communicating knowledge.
Comment from Frank Sutman,Richard Stockton College:
Don't the TIMSS scores and other indicators tell us that NSF's noble efforts to support curriculum project development& training programs, etc. have not produced the desired results? Can the DOE do better? I doubt that either agency has the wherewithal to facilitate the kind of local support needed by teachers to improve instruction. Our research indicates that the causes which must be overcome rest within the schools and local communities themselves.
Comment from Ravidra Kumar, ECSU:
As the saying goes, let thosands flower bloom, both modes NSF and department of education efforts is praise worthy knowing that our science and mathematics teaching needs help acroos the board inclding colleges. How3ver, Department of education initiative is close to the heart of state universities.
Question from David Sammons, U. T. at Martin:
Will the Department of Education new grant monies support programs where Higher Education Science Faculty and K - 12 teachers are cooperating in trainng new teachers in science content as well as in uses of science for cross curricula subjects of language arts, history, for example? Or will the new grants be mainly pedagogy driven?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I think the jury is still out on this one. The folks in the Department of Education associated with the MSP program have shown a strong interest in there to being greater emphasis on content. But there are other parties at the state level also involved in distributing funds.
Question from John Yopp, University of Kentucky:
Is it likely that research performed by faculty from the Arts and Sciences Colleges to identify the factors influencing mathematics and science education reform will be appropraitely informed without collaboration with both Education faculty and the school teachers?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
Both the NSF and the DoEd MSP programs involve school teachers and education faculty. The desire is to get "content" faculty in math and science to be a more active part of the partnership
Question from Patricia Paulson, St. Paul MN University:
I have been conducting extensive research on improving elementary teachers attitudes toward science with very encouraging results. With science testing soon arriving in the schools according to NCLB, how can a discussion of funding cuts be occurring?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
This problem is not unique to education. We are in a peculiar era with regards to public attitudes about public service. The demand for public services has increased in just about every policy domain. So too has the demand for accountability with regards to the performance of public service. At the same time most public agencies at the every level of government have experienced a reduction in the rate of budget growth or an absolute cut in budget (with one or two notable exceptions). The old consensus about the importance of the public sector has given way to a period of doubt and experimentation with alternative approaches to delivering public service.
Our political leaders have also found it more effective (at least in terms of getting elected) to run against the role of government rather than in support of it. For example, consider the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam presidential administrations; presidents have tended to campaign against Washington. Arguably, the president who espoused the most friendly rhetoric towards public service was George Bush Sr. and that didn't particularly endear him to the voters. What has happened at the federal level has also been mirrored at the state and local levels of government. So it is not too surprising that we are in an environment where budget cuts are considered a safe strategy.
Question from Matthew Kamper, Mission Viejo High School, Public High School 9-12:
I would like to pose several questions before we throw more money at the symptom (teacher preparedness) and not the problem (student effort and incentive to achieve in the classroom.)
Will I have an opportunity to benefit financially from the efforts I put into testing and improving "research"? There is a stereotype that teachers are nickel-and-dimeing the system and are unwilling to do anything unless they are compensated. This is an hourly employee mentality not a salaried employee one. Still, I believe that one of the reasons less change is achieved in the classroom is there is not an attractive incentive program for teachers to improve their skills. Offering teachers 'professional growth' hours won't do. Threatening the chopping block based on student test scores is not the answer either. So, will there be financial incentive for teachers improving their skills and abilities as with gaining funding by university professors? Will I receive 7% of the grant money as additional salary for spending my time, summers, and expertise working with the university to test out new research? Will I receive publication credit for my efforts? Will I have an opportunity to be a salaried professional who gives because it's their responsibility, or will I be seen by the universities as a pack mule necessary only to bring their gold to market, which I must them buy and live off in my own home?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I think you've raised several good points. I do think that our discussion of education reform is full of assumptions about the nature of students, teachers and schools that are value-driven and largely unsubstantiated. One of the questions I've been asking myself is which of the following is more likely: a) that the majority of teachers are somehow poorer prepared and doing a poorer job of teaching than they have in the past, or b) there is a heightened public awareness of education during a time of deep skepticism about public education (and, more generally, the public sector). Some of the histories that have been written about the American education systems would tend to support option b.
The other point you raise about the enormous expectations being placed on teachers is also important. If we are going to have high expectations of teachers then at some point our ideas about rewarding the profession will also have to change.
Comment from William Lutschak, O'Connell HS, Galveston, TX ,small private school:
Rather than ask a specific question, I would like to make a general comment on the issue at hand.
At the outset I would like to state that I have come into education after some 20 + years working in industry & government as an earth scientist. I have taught for the past ten years both at the college and secondary level (where I am currently teaching). I have been involved with NSF education programs both at the university level (UTEP) (SSI and URM programs AMP & MIE)) and at the secondary level (HISD & private) (TLRBSE out of NOAO). I have also researched undergraduate minority participation in STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics - ed.] (including using the NSF database in D.C.)).
In my opinion the major issue here relates to the relative priorities of the strategic concerns of the NSF regarding the national scientific manpower base vs. the science literacy of the general population. My own belief would be to prioritizing the maintenance of the nations STEM human resource base. In this case, I believe that university research would best be directed toward improving primary and secondary education with the objective of growing the future STEM manpower pool. NSF has the greater expertise here (beginning in the 1950's). University research should also be directed to increasing the motivation of our gifted and talented students to pursue careers in STEM. At the same time, given that 40% of teachers currently teaching science and math are not teaching in their major areas (NCES), a significant part of the university research should be directed at improving teacher knowledge of their subject. However, I return again to student motivation. This is the most critical area for university research, in my opinion.
As the SSI programs have shown, it is most difficult to get the active support of public school administrators in these programs. Thus, I believe that firmer relationships need to be established between university researchers and individual teachers working in the primary and secondary schools (with the inclusion as well of private schools).
Finally, having researched the problem of undergraduate major switching out of STEM curricula, I am also of the opinion that a great deal of university instruction in the STEM areas really does need to improve. This would go a long way to helping retain STEM undergraduate majors and especially URM undergraduate majors.
Question from Jeff Dibble, Jacksonville Florida:
I agree that university researchers need to play a central role in improving m/s education, and I believe that NSF is the place to support that work. However, I have heard from multiple sources that Congress and the Administration--for better or worse--have cut the NSF partnership program because does not support exploration of non-NCTM-approved curriculum. My question is (1) do you have any sense of whether this criticism is true, and (2) is your partnership project supporting exploration of any non-NCTM-approved curriculum? Thanks.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
It is true that the NSF partnership programs have been cut. I'm not aware that it is associated with the NCTM curriculum issues that you have raised.
The project I am working on is really interested in understanding whether participation in a partnership has any substantive influence on the type and quality of the professional development, curriculum development, or student achievement programs that transpire between universities and k-12 programs. Most importantly, does the partnership enhance the likelihood that professors and teachers can learn from one another and bring those lessons back to the classroom.
We are just now getting out to the field and have yet to see the specific curricula that are being used.
Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
We're about halfway through today's discussion, so if you have a question for Gordon Kingsley, now would be a good time to submit it. Keep the good questions coming.
Question from Janice Crowley, Wichita Collegiate Upper School:
As a part time summer university instructor of chemistry, I receive student evaluations of my teaching as do most instructors. Has anyone conducted research on those evaluations done by students and have the teachers rank themselves separately to see if the professors have misconceptions about whether they are good instructors. Is more research needed to find out what works in the classroom or is it that we are not asking the right people i.e. the teachers who are considered good instructors? Why not put together a think tank of instructional award winning college professors together and have them work on a plan that would help improve school teachers in math and science.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
Several of the Math-Science Partnerships sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Education are trying to do just what you suggest. I am more familiar with the NSF programs so I'll focus on them for a moment. There are a couple of wrinkles being pursued under the NSF-MSP's: 1) most of the partnerships are explicitly trying to encourage greater interaction between K-12 teachers and faculty from science and math disciplines in order to raise the content level of the professional development, and 2) in this interaction there is some hope that the higher education faculty might learn a thing or two about pedagogy from their K-12 counterparts.
Comment from Lyn Olsen, Pima College:
I would like to see discussion about girls being encouraged in science and math in K-12 because my daughter's experience, as well as other girls, is that they are strongly discouraged by teachers and counselings in K-12 and in college to go into science and math. Despite the discouragement from everyone, except me, my daughter scored in the top for her math with her favorite being calculus. She is now a junior in engineering at UofA, but again with no encouragement or help from counselors or teachers...she has had to do it on her own.
Question from Jeffrey Brainard, Moderator:
Some people are skeptical that universities usually make good partners with schools. Among other reasons, they note that even the largest Math and Science Partnership grants represent only a fraction of the total budget of the participating school system. Given that, what kind of leverage can universities realistically expect to exert within school districts, which (like universities) can be bureaucratic, stodgy, and resistant to change?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
The only leverage that any individual or organization has in a partnership is persuasion. NSF and the Department of Education are pursuing distinctive paths for how this persuasion might be achieved.
Question from Ginger Redlinger, ODE IIB PD meeting:
Large scale research and evaluation policies and small scale subjects of study- are these compatible? How can we answer the "big questions" if the scales do not appear compatible? (Short term - not longitudinal?)
Gordon A. Kingsley:
Good point. In the DoEd MSP case I don't think they are insisting that every project conduct a comprehensive randomized control trial evaluation. Instead they are going to have lots of smaller engagements and then an evaluation that spans several of these projects. In the NSF case the MSPs are pretty large. Some of the largest projects engage hundreds of schools and many thousands of students. So the scale of even a single project can get pretty big.
Question from Sandra Boynton, John Tyler HS Texas:
What we need is research on programs to reach at risk, unmotivated and disruptive poverty level students. Our science State Test (TAKS) scores are dismal and we must improve. Thank you for considering my question.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I agree. However, I should note that the terms at risk, unmotivate, disruptive, and poverty level sometimes describe one group of students but more often describe several groups of students that share one or more of these characteristics. The challenges of intervention are unlikely to be the same across each of these issues.
Question from David R. Stone, Georgia Southern University:
Universities reward faculty members for research, not for significant involvement in efforts to improve K-12 education. Can any type of "school-university partnership" be successful under such constraints?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
This is perhaps the biggest hurdle to NSF's goal of creating a learning community through partnership. They have tried to compensate by making the MSPs large and high-profile, at least enough to capture the leadership of the participating universities. But there are still concerns, particularly among junior faculty about the wisdom of participating in the partnership. One of the keys will be how receptive the disciplines, and more importantly, the individual school in which the faculty is housed, to research that involves discipline-based education.
Comment from Rosemary, middle school math:
Are we setting high goals or setting the students up for failure? Between the US Department of Education, NCLB, the State Board of Ed,and our local school board all I taught for this year was for my students to pass the next round of tests. At the beginning of the year I was given a "pacing guide" which included the number of days to spend on each objective; usually one or two days. At the end of each quarter the middle school math teachers were critized because the students' scores were low. Why didn't we reteach the material for mastery? However,when we did take the time to do so we would hear: Why haven't you covered all the objectives?
Why have you not had hands-on activities? Groups? There is no time for the students to learn the material before I am required to present more. For example,students cannot master probability/odds without some group activities over several days; I just don't believe reading and writing about it for two days will do it. It didn't for my classes and they understood the material as we discussed it. There was no time built in for "play." A week later they had forgotten.
Several years ago I attended a NSTA sponsored class at U/C Berkley, Science for Science Teachers and it was a turning point in my teaching career. I remember being told, "Whatever you middle school science teachers are doing, please, stop! You are driving the kids away from science." Well, I feel we are doing the same thing now with math. We are teaching too much, too fast, and turning them off to math. There's too little chance of success if all teachers have to teach the way I had to this year. The school board calls it "setting high goals" and I call it "setting them up for failure."
Question from Gerry Meisels and Bob Potter, University of South Florida:
In Florida, we have 2500 openings for mathematics and science teachers annually; only 6% are filled by graduates of Florida's colleges and universities, and close to 60% by career-change (alternative) entrants. These teachers need to learn how to reach students, how to manage classrooms, deal with discipline, identify and understand their own and students' misconceptions, and acquire pedagogical content knowledge. How can mathematics and science faculty play a meaningful role in working with schools and school districts' induction programs for such alternative entrants?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I'm not sure anyone knows an answer to this question. But it is an important one. The MSPs under both the NSF and the DoEd are trying to develop programs that bring these communities together. But one of the important questions is whether and how the alternative track entrants will participate in the MSPs. I know the evaluators working with both programs have discussed the importance of tracking this group. But I don't about the best practices in this area.
Comment from Vic Chamness, Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation, IN:
I really have a comment. Our MSP grant was used to use professors to help us critique content and pedagogy of inquiry-based kit modules from FOSS and STC, WITH our teachers. It helped both groups to understand more of each other's needs/challenges and now has developed relationships for teachers to feel comfortable about asking questions. Our professors admit that they don't necessarily the best way to teach K-12 students but they know the content that paired with our teachers helps all to understand more and expolre effective ways to teach science so it is engaging and lasting.
I think this example is one of the most powerful collaborations that works between K-12 and higher ed.
Thanks!
Comment from Nancy Shapiro, University System of Maryland:
My question is why we continue to approach this issue from an either/or perspective: if we agree that our science and math teaching and learning needs improvement across the K-16 continuum, then we should be investing in both the research about how students learn science and math, and the implementation of what works. Tom Friedman's "The World Is Flat" challenges us, yet again, to think about the big picture--we really can't afford to debate the either/or--we need both!
Our NSF MSP has challenged science faculty to think about how they teach their subjects so that their students (both those who plan to become teachers, and those who go into other fields) will gain essential understandings about how scientists think and ask questions. Earlier in this discussion, someone commented that "Teachers teach the way they were tuaght." Actually, a better formulation might be: "Teachers teach the way they learned." In our project, we're trying to work on that part of the equation, as well as providing high school teachers professional development opportunities. I think this is a big part of the difference between the two types of programs.
Comment from David Brant, University of California, Irvine:
This discussion focuses on the MSP programs, and I think it is important to understand the potential synergies in research universities between NSF MSP grants and the NSF research grants going to those same institutions. The pressures being put on NSF-supported academic researchers to include engagement with teachers and schools as a part of their NSF research grants are quite strong. This aspect of the NSF research grant program forces research faculty to pay attention to K-12 education, and these researchers welcome partnerships/collaborations with the kinds of activities suppported by the NSF MSP program. This is an avenue for engaging more of the discipline based science and math faculty with issues of teaching and learning at the K-12 level.
Question from Ravindra Kumar, ECSU:
Gordon, most of our students are from low income and historically disadvantaged group, and we have managed to expand enrollment at the base and have provided qualty MSP education. But most of the reward is going to ranking universities. Do you agree?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
There is a good deal of variance in how the funds and recognitions are distributed through NSF MSPs. So while I am aware that schools have expressed the concerns you are raising, and there are sites where this is a problem, I don't know whether this is a problem across all of the sites. In the DoEd MSPs that I am familiar with (which is admittedly only a few of the states) the funding amounts are smaller and, more importantly, there has been lots of hard bargaining that is preventing universities from charging overhead and limiting the number of personnel who can participate. So it is not clear that the universities have benefitted much from the grants.
Comment from Steve, former science teacher:
One of the problems with my teacher training was how my content course prepared me very little to teach others. I learned the facts of science but not the process. I was prepared to work in science lab but not for much more. Sciences teacher are required to take upper level courses, stuff that will never be taught in high school on the assumption if you master those you must understand the basics. Not so. I hope more colleges will realign their science content courses for teacher to focus more indepth on the basic content. But I guess this goes into the problem that research not teaching is respected in the academy.
Question from Jeffrey Brainard, Moderator:
Gordon, as you've explained, the Math and Science Partnerships funded by the National Science Foundation aim to help university faculty members in math and science improve how they teach undergraduates. The idea is that college mathematicians and scientists may have a lot to learn from K-12 school teachers. But doesn't this challenge the professional hierarchy in which professors may see themselves as superior to teachers? How realistic is it to expect these interactions to be genuinely two-way and productive and lead to widespread change in universities?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I think that the receptivity of university faculty to alternative approaches to pedagogy and learning won't be deterred by a perceived hierarchy. Most university faculty that I have worked with over the past 11 years have not been too picky about the source of the innovations they have tried. The challenge is to get professors to be innovative in the classroom at all. Most university faculty have few incentives to invest in new teaching methods.
More importantly, the MSPs, under either the NSF or the Department of Education program, do not seem to be spending much time focused on promoting changes at the university level. The goal is in place, and at most MSP meetings there is a reminder of this goal. But the bulk of the time and effort is focused on the K-12 schools.
A recent example of a successful innovation has been the adoption of new education technologies in the classroom using computers and the Internet. However, in most cases the universities made significant investments in the infrastructure of the classroom that created a new capability that professors then adapted to (often slowly). In the MSP case the hard part will be getting professors to make changes in the classroom with little or no institutional incentive to do so. A few will undoubtedly do so simply because they have a taste for innovation. But the majority are likely to feel little pressure to move in that direction.
Question from Christopher D. Creason Perry High School:
How do we as teacher become involved in the discussion with these researchers on a one to one basis? When does my 34 years in the classroom, field experience, become a part of educational research?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
This is such an important point. For too long the communication pattern between K-12 and higher education has been in one direction. Faculty from higher education institutions are brought in for professional development or to instill new curricula. As such, they assume an instructional mode of interacting with teachers. NSF likes to use the term "learning community" as a goal to be fostered within the MSPs. By this they mean that the direction of communication should go both ways. If you are involved in one of these MSPs you should take advantage of every opportunity to remind other participants that the key term is partnership. Unfortunately the institutional and cultural norms that have historically have governed the interactions of K-12 faculty with higher education faculty have tended not to foster partnerships.
Comment from Deirdre, not affiliated:
I worked in industry for many years, with scientists from all types of backgrounds, and with academia. It is my opinion that the university input is needed in order to 'drag up' the level of secondary school math and science teaching. For example, my high school chemistry teacher spent more time talking about her personal affairs than getting excited about science. It was my worst grade in high school. Yet, I now hold a BS in chemical engineering (if I had known that I was close to a double major, then I would have pursued it.) There is just something about being in the environment of higher education that improves the curiosity and ability of those involved. As an undergraduate, I worked in a chemical engineering laboratory. The experience of working with the graduate students was invaluable. I was more focused, and became more fluent in and versed in vocabulary, techniques, and paper writing.
I do hope that the universities will become more involved in secondary education - not less.
Sincerely,
Deirdre Lavallee
Question from Elizabeth Martin, College of Charleston:
The programs of the sixties often involved both Schools of Science and Math and Schools of Education and offered undergraduate majors in math and science a path to the classroom with support from NSF,supervision in the classroom for the first year of teaching with a salary, an MAT degree that included both science, math, and pedagogy instruction, and certification. Is there present support for this pathway into the classroom?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
One of the sure things about public policy is that the more things change the more they stay the same. Your question reminds me of a conversation I had with my mom who spent a portion of her career working with the Mid-Continental Research Education Laboratory in Kansas City. As I described the MSPs she started drawing parallels with a variety of programs that were initiated back in the 60s and 70s. The next week a stack of reports from that era arrived on my doorstep. She had sent me the originals of the reports with all sorts of helpful advise on how the lessons learned then might apply. And she was right.
One of the lessons I learned from reading the reports is that despite the rhetoric there have been significant improvements in our public schools. I suspect the problems that we are highlighting today, were problems then, we just weren't paying attention.
To answer your question more directly I don't know if policy-makers and NSF or DoEd officials have this model in mind. I do know that they are trying to facilitate stronger and more frequent interaction in the hopes of strengthening education.
Comment from Bob Icenogle, Platteview High School:
Would it help, improve secondary science education, IF the graduates knew something about the sciences they were expected to teach? In the far old days, we had to take the same science classes that the pre-meds, pre-dents, engineers take. Perhaps, being a general elementary teacher is not the only qualification that one needs to teach junior high science. Really is hard to teach what you don't know or understand. Unless you have experienced several college level science classes, you do not 'get' science. There is more to science education than making 'Gooo' and shooting off (illegally) rockets. We had good secondary programs (the letter programs) but they died of a lack of people to teach them and the cost to teach them.
Question from Barbara Spector U of South Florids:
What have you found to be the amount of time an individual spends with an individual teacher that makes an impact? Is the format usually one scientist and teachers in a workshop? in a formal course? how long is the contact time.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
There is a great deal of variance across the MSPs on the amount of engagement with the teachers. Some of the NSF partnerships have been very good about recording the amount of time and the quality of the engagement. But not all. Given the small amount of funds devoted to evaluation for each site in the DoEd partnerships (the guidance documents suggests something between $50K and $75K) it is unlikely that there will be a lot of evidence about the amount of time associated with the engagement. This is a long-winded way of saying I don't know and I'm not sure many of the MSPs will know the length of time of the engagement. But it will not surprise me at all if the MSPs find a correlation between the time and quality of one-on-one interaction and positive outcomes.
Comment from Dr. Victor Pinks II, Marmion Academy, Aurora, IL:
Comment: University researchers need to create integrated math and science books and resources for K-12 teachers. Since science cannot change the context of their problems, mathematics will have to adjust to science. For example, physics and calculus should be taught as an integrated course (see Integrated Physics and Calculus by Andrew Rex, et. al.). Students should receive credit for both physics and calculus on their transcripts. When necessary, these courses should be team taught with scientists leading the curriculum - mathematicians providing needed tools. University education researchers have the resources and rigor to create such text books. Federal dollars should be spent on such research. With these resources, K-12 teachers can make the transition to greater levels of rigor within their comfort zones.
Comment from Ms. Angelica Gonzalez, Eastwood Academy High School, Houston, Texas:
I teach high school IPC & chemistry. Since I use a lot of my IPC and chemistry instruction time to teach math, could college/university students volunteer for math tutoring on our schools' campuses? This would help science teachers to free instructional time so we can focus more on science. Community service looks great on resumes, but it starts in the nearby schools/neighborhoods.
Question from Diane Schmidt, Florida Gulf Coast University:
I'd like to comment that pairing faculty from Colleges of Education and Colleges of Arts and Sciences has been very successful for us in developing K-12 projects. In the process we have learned from one-another as faculty and forged new partnerships for professional growth and research. Why is it that the issues seem to focus on Science and Math faculty and K-12 teachers and does not appear to include collaborations with Education faculty?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I don't mean to exclude faculty from colleges of education in my answers. Many of the questions have been had an angle to them concerning the difference between the MSPs and other types of engagements. The addition of the Arts and Sciences faculty is one of the key differences promoted under the NSF MSP. However, education faculty are also very much involved in most of the partnerships and are oftentimes supplying a leadership role. I should note that there is an undercurrent of discontent in the MSP programs with the historic relations between Colleges of Education and K-12. The sense I get from policy-makers and public officials is that this relationship has been overly focused on pedagogy at the expense of content. Hence the emphasis on this in the NSF MSP.
Question from Shaileen Pokress, TERC:
Some of the NSF MSPs are now well established in their work. With the formative assessment that is happening, it seems that there ought to be some signs of the success of these programs, at least at some intermediate stage. Can you comment on the outcomes that have been seen so far from the NSF MSP program and any changes in direction for those that have taken their results and applied them in a formative way? Can't these results be used to sway the federal government as they distribute funding?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I'm not in a good position to answer this question because I don't get to see the formative assessments. However, this September there is a conference being held where a good deal of the formative evidence will be shared with the MSP community. Some of the early indicators the I have seen through MSPnet (the on-line backbone of the NSF MSP community) seem to be positive.
I guess I'm skeptical whether these indicators are likely to be persuasive with regards to a restoration of the monies. The current climate seems to be in favor of DoEd's approach using randomized control trials.
Question from Barbara Spector U of South Florida:
Please comment on criteria for success in relationship to finding a balance between a funding agency's need to numbers and the need to work with a small number of scientists and teachers to a significant depth to achieve something lasting.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I once heard a pastor of one the large mega-churches say that the capacity for growth in his church was directly tied to coming up with ways to be small, i.e. for every individual to have a personal connection to the church. I think there is something of this working within the MSP community. The success in reaching out and diffusing the lessons learned through the MSPs is going to be tied to the quality of the personal interaction that many of the teachers and administrators experience through participation. It looks to me that NSF is betting that by emphasizing the development of partnerships it can also improve the quality of the individual experience of the participants.
Comment from Elizabeth Martin, College of Charleston:
I have asked more than my quota of questions, however, in response to a comment about the tendency for those of us at the university level to think that the flow of information about enhancing the pre-college classroom needs to go from 13-16 down to K-12: It only took one summer of working with a crack team of Woodrow Wilson Fellowship TORCH teachers(high school) to realize that the rapport and excitement they could generate among a group of their peers was a partnership in which I and my science and math colleagues wanted to be involved!
Question from Barbara Spector U of South Florida:
Have distance learning techniques been a part of the interventions to bring scientists and teachers together? If yes, is there any evidence of their impact compared to face to face contact?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
Yes, there are MSPs that have incorporated distance learning techniques into their methods. I have heard that some of the sites have had success with the methods. I'm hoping to see some evidence of this in the September meeting.
Question from Elizabeth Martin, College of Charleston:
Over the last years, we have had several chemistry majors who decide that they would like to use their chemistry majors to teach at the high school level. These are students who would be eligible for graduate school in chemistry where they would be likely to be offerred support to complete degrees in chemistry. We have found it difficult to impossible to find equivalent support for them to become teachers. With the present need for such teachers, why is there no more effort to entice them into coupling their science prparation with a teaching career?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I have two answers to your question. The first is the cynical view. And it comes in a one word answer: Tradition. Lyndon Johnson once said that the best way to kill a new program is to put it in an old agency. We have few traditions for enticing teachers into the work place. So it takes a while for schools and public programs to learn a new way of doing things. Having said that let me offer my second answer. I think we are beginning to see some aggressive recruiting tactics by schools.
Question from Gerry Meisels, University of South Florida:
No matter how MSP is divided between NSF and the US DOE, our end goal is to increase student performance in M&S not in the least because it is required to maintain America's economy and high levels of employment. We need large-scale strengtening, and that cannot be achieved unless state departments of education, governors, and legislatures become significant partners. What kinds of programs can be developed and funded by the federal government that will help make investment in M&S education a high priority for them, recognizing that they are more responsive to politcal power than to rational analysis? How can federal programs be used to secure commitment and action by the business community to become proactive advocates in the state house and government?
Gordon A. Kingsley:
The type of movement you are describing requires high level politics that makes math and science education a national priority. We have seen the first inkling of his when Senator Clinton met with former Speaker Gingrich and found lot of commonality of view on math and science education. We are also experiencing a lot more competition in the area of research and development. The Chair of my school (Diana Hicks, School of Public Policy) presented research this week to the Council on Foregin Relations noting this increase in competition and the movement of research and development labs to East Asian countries. It will take this level of attention to bring the type of large-scale programs you are describing. Happily, the need for strengthening math and science education is one of the few things that conservatives, moderates and liberals in both parties agree upon.
Question from Tod Treat, Parkland College, Illinois:
Gordon,
As an administrator and former science teacher at a community college, I believe the CC is uniquely poised to address the scientific literacy issues of the lay public (as opposed to future scientists who often benefit from the resources at research universities). In particular, community college faculty are often at the forefront of pedagogical advances and teaching methods that K-12 teachers could benefit from. Do you envision any strategic initiates on the part of NSF to utlize CC faculty in efforts to enhance the teaching of science for general literacy?
Thank you.
Gordon A. Kingsley:
I could not agree with you more. In my view the community colleges can have a vital role in this discussion. Oftentimes the community colleges are where students turn if they have difficiencies in the preparation in science and math. Similarly, many students in math, science and engineering are transferring in from community colleges and regional colleges having used the environment of smaller class sizes and more individualized attention to gain a firm base for upper division work.
Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
That will have to be the last word. Thank you to all who participated in today's chat, especially our guest, Gordon Kingsley. Good day.