Author: seceij

Abstract

Online higher education programs provide opportunities and access to students who might not have enrolled in a higher education program otherwise. As the demand for these online programs increases, including those in the STEM fields, the need for experiential learning opportunities becomes critical. Experiential learning in the online environment can take place in a multitude of ways, can generate student engagement, and can incorporate collaborative learning opportunities. Together, these courses will involve hands-on learning experiences that address real-world needs, service learning, and civic engagement, all which encompass the central focus for these opportunities and are the foundation on which these courses will be built.

Introduction

A growing demand for online higher education programs brings with it the challenge of incorporating civic engagement responsibilities into an online environment. According to the 2015 Survey of Online Learning, conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group and published in the Online Learning Consortium’s Online Report Card (Allen et al. 2016), 2.85 million students are taking all of their courses in an online environment, while another 2.79 million are taking at least one online course. To put that in perspective, more than one in four students (28 percent) took at least one online course in the fall of 2014. Southern New Hampshire University’s College of Online and Continuing Education (SNHU COCE) currently serves online students and offers more than 200 online college degrees and certificates, including those in Environmental Science and Geosciences. The demand for individuals in these fields is expected to increase 10 to 11 percent faster than average between 2014 and 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016); therefore, providing innovative, hands-on, experiential learning opportunities for these students is crucial.

SNHU COCE incorporates experiential learning opportunities into its online STEM programs with a unique approach. Experiential learning is grounded in the work of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget (Kolb 1984). Dewey (1938) argued that education and learning are social and interactive processes and stated that there is a connection between education and personal experience. Lewin and his Lewinian Model of Action Research and Laboratory Training focused on learning as facilitated by experience, acquisition of data, and observations. Piaget’s Model of Learning and Cognitive Development incorporates aspects of these two, but also adds reflection and action to the mix. Together, the philosophy of experiential learning can best be described as a process of learning as opposed to learning on the basis of outcomes (Kolb 1984). According to Kolb (1984), “knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” (See Figure 1 for a depiction of experiential learning in the 21st century framed in the context of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle.)

The purpose of the experiential learning courses for our online learners is to provide students with an opportunity to gain experience in their chosen field. In this report, we’ll focus specifically on civic engagement and service learning opportunities within the experiential learning courses. Civic engagement and service learning opportunities promote a sense of community and civic responsibility using reflective thinking to develop the students’ academic skills. Students participating in these types of immersive opportunities have the chance to work in local communities, address current environmental issues, and assist communities in implementing solutions. Course outcomes for the experiential learning courses revolve around guided reflection. The act of reflection is often a process that allows for the reorganization of knowledge and thought in order to attain greater insight (Moon 2004, 82). According to Moon (2004), understanding, decision making, resolution, and action outcomes can result from the use of reflective processes, including reflective journaling. Together, these reflective processes link reflection with the process of learning.

In the experiential courses, students reflect on scientific practices and real-world situations; they reflect on how experiential learning opportunities play a role in driving the achievement of their goals, and examine the relationship between the application of scientific inquiry and their real-world experiences. Students engage in reflective learning by participating in various discussions with their peers (collaborative reflection), along with writing in weekly journals to document their journey through the many experiences they encounter (personal reflection). (See Figure 2 for an overview of student journal guidelines.)  Upon completion of the course, students produce a guided written reflective piece that summarizes all of their experiences and details how those experiences have influenced their personal goals and future career path and helped identify what questions they may still have as they go forth in their educational and professional careers.

Online Experiential Learning in Science through Service Learning and Civic Engagement

Service learning has been identified as a high-impact practice that promotes higher-level learning and success (Kuh 2008; Brownell and Swaner 2010). The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) is calling for renewed energy in community engagement, civic engagement, and service learning. Service learning and civic engagement involve building a sense of responsibility to one’s community and allow students the opportunity to apply concepts and ideas learned in class to real-life situations and scenarios (Holland et al. 2008, 165). Experiential learning with an emphasis on service learning and civic engagement in the online science learning environment can take place in a multitude of ways and can, in fact, generate high levels of student engagement and collaborative learning opportunities. The learning can take place in both the student’s local community and in the online environment where students interact with their peers and a faculty member, sharing, communicating, problem solving, and reflecting throughout the course.

At Southern New Hampshire University’s College of Online and Continuing Education, the goal is to provide students with meaningful learning experiences that connect to real-world relevance. To achieve this goal, an online science experiential learning undergraduate course has been created for our Environmental Science and Geoscience majors that includes varying topics that rotate throughout the year. Students may take this elective course up to two times in total. (See Figure 3 for the Course at a Glance Overview.)

Students engage in short-term immersive learning experiences that span roughly two months and include a minimum of seventy documented hours of experience. (See Figure 4 for the required weekly student timesheet template.) Students have the opportunity to engage in service while concurrently reflecting on their experience, exploring personal and professional development opportunities, applying scientific concepts to real-world situations, and developing competencies and skills around a desired career interest. The course also allows students to make personal connections in their field of interest and provides a face-to-face experience where students can demonstrate competency in the field to potential future employers, colleagues, or collaborators.

Examples of topics that focus on service learning and civic engagement in science for the online science experiential learning course are discussed below.

Service Learning

Service learning is a form of experiential learning that involves equal focus on student learning and community service goals. Service learning encompasses both reflection and reciprocity, where students actively participate in the service learning project and reflect on their experiences, in a dynamic action-reflection process. In Service-Learning in Higher Education (1996), Barbara Jacoby writes, “Service-learning is a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities for reflection designed to achieve desired learning outcomes.” Therefore, in the online experiential learning course, students are actively engaged in learning opportunities that address a real-world need, while also providing time for reflection and discussion as learners progress towards mastery of course learning outcomes.

Service Learning and Grant Writing

Students learn to write a science grant in a real-world setting. They are tasked with finding and working with a local community partner organization in their area (such as a local, state, or national agency or park, museum, wildlife center, science center, aquarium, or zoo). The students work with their chosen entity to develop a grant proposal for funding that will be submitted to a granting agency for consideration. Students are not assessed on the outcome of the grant application process, but rather the outcomes and assessment focus on the experiential reflective learning process. In this experience, students make connections in their local community, serve the organization’s need by submitting a grant on their behalf, and gain a marketable skill.

Service Learning and Field Experience

Field experience can be interpreted broadly, but generally refers to gaining experience in the field in which the student would like to work. For example, it may include service in a branch within the Department of the Interior, e.g. National Park Service (NPS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), United States Geological Service (USGS), or serving on a local (city or county) geographic information system (GIS) project. Conversely, it may involve students who serve as data analysts on a scientific study that encompasses large data sets ready for analysis and synthesis. In this case, students work collaboratively with a faculty member who provides the raw data for the course, and the team of faculty and students work together to analyze and synthesize the data. The data analysis and synthesis could also include a final communication of those science results in a journal, data report, or other research publication.

Field experience allows students to gain skills that will help them in their future careers, and to make connections in the field, add to their professional network, and serve the needs of a community project or organization by serving its overall goal or mission in some capacity.

Civic Engagement

Civic engagement centers on making a real-world difference in the community while concurrently developing knowledge, skills, competencies, and abilities to achieve successful course and community project outcomes. Civic engagement can take on many forms in the higher education environment, and it prepares students to be engaged citizens. In our civically engaged experiential learning opportunities, students work on authentic science projects that are designed to make a difference in the community and provide students with real-world experience in science.

Civic Engagement through Community Citizen Science

In the online science experiential learning classroom, the world is our lab (Figure 5). Citizen science, or public participation in science, offers science students the opportunity to engage in science along with a greater community of collaborators or participants. Students gain experience facilitating and leading the public in real-world science. For example, students may create a citizen science species monitoring project on iNaturalist and host a BioBlitz in their local area. A BioBlitz refers to a period of time (such as a weekend) when organisms in a certain geographic area are surveyed and documented. The iNaturalist mobile device app allows for the BioBlitz to take place, with participants using smart phones and uploading images of the organism to the iNaturalist project.

In 2017, the “City Nature Challenge,” which began in California in 2016, became a national event. The April “City Nature Challenge” (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 2017) coincided with “National Citizen Science Day” and included a friendly BioBlitz-style competition among sixteen cities across the United States. The “City Nature Challenge” uses iNaturalist to document species in a given area during a set period of time. Therefore, events like this can be a way for students to get involved in their local community and organize, lead, and facilitate BioBlitz events with the public. Engagement in community citizen science and BioBlitz events can lead to publishing ideas and opportunities for students, including the creation of a blog relating their experiences. Reporting about the experience is beneficial to the learning process, and also serves to reinforce an important aspect of the science process: communicating the science. In addition, science students help identify organisms that come in from participant observations during the challenge, and ultimately student participation helps to “crowdsource” and update species guides for each region. (See Figure 6 for an example of the updated species guide from the North Texas area, following the 2017 City Nature Challenge.) In 2018, the City Nature Challenge will be a global event. Imagine the unlimited possibilities for your own students when the world comes together in a locally engaged, globally connected iNaturalist BioBlitz next spring.

Conclusion and Discussion

The journey into experiential learning in the online science classroom has only just begun and the service learning and civic engagement examples discussed in this article are only the beginning for online experiential learning opportunities in science. We look forward to continuously learning from our students and our colleagues, and to applying collective stakeholder feedback as we further expand our course topic offerings. We welcome and invite discussion and collaboration with the entire SENCER community as we continue the exciting journey and evolution in online science education to serve the twenty-first-century learner.

About the Authors

Kelly Thrippleton-Hunter is a Faculty Lead for Undergraduate Science at Southern New Hampshire University’s College of Online and Continuing Education. She received two B.S. degrees, one in Zoology and the other in Environmental Biology and Ecology, from California State University, Long Beach in 2002, a Ph.D. in Environmental Toxicology from the University of California, Riverside in 2009, and an M.A.T. in Science from Western Governors University in 2015.

Jill Nugent is the Associate Dean for Science at Southern New Hampshire University’s College of Online and Continuing Education. She is currently a doctoral candidate at Texas Tech University, investigating locally engaged, globally connected citizen science in university science courses.

References

Allen, I.E., J. Seaman, R. Poulin, and T.T. Straut. 2016. “2015 Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States.” https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/ (accessed May 31, 2017).

Brownell, J.E., and L.E. Swaner. 2010. Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completion, and Quality. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2016. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016–17. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.

Holland, B.A., S. Billig, and M. Bowdon. 2008. Scholarship for Sustaining Service-Learning and Civic Engagement. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.

Jacoby, B. 1996. Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuh, G. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Moon, J.A. 2004. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. 2012. A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. 2017. “City Nature Challenge 2017, April 14–18.” https://nhm.org/nature/citizen-science/city-nature-challenge-2017 (accessed May 31, 2017).

Download (PDF, 1.28MB)

 

Abstract

There has been an increased emphasis in recent years on implementing active learning strategies in science courses for undergraduate students. Particularly, undergraduate research methods courses have focused on incorporating pedagogies that utilize a practical application of the course content. As a result, we created a research methods course for undergraduate health sciences students to teach them about research methodology through a hands-on project.  The health sciences students were part of an outdoor education program, where for one week third and fourth grade students from an elementary school came to a camp as part of an outdoor education experience. The health sciences students taught the children a variety of STEM  (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and health/wellness skills and content.  In addition, the undergraduate students learned about research methods by conducting their own studies during this outdoor education program. The benefits were twofold.  The health sciences students learned about research methodology in an applied and practical manner and the elementary school children experienced STEM education in an outdoor environment.

Introduction

The value of active learning in science education has been emphasized by many national organizations (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993: Association of American Colleges and Universities 2007; National Research Council 1999, 2003a, 2003b; National Science Foundation 1996).  Encouraging students to formulate their own ideas, interpret data, generate conclusions from experimental evidence, and participate in other hands-on activities can be more effective than the passive learning that typically occurs during lecturing.  The increased recognition of the value of active learning is supported by a growing body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of incorporating active learning techniques in the undergraduate classroom (Prince 2004).  The literature has shown improved learning when a variety of active learning strategies were used in a wide range of science disciplines including physics (Hake 1998), chemistry (Niaz et al. 2002; Towns and Grant 1997), biology (Burrowes 2003), nursing (Clark et al. 2008), and physiology (Mierson 1998).

In most health sciences undergraduate programs, a research methods course is part of the curriculum.  Many faculty who teach undergraduate research courses are aware of the challenges that are associated with making this material practical for students. Research is an area that students have unfavorable attitudes toward, attitudes that may become even more negative upon taking a research methods course (Sizemore and Lewandowski 2009).  One potential reason for the lack of interest is students’ inability to perceive themselves as engaged in meaningful research activities as undergraduate students (Rash 2005; Macheski et al. 2008). The literature has demonstrated that students tend to learn abstract concepts more fully when they can apply them to their to “real world” settings (Macheski et al., 2008).  In our health sciences department, we have implemented active learning strategies utilizing other approaches (FitzPatrick and Campisi 2009; Campisi and Finn 2011; FitzPatrick et al. 2011; Finn and Campisi 2015), but we wanted to create a way to specifically teach research methods using active learning in an outdoor education program. After examining the effects of active learning pedagogies on student learning and perceptions for a number of years, we have implemented different pedagogies such as clickers, peer-led team mentoring, and group and collaborative learning, to examine how active learning effects both student learning and perceptions. Many of these pedagogies have improved student learning and have had positive impact on student perceptions.

For the outdoor education project, we redesigned our undergraduate research methods course to incorporate participation in a research project.  We hoped that stimulating interest in research through active and collaborative learning would allow students to understand the practical implication of research.

The Outdoor Education Program

During this project, 100 third and fourth grade children participated in a five-day, five hour/day outdoor education program that took place at a local day camp owned by the YMCA. This program was a joint venture between the city’s school district and the local YMCA to provide elementary students with an exciting opportunity to participate in active learning in a camp setting. This was the first outdoor experience in a camp environment for many students who participated in this program.  As part of being enrolled in the research methods course, the health sciences undergraduate students implemented this outdoor education program by utilizing the camp’s program areas and natural ecosystems to provide the children with unique experiential learning activities in four main curricular areas: science and math, healthy living, environmental education, and team building. These engaging activities and the use of natural surroundings encouraged the children to explore their interests and abilities in a safe and nurturing environment. Below is more detail on each section of the curriculum.

Environmental Education: This component of the curriculum corresponds with the goals of the school system, the Massachusetts State School Standards, and the New National Science Standards. Each day, students learned about a different ecosystem at the camp (e.g. the wetlands, fresh water lake, forest, and open field) through a combination of hands-on experiments and lectures.  In each ecosystem, students learned about the different types of animals, plant life, rocks, the cycles of natural resources, and the dangers that each ecosystem faces, among other topics. Students also took nature hikes and performed on-site field tests, including taking water and soil samples and testing pH.

The Science and Math of Camp: This component of the program included several physical activities that provided the opportunity for students to learn math and science skills. These activities included

Maps –The goal of this module was to allow students to develop and make maps using scale, topography, measurements, and other skills.

Archery – While participating in archery, students were provided the opportunity to learn about velocity, rate of speed, distance, inertia, and gravity.

Canoeing – While participating in this activity, students could learn about propulsion, angles, planes, kinesiology and biomechanics, resistance and friction, and wind and currents.

Gaga –The goal of this activity was for students to learn how to play the popular camp game Gaga. While playing, they wear devices such as a pedometer, to measure steps, distance traveled, and overall activity levels. Students took the data from these devices and recorded it, and then, using the Active Science curriculum, analyzed the data, answered questions, and drew conclusions about the data.

Team Building: The team-building component was a progressive learning experience where students were encouraged to challenge themselves in a variety of different ways. This provided emotional and physical growth and gave each student the feeling of self worth and self-accomplishment. The week began with team-building activities on land, such as “get to know you” games, trust falls, spotting techniques, and problem-solving games. As the group mastered the land activities, they moved to the low ropes course. At the camp, there were seven low ropes elements. Each element had two groups participating (one group spotting and one group climbing). After mastering the low ropes course elements, students over the age of ten had the option of trying the high ropes course. There were seven high ropes course elements, including a zip line. Younger students (over the age of eight) had the chance to try the giant swing. The camp’s ropes course offered a variety of fun opportunities to build trust, solve problems and learn the value of collaborative teamwork.

Healthy Living: During this component of the program, students were exposed information about living healthy lifestyles. These included safety concepts, healthy eating and nutrition, and physical activity.  Activities included Water and Boating Safety, Garden Project, Fitness Challenge, Otterthon Relay Race, and Field and Court Games. The students were encouraged to participate, be active, and have fun with their classmates.  They learned about the importance of being physically active, having good nutrition habits, and overall what it means to be healthy.

Research Methods Course

The research methods course was delivered during the summer session for six weeks.  Twelve students were enrolled in the course. During the first two weeks of class, the health sciences students learned about the outdoor education program and became familiar with the curriculum and content that they would be teaching to the children.  From there, the class was divided into four groups of three students each to come up with a research question that they wanted to investigate during the program.   As part of the course, one of the first assignments that the students completed was a proposal that detailed the specifics of the research project. They were required to provide a research question, hypothesis, methods (participants, data collection, data analysis), and the type of research design that they were interested in carrying out.  Based on what they learned at the beginning of the course about the types of research designs, they created a study and a question to match the design.  Once the students completed the assignment on the design of their study, the instructor met with each group to review it.  The instructor provided feedback on ways to improve the study and the students worked to incorporate the changes to make the design stronger.  This back and forth process happened until the instructor felt the design was well thought out and could answer the research question.

Prior to going into the field, the students had a solid research study that addressed a specific research question. The research questions the students focused on were specific to the one-week outdoor education experience. Two of the student projects focused on assessing the amount and level of physical activity that the participants accumulated while in the outdoor education program. They compared physical activity levels such as sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous between classes, curriculum components, age, and gender.  Another group assessed the science learning that occurred during the camp. They performed pre- and post-assessment to determine science knowledge that was gained through the experience. They had a control group that did not perform the outdoor education program for a comparison.  The last group examined the participants’ perceptions of learning in the outdoor education environment.  They conducted surveys of all participants at the end of camp and then interviewed a subset of children to gather their feedback on the outdoor experience.

During weeks three and four of the course, the health sciences students were in the field implementing the curriculum and collecting data.  At the end of the course (weeks five and six), the students returned to the classroom to analyze their data. The students learned about the different types of statistical analysis (correlational, independent t-test, ANOVA) that could be performed based on their design and research question. The hands-on application of real data to teach the statistical analysis portion of this course was viewed positively by both the students and the instructor.  They worked on creating a final paper and presentation that represented the results of their study.  The course concluded with a presentation from each group to the YMCA senior leadership, board members, classroom teachers and administrators, and faculty.

Conclusion

This approach was a way to demonstrate how to teach research methods to undergraduate health sciences students through a community-based initiative in an urban school district.  The health sciences students felt that a project-based approach was an effective way to learn the content of the course. The course objectives were met through demonstration of performance on course quizzes and through designing and carrying out a research study, analyzing the data, and writing and presenting the results of the project.  As we continue to offer this course, we will use this approach to create measures that assess student perceptions of learning for both the health sciences students and the elementary school children. The active learning and student-centered pedagogical strategy created a culture of ownership over the research project and excited students about the course material.  In many science lecture and laboratory courses, active learning can be an effective method to improve student learning and understanding and to improve student attitudes about a subject. Incorporating a team-based research project that uses the outdoor environment into a research methods course can help prepare students for future research experiences and their professional careers.

About the Author

Dr. Kevin Finn is an Associate Professor and Chair of Health Sciences at Merrimack College. His area of expertise is curriculum and teaching in the health professions with a focus around increasing physical activity in children. Kevin is a licensed athletic trainer in Massachusetts and a certified strength and conditioning specialist.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061.  Washington DC: AAAS.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2007.  College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington DC: AACU.

Burrowes, P.A. 2003.  “A Student-Centered Approach to Teaching General Biology That Really Works: Lord’s Constructivist Model Put to a Test.” The American Biology Teacher 65 (1): 491–502.

Campisi, J., and K. Finn. 2011. “Does Active Learning Improve Students’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Methods?” Journal of College Science Teaching 40 (4): 38–45.

Clark, M.C., H.T. Nguyen, C. Bray, and R.E. Levine.  2008.  “Team-Based Learning in an Undergraduate Nursing Course.” Journal of Nursing Education 47 (3): 111–117.

Hake, R.R. 1998. “Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses.”  American Journal of Physics 66 (1): 64–78.

Finn, K., and J. Campisi. 2015. “Implementing and Evaluating a Peer-Led Team Learning Approach in Undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology.” Journal of College Science Teaching 44 (6): 323–328.

FitzPatrick, K.A., K.E. Finn, , and J. Campisi. 2011. “Effect of Personal Response Systems on Student Perception and Academic Performance in Courses in a Health Sciences Curriculum.” Advances in Physiology Education 35 (2): 280–289.

FitzPatrick, K.A., and J. Campisi. 2009.  “A Multiyear Approach to Student-Driven Investigations in Exercise Physiology.”  Advances in Physiology Education 33 (4): 349–55.

Macheski, G.E., J. Buhrmann, K.S. Lowney, and M.E.L. Bush. 2008. “Overcoming Student Disengagement and Anxiety in Theory, Methods, and Statistics Courses by Building a Community of Learners.” Teaching Sociology 36 (1): 42–48.

Manning K., P. Zachar, G.E. Ray, and S. LoBello. 2006. “Research Methods Courses and the Scientist and Practitioner Interests of Psychology Majors.” Teaching Psychology 33 (1): 194–196.

Mierson, S. 1998. “A Problem-Based Learning Course in Physiology for Undergraduate and Graduate Basic Science Students.” Advances in Physiology Education 20 (1): 16–21.

National Research Council. 1999.  Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology.  Executive Summary.  Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.

———. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

———. 2003.  Bio 2010. Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

National Science Foundation. 1996.  Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources; NSF 96-139.

Niaz, M., D. Aguilera, A. Maza, and G. Liendo. 2002. “Arguments, Contradictions, Resistances, and Conceptual Change in Students’ Understanding of Atomic Structure.”  Science Education 86 (2): 505–525.

Prince, M. 2004.  “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education 93 (3): 223–231.

Rash, E.  2005.  “A Service Learning Research Methods Course.”  Journal of Nursing Education 44 (10): 477–478.

Sizemore O.J., and G.W. Lewandowski. 2009. “Learning Might Not Equal Liking: Research Methods Course Changes Knowledge But Not Attitudes.” Teaching Psychology 36 (1): 90–95.

Towns, M.H., and E.R. Grant. 1997. “Cooperative Learning Activities in Physical Chemistry.”  Journal of Research and Science Teaching 34 (2): 819–835.

National Research Council.  2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2003.  Bio 2010. Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Download (PDF, 212KB)

Abstract

Teacher candidates seeking a K-6 license took a science methods course during which they participated in focused service learning. Candidates were provided the necessary science content instruction to enable them to write the actual event activities and serve as Event Leaders for the regional Science Olympiad competition. Data related to candidate acquisition of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and professional dispositions were gathered from candidates’ responses to written reflections and standardized surveys.  It was concluded that through their practical and engaged work participants learned science content and gained pedagogical skills necessary for teaching science.  Further, candidates gained desirable professional dispositions related to such civic engagement elements as developing sustainable partnerships, engaging in mutually beneficial work, and serving a diversity of students.

Introduction

The University of North Carolina Asheville

The University of North Carolina Asheville (UNC Asheville) opened in 1927 as Buncombe County Junior College. The school underwent several name changes, mergers with local governments and school systems, and moves before relocating in 1961 to the present campus. Asheville-Biltmore College joined the UNC system in 1969 as UNC Asheville, with the distinct mission to offer an excellent undergraduate liberal arts education.

UNC Asheville is the only designated undergraduate liberal arts university in the 17-campus UNC system. UNC Asheville is a public State Institution of Higher Education and is classified as a Baccalaureate College of Arts and Sciences by the Carnegie Classification system. UNC Asheville is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The university has received national recognition for its Humanities and Undergraduate Research programs. U.S. News & World Report ranks UNC Asheville as one of the top five public liberal arts colleges in its America’s Best Colleges edition and lists the Undergraduate Research Program among “Programs to Look For” along with some of the top research universities in the country. UNC Asheville is consistently rated a “Best Buy” in the Fiske Guide to Colleges. UNC Asheville founded the National Conference on Undergraduate Research more than 25 years ago, and the university emphasizes student participation in faculty-mentored research projects. Additionally, most UNC Asheville students undertake career-related internships, and are supervised by university faculty during their time working in the field. Seventeen percent of UNC Asheville students take advantage of study abroad and study away programs. Finally, many courses and on-campus programs engage students in service projects aimed at improving the quality of life at home and around the world, which is a major focus of the university.

Teacher Licensure at UNC Asheville

The mission of UNC Asheville’s Department of Education is to prepare candidates for a North Carolina Standard Professional I Teaching license with a liberal arts foundation. The Department of Education engages with all departments across campus in the preparation of professional educators; undergraduate candidates major in an academic area specific to their intended licensure area, along with taking additional courses necessary to earn their North Carolina teaching license. Hence, Education is not a major or a minor, but is an area of concentration in addition to the academic major. This structure reflects the liberal arts model. Undergraduate licensure candidates in K–12 and 9–12 areas major directly in their area of specialty (e.g. those seeking K–12 Art licensure major in Art), candidates in 6–9 areas either major directly in their area of specialty or in Psychology, and candidates in K–6 may choose any major. This model necessitates a strong liaison-based partnership between representatives from each of the academic majors and the Department of Education. Post-baccalaureate candidates who have earned the requisite Bachelor’s degree may earn a teaching license by taking the necessary Education courses only, or may take a prescribed set of major courses in addition to their Education courses if they are pursuing licensure in a different area from their undergraduate major. Post-baccalaureate candidates are expected to meet the same program requirements and outcomes as undergraduate candidates. The National Council on Teacher Quality has rated the UNC Asheville Department of Education as a Best Value among North Carolina Colleges of Education, and among the top six teacher preparation programs in the Southeast.

Because UNC Asheville is a liberal arts institution, candidates take Arts and Sciences courses in the departments across campus in which they acquire their content knowledge. Courses taken in the Department of Education are structured to build on this content knowledge in the provision of pedagogical skills. This model is supported by such researchers as Davis and Buttafuso (1994), who provide an historical perspective on the role of small liberal arts colleges and teacher preparation. Their claim is that the type of curricular cooperation that is inherent at liberal arts institutions such as UNC Asheville promotes the development of teachers who are knowledgeable, thoughtful, and reflective.

The schools with which UNC Asheville partners frequently speak to the strength of the liberal arts model. In fact, they claim that the strong content knowledge UNC Asheville teacher licensure graduates possess, coupled with their pedagogical knowledge, puts these graduates at the top of the applicant pool. For all of its strengths and advantages, this liberal arts model does come with limitations. The greatest of these limitations is time in the teacher licensure program.  Because Education is not a major at UNC Asheville, and candidates are taking their major and other content courses in other departments, there are precious few hours in each candidate’s schedule in which Education courses can fit. All programs have been structured so that undergraduate candidates can graduate with their major and licensure in four years of full-time attendance, but the course of study is intense for these candidates. And this means that Education courses must be efficient at all costs. Therefore, the focus of Education courses at UNC Asheville is almost strictly on pedagogy. It is vital, then, for instructors of Education courses to find ways to reinforce, and in some cases even facilitate the learning of, content knowledge that candidates need—even though Education courses are technically not “supposed to” focus on this.

Background

North Carolina Requirements for Teacher Licensure Programs

In 2009, all licensure programs in North Carolina were revised to meet North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) requirements. As part of these requirements, all licensure programs were to develop Evidences to be completed by each teacher licensure candidate and submitted to NCDPI to show candidate attainment and demonstration of competencies that meet six statewide Standards for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. These standards include candidate attainment of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and professional dispositions with which the Department of Education at UNC Asheville’s Conceptual Framework tenets of Content, Pedagogy, and Professionalism directly align. Following is a summary of the six state-required standards, and the approved Evidences the UNC Asheville Department of Education developed to meet the standards (note that for standards 1 and 4 NCDPI defined a required Evidence for every licensure program in the state)

Breadth of Content Knowledge – All candidates completed at least twenty-four semester hours of coursework relevant to the specialty area from a regionally accredited college or university with a grade of C or better in each of the twenty-four hours in order to be licensed. Additionally, all K–6 and Special Education candidates must have received satisfactory scores on the Praxis II exam in order to be licensed.

Depth of Content Knowledge – Candidates completed a Content Exploration Project. Data from assessment of this project showed candidates’ depth of understanding and application of content knowledge per professional and state standards for the specialty area, and the ability to relate global awareness to the subject.

Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge Skills and Dispositions – Candidates created a three- to five-day integrated thematic teaching Unit Plan. Data from assessment of the unit showed candidates’ ability to design effective classroom instruction based on P–12 professional and state standards, and use of effective pedagogy and research-verified practice.

Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge Skills and Dispositions – All student teachers are evaluated by their supervisor, in consultation with the P–12 clinical faculty member, using the state-required Certification of Teaching Capacity Instrument. All candidates must receive a rating of “Met” on each facet of the instrument on the final evaluation.

Positive Impact on Student Learning – Candidates completed an Impact on Student Learning Project. Data from assessment of this project showed candidates’ impact on P–12 student learning given state P-12 standards.

Leadership and Collaboration – Candidates completed the Professional Development Project: Self, Learner, Community. Data from assessment of this project showed candidates’ ability to demonstrate leadership, collaboration, and professional dispositions per professional and state standards for teacher candidates.

Unit faculty applied common rubrics, also approved by NCDPI, to evaluate candidate products related to Evidences 2, 3, 5, and 6, and all candidates had to score a level 3 or higher on each facet of the assignment rubric.

In 2014, the North Carolina State Board of Education (SBE) adopted a policy requiring that all licensure candidates in every licensure area pass the SBE-approved licensure exam(s) for each initial licensure area. For all licensure areas except K–6 and Special Education, these approved exams were the Praxis II.  For K–6 and Special Education, the SBE adopted a new Pearson Foundations of Reading and General Curriculum Test. The Pearson Test is comprised of a Foundations of Reading subtest; a General Curriculum Mathematics subtest; and a General Curriculum Multi-Subjects subtest consisting of questions pertaining to Language Arts, History and Social Science, and Science and Technology/Engineering. These subtests are all comprised of multiple choice items testing content knowledge in each area. An Integration of Knowledge and Understanding section is also completed by test takers, which includes a few constructed response items to test pedagogical knowledge. For K–6 and Special Education candidates and licensure programs, the new Pearson Test signified a significant change from the previously required Praxis II exam, which almost exclusively tests pedagogical knowledge. The SBE-adopted policy also included the provision that the Evidences required for standards 2 and 3 would be replaced by candidate scores on the SBE-approved licensure exams. Candidates take their licensure exam(s) as one of the final steps to completing their licensure process, after finishing their licensure program.

Purpose for the Study

The aforementioned liberal arts model and changes to licensure exam requirements posed a new challenge regarding the K–6 licensure program at UNC Asheville. Because of the number of areas in which a candidate must be prepared to teach at the K–6 level (Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Health being among the major ones), the K–6 licensure program at UNC Asheville is by far the largest in terms of the number of Education courses required. UNC Asheville K–6 candidates had enjoyed a 100 percent pass rate on the Praxis II for a number of years before the Pearson test was adopted. However, it is important to remember that the Praxis II centered almost solely on pedagogy. The new Pearson test focuses almost solely on content, whereas K–6 courses focused almost solely on pedagogy in direct alignment with former licensure exam requirements and the liberal arts model. To meet the new requirements, faculty in the K–6 program at UNC Asheville began work to structure courses and experiences to ensure that candidates were provided the knowledge necessary to make them successful in their quest for a license and with regard to the competencies required to be effective teachers, while continuing to serve the needs of the public schools and community. This researcher serves as the instructor for the Elementary Science Methods course and worked to structure the course and provide candidates with science-related learning experiences for these reasons. This project grew as a result of this structuring and the desire to determine its impact.

Specific Goals for Candidates, Students, the Community, and University Faculty

The desired outcome of this project was that UNC Asheville K–6 licensure candidates and participating elementary students, as well as the involved UNC Asheville faculty member who is the instructor of EDUC 322, would benefit from this civic engagement project. This would be made possible through the use of effective teaching strategies, including inquiry, discovery learning, questioning strategies, and demonstrations; active reflection on theories of science education and learning, and how they can be utilized in the classroom and beyond; participation in a variety of educational experiences which positively impact the teaching of science; and sharing responsibility within the greater community for and recognizing the value of collaborations on issues of mutual concern, benefit, and accomplishment.

The specific goals related to this project were as follows:

UNC Asheville K–6 licensure candidates will acquire content knowledge necessary for teaching science in their future classrooms.

UNC Asheville K–6 licensure candidates will acquire pedagogical skills necessary for teaching science in their future classrooms.

UNC Asheville K–6 licensure candidates will acquire professional dispositions necessary for being effective teachers in their future classrooms.

Elementary Science Methods Course

All K–6 licensure candidates are required to take EDUC 322 (Inquiry-Based Science Instruction, K–6). Throughout the semester, candidates enrolled in EDUC 322 learn about effective Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teaching methodology, and how these methodologies translate to their teaching of future elementary students about science and the scientific method. The course has a focus on teaching using the 5E Learning Cycle. Great emphasis is placed on inquiry and discovery learning, as candidates in the course are afforded traditional classroom learning in addition to participation in hands-on labs aligned with science strands. Candidates also engage in an inquiry-based micro-teaching experience into which the use of Common Core text exemplars are integrated. Given the liberal arts model, the primary goal of the course is to teach effective methodologies for science education, as science content is taught within the other departments in the university outside of the Department of Education. However, science content knowledge is drawn upon throughout the EDUC 322 course within the context of exploring teaching methodologies.

As part of this instruction and practice, licensure candidates in EDUC 322 participate in field experiences during which they gain additional hands-on experience working with elementary students on the teaching of science. Candidates spend six sessions in an elementary classroom observing and/or assisting the classroom teacher, and in addition, each candidate teaches an inquiry-based lesson on their own. Candidates complete a comprehensive Science Notebook as a reflection on the field experience.

Elementary Science Methods and Service Learning

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the EDUC 322 course is candidates’ focused participation in service learning. Candidates participated in the Asheville City Schools (ACS) Kids Inquiry Conference (KIC) in the Spring 2010, Spring 2011, Fall 2011, Spring 2012, Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and Spring 2014 semesters.  Unfortunately, the event had to be cancelled due to ACS’s focus on Read to Achieve mandates.  Candidates participated in the Elementary Science Olympiad in the Spring 2013, Spring 2014, Spring 2015, Spring 2016, and Spring 2017 semesters.

The KIC was an event unique to Asheville City Schools, and was conceived as an alternative to the traditional Science Fair activity. The instructor of EDUC 322 partnered with the ACS Science Coach to plan and facilitate the KIC. Throughout each semester in which KIC was held, EDUC 322 candidates completed their field experiences in the classrooms of third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers and students who would be participating in KIC. This provided the EDUC 322 candidates with the opportunity to assist students with their projects and guide students as they engaged in the inquiry and discovery learning necessary to complete their projects. To complete their projects, students, usually working in pairs or groups of three, engaged in scientific inquiry focused on student-generated questions that came from their curiosities about the natural world. The teachers and EDUC 322 candidates guided students in generating these questions and led students through the process of making predictions, collecting data, analyzing the data, and drawing conclusions related to these questions. Students then created a visual presentation of their investigation and results, and prepared to discuss these with peers.

After a semester of work, the students were prepared for the KIC. During the KIC, UNC Asheville hosted the students and their teachers in a conference on the UNC Asheville campus.  During the conference, the students presented visual representations of their work, and asked and answered questions from their peers. The EDUC 322 candidates who worked with the participating students and teachers served as conference facilitators. Candidates’ roles as facilitators consisted of keeping time during each presentation, aiding with the discussion by asking questions and offering topics for discussion, and assisting students as they rotated to different tables so they could experience a variety of presentations. The instructor of EDUC 322 supervised and guided the candidates as they completed their work during the semester, and instructed candidates regarding safe and ethical practices for working with students. The instructor of EDUC 322 also served as the conference host and facilitator by coordinating all of the logistics for the conference including room reservations, scheduling, bus parking, and arranging for a campus tour for students. Each conference typically involved approximately 200 elementary students and ten elementary teachers.

Science Olympiad is a national program which engages elementary, middle, and high school students in competitions based on national and state STEM standards. Most competitions are team-based, and all require students to engage in hands-on inquiry science activities. Students choose their preferred event(s) from a list of approximately eighteen, and spend the better part of a school year working on their chosen event(s) with their school’s sponsor teacher and their peers on the Science Olympiad team in order to prepare for the competition.

The instructor of EDUC 322 has partnered with the Regional Director of the Elementary Science Olympiad, who is also a high school science teacher in an area school. At the beginning of each EDUC 322 semester, the Regional Director visits the EDUC 322 class and together she and the EDUC 322 instructor provide a description of and orientation to Science Olympiad. During this orientation, EDUC 322 candidates are provided information about their role related to their participation as event leaders and event writers for the Science Olympiad competition. This information is on topics such as the event code of ethics, event rules, event writing guidelines, event scoring guidelines, and safe and ethical practices regarding working with students.  Throughout the EDUC 322 semesters, candidates work to write their events according to competition standards and under the supervision and guidance of the EDUC 322 instructor. This supervision and guidance involves advising candidates as to the content of their events, providing them with resources to obtain the information necessary to write their events, reviewing and editing their work, assisting them with gaining access to hands-on materials they require to carry out their event, and making copies of student answer sheets and any other written materials needed for events.

EDUC 322 candidates put their knowledge into further practice as they serve as event leaders for the actual Science Olympiad competitions. Event leadership consists of supervising competing students, setting up event materials, and scoring competitors’ products. Candidates are supervised by the EDUC 322 course instructor and the Regional Director at each Science Olympiad event.

Methods

Candidate Written Reflections – KIC

Participating EDUC 322 candidates were required to produce written reflections of their experience working on the KIC project. These reflections were graded as part of the course grade for EDUC 322, and evaluated using a standardized rubric. The prompts provided for reflection were as follows:

Situational Context – List the date(s) during which you served as a facilitator, how many students were at your table during each session, and how many presentations you saw during each session.

Describe – Briefly describe the student presentations for which you served as a facilitator.

Analyze – Discuss the presentations you saw in terms of the relevance of the topics of the investigations carried out, the effectiveness of the presentations, and the quality of the questions asked by peers.

Appraise – Evaluate what you observed as a facilitator. Discuss any problems that occurred and why they occurred, what questions you have about the KIC process, and other topics you find relevant.

Transform – Discuss your involvement in KIC as it relates to your future teaching practice in science. Be sure to answer these questions: What might you do with the knowledge you gained to inform your teaching?  How did what you learned by participating in KIC connect with the topics you learned in our course?

Candidate Written Reflections—Science Olympiad

Participating EDUC 322 candidates were required to produce written reflections of their experience working on the Science Olympiad project. These reflections were graded as part of the course grade for EDUC 322, and evaluated using a standardized rubric. The prompts provided for reflection were as follows:

Situational Context – Name the event you led and the event with which you assisted. Give a two sentence description of each event.

Describe – Describe what you did to prepare the event you led.

Analyze – What was student performance like in the event you led?  What was the range of student performance? What surprised you?

Appraise – Evaluate what you observed as an event leader. Discuss what problems occurred and why they occurred, and what suggestions you have for improving the event you led and the tournament as a whole.

Transform – Discuss your involvement in Science Olympiad as it relates to your future teaching practice in science. Be sure to answer these questions: What might you do with the knowledge you gained to inform your teaching?  How could you implement your own Science Olympiad experience for your students, even if it wasn’t supported in your school or district?

Standardized Science Olympiad Surveys

The standardized surveys used by Science Olympiad as an organization were given to all participating UNC Asheville candidates to gain feedback from them after they served as event leaders, and the results were analyzed. Questions on the survey included the following and were rated by candidates on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree):

I was fully prepared to lead this event.

Tournament director(s) were well organized.

The event rules were clear.

The event site for this event was satisfactory.

I was provided with the materials and resources I requested.

Orientation opportunities were provided to prepare me.

Students were prepared for the event.

The event was inquiry in nature.

Service Learning Survey

A Service Learning Survey was administered to EDUC 322 candidates as both a pre- and post-assessment of the impact of their participation in service learning. Appropriate IRB guidelines for a classroom-based project were followed. Questions included on the survey were as follows and were rated by candidates on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree):

As a result of participation in service learning I am likely to

examine my own cultural experiences

educate myself on multiple perspectives

use reflection to evaluate my current teaching activities

develop lessons that include contributions of all cultures

build on learners’ strengths

teach global awareness

incorporate different points of view in my teaching

create lessons that require student collaborations

incorporate student reflection into lessons

encourage students to change things at school they disagree with

encourage students to change things in the community they disagree with

teach students that they can make a difference

teach students to work for equality for people of different races, cultures, or genders

make students aware of their political or civil rights

teach students that the world outside of school is a good source of curriculum

work to improve collaboration between school and community

seek a leadership role in curriculum development at my school

participate in decision making structures (e.g., school improvement team, district planning team, school board)

seek information (e.g., local, state, or national data) when developing school improvement goals

have an interest in education policy

work to understand community problems

work with someone else to solve a community problem

become regular volunteer for an electoral organization

become a regular volunteer for a non-electoral organization

be an active member in a group or organization

regularly vote

persuade others to vote

contact elected officials

regularly seek “news” (newspaper, radio, news magazine, internet, TV)

Pearson Science and Technology/Engineering Subtest

The standardized Pearson test, composed of a Foundations of Reading subtest; a General Curriculum Mathematics subtest; a General Curriculum Multi-Subjects subtest consisting of multiple choice questions pertaining to Language Arts, History and Social Science, and Science and Technology/Engineering; and an Integration of Knowledge and Understanding section which includes a few constructed response items to test pedagogical knowledge as applied to teaching a concept in a content area, has been taken by all K–6 candidates since the 2013–2014 academic year. Each test taker receives an overall Scale Score, a Sub-Area Performance score for each of the three General Curriculum Multi-Subjects subtests, and a score for the Integration of Knowledge and Understanding section. The Sub-Area Performance scores for the multiple choice items are presented on a scale from 1 to 4 to show how many items test takers answered correctly, as follows:

1-Few or none of the items answered correctly

2-Some of the items answered correctly

3-Many of the items answered correctly

4-Most or all of the items answered correctly

The Integration of Knowledge and Understanding scores for the constructed response items are presented on a scale from 1 to 4 to show the quality of the response by the test takers, as follows:

1-Weak, blank, or unscorable

2-Limited

3-Adequate

4-Thorough

For this study, the Sub-Area Performance scores for the Science and Technology/Engineering subtest and the Integration of Knowledge and Understanding scores were analyzed.

Results

Key Findings:  Candidate Written Reflections – KIC

Participant responses (N=61) to the written reflection related to their participation in the KIC were evaluated to determine the most common themes that emerged in reference to content and pedagogy. An overwhelming number of participants (N=56) indicated that involvement with the KIC provided them with more science content knowledge. In their reflections on the experience they stated such things as, “I believe the presentations were very effective, because I even learned things that I didn’t know before such as Ingles brand bag holds the least amount of weight compared to Best Buy and Wal-Mart…”

Numerous participants (N=50) also noted that their role in the KIC assisted them with learning how students conduct inquiry. Participants’ anecdotal comments, such as the following, demonstrate this learning: “…I feel that the process of going through putting together an experiment, making predictions, implementing the experiment, and then having to present their findings was a good exercise and definitely good practice for further inquiry….”

Finally, a number of participants (N=44) suggested that the KIC process taught them to assist students with communicating in scientific terms and carrying out investigations using technological design. This was exemplified in participant comments such as:

Participating in the KIC conference will be helpful to me as a future science teacher. I was able to see that students as young as eight and nine are able to follow the science process and they can work through a problem efficiently. For some reason, the age of these students compared to their work surprised me. I wasn’t expecting such good quality work and investigations, and I look forward to trying this out in the classroom.

and:

I found that many of the presentations were relevant to a child’s life. Many students asked, “So, why did you do this? How does this affect your life?” The students that tested hair ties said they wanted to know what hair [tie] would be best to wear at the playground. The students who tested the batteries said they wanted to know which one lasted the longest for their camping trip. The topics listed above are far different from the science projects I did in elementary school. The topics are things that really matter to the students. One may say that knowing what frozen pizza has the most cheese is not a relevant topic, but what I saw at conference was that it was sometimes the process more than the content that was effective. The students were really engaging in scientific thinking and solving everyday problems using scientific methods. I have no doubt that the students will be better equipped to solve real life science problems because of the conference.

Key Findings:  Candidate Written Reflections – Science Olympiad

Participant responses (N=44) to the written reflection related to their participation in the Science Olympiad were evaluated to determine the most common themes that emerged in reference to content and pedagogy. Almost all participants (N=36) wrote that they felt confident that they could make a Science Olympiad event for their own class or grade level that could be used as a science teaching experience. In fact, some plans, such as the one provided by the following participant, were very fully developed:

I would implement a science Olympiad in my classroom by grouping students into two or three and assign 3 events for each to compete in. Students can have a choice of course. It would take place during the end of the year as an all-day event after EOG’s as a fun way to end the school year. I could potentially use a designated spot outside for Newton’s Notions and an empty room/space near-by for overflow of activities. Stations would have to be condensed in order to fit inside my one classroom and furniture rearranged or taken out of the room for additional space.  The groups will have time to prepare similar to the real Science Olympiad. I would bring in volunteers to help with the stations (preferably student teachers, NOT PARENTS) and supervise each event. There would be eight different events inside my classroom.  Each event would consist of 3 activities.

Most participants (N=32) said that their participation in Science Olympiad gave them the skills needed for building a classroom science community around the concept of students possessing common scientific knowledge on a variety of topics. Participant reflections demonstrating this include the following:

I think this experience made a definite impact as far as me feeling like a REAL teacher. This experience really made being a teacher as real as possible. By observing what students are able to do and what they cannot do, it also enhanced by awareness of upper-level elementary developmental/thinking and where they are with that.

Many participants (N=30) specified that their involvement in Science Olympiad provided them with ideas centering on multiple means for assessing student knowledge. One participant suggested:

I also can envision possibly using the Science Olympiad as an assessment or testing tool.  Should the Olympiad be used as a testing tool, the individual grades would be graded, but not shared.  The students could be divided into teams of 4 or 5 students before the testing period. Their test scores would be combined to form a team score.  My guess is that this would encourage a higher level of preparation and group study before the test.

Key Findings:  Standardized Science Olympiad Survey

Given the nature of this survey and because of its standardization to serve the needs of the established Science Olympiad program, the results shown in Table 1 do not reveal much in terms of participant (N=44) acquisition of skills related to content, pedagogy, or professional dispositions. The exception is with regard to the first and last items. Participants had to have the appropriate content knowledge in order to create their event and be fully prepared to lead it, and most participants had to study and learn content information in order to do so. Therefore, the fact that the mean rating for the first item was 4.8 was a good indicator that participants gained content knowledge as a result of their participation as Science Olympiad event leaders. The mean rating of 4.7 for the last item was also encouraging, as it suggested that participants understood the nature of inquiry as a result of their role in Science Olympiad.

Key Findings:  Service Learning Survey

Participant responses (N=78) to the Service Learning Survey were evaluated to determine the items for which participants showed the most growth between their pre- and post-service learning participation in reference to professional dispositions. From the results illustrated in Table 2, four topics emerged: as a result of their participation participants indicated they were more likely to educate themselves on multiple perspectives, use reflections to evaluate their current teaching activities, teach students that the world outside of school is a good source of curriculum, and work to improve collaboration between school and community.     

Key Findings:  Pearson Science and Technology/Engineering Subtest and Integration of Knowledge and Understanding Section

The means of participant results on the Pearson Science and Technology/Engineering Subtest were analyzed by year. For 2014–2015 (N=14) the mean was 2.64. For 2015–2016 (N=12) the mean was 3.08. For 2016–2017 (N=8) the mean was 3.25. The means of participant results on the Pearson Integration of Knowledge and Understanding section were also analyzed. For 2014–2015 (N=14) the mean was 1.86. For 2014–2015 (N=12) the mean was 2.58. For 2016–2017 (N=8) the mean was 2.63. In the 2014–2015 testing year, three participants did not pass the General Curriculum Multi-Subjects subtest the first time they took it. For the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 testing years the same was true for one participant each year. In all of these instances, for purposes of this study, the first testing attempt was used in figuring the means so that the same level of data was used for all participants.

Discussion and Summary

Two of the goals of this project for participating candidates centered on the acquisition of content knowledge and pedagogical skills necessary for teaching science in their future classrooms. The Key Findings show clearly that these goals were achieved, especially when the results from the instruments used to obtain results in this study are considered together.  Specifically, in the Key Findings section above it is stated that the results from the Standardized Science Olympiad Survey as shown in Table 1 do not say much on their own about participant acquisition of skills related to content, pedagogy, or professional dispositions, with the exception of the first and last items.  The results related to the first item on this survey do, on their own, suggest that participant content knowledge was improved by their participation in the Science Olympiad.  The impact of these results is strengthened by participants’ anecdotal comments on the Candidate Written Reflections for the Science Olympiad which include, “I really enjoyed creating my event for the Science Olympiad and I learned a lot about rocks and minerals and became more informed on the information…” and, “I feel like this was a great first time getting to work with older students. I’ve only worked with kindergarteners so far. I felt confident helping the students because I knew what I was talking about, due to my research on the subject….”  The results related to the last item on the Science Olympiad Survey showed that participants understood the nature of inquiry as a result of their role in Science Olympiad.

Participant reflections support this claim.  As one participant stated:

I definitely want to incorporate my event stations into activities that students could do in my future classroom. Rocks and Minerals can be boring for certain students but having activities to incorporate learning makes it more enjoyable for students. After taking several education classes I have learned through myself that hands-on activities give me a better understanding of information and make learning more enjoyable when you are able to be creative through acting and building things. The students really enjoyed looking at the rocks and minerals I had as samples and the students seemed to be very intrigued.

The Pearson test  components, as a standardized and quantitative measure of participant learning, can also be considered in concert with the Standardized Science Olympiad Survey. As can be seen, the means related to the subtests of of science content and pedagogical knowledge increase each testing year. As described in the Background section, the KIC was terminated by ACS after the Spring 2014 semester. Additionally, the Science Olympiad is held only in Spring semesters. EDUC 322 was offered every semester until Spring 2016 and thereafter was offered only in Spring semesters. Therefore, there were some participants who completed their licensure program and the Pearson test in the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 testing years without having participated in either one of the EDUC 322 service learning activities. All participants who completed their licensure program and the Pearson test in the 2016–2017 testing year participated in at least the Science Olympiad activity. The increased means on the analyzed Pearson test component strengthen the conclusion that participants’ knowledge regarding both content and pedagogy increased, despite the technicality that EDUC 322 is not “supposed to” teach content. It is the assumption of this researcher that this outcome is due to the practical and engaged work in which participants were involved as part of their service learning.

Another project goal centered on the acquisition of professional dispositions candidates will need to be effective teachers in their future classrooms. The definition of professional dispositions has been widely disputed, as there are many dimensions through which the concept can be delineated. The quest to define dispositions dates back to seminal works, such as those completed by Arthur W. Combs in the 1960s, which sought to determine the dispositions that effective teachers must possess (Wasicsko 1977). There is also great deliberation over whether or not dispositions can be taught, or if they are simply acquired (Cummins and Asempapa 2013). Many researchers, such as Combs and Wasicsko, have developed a series of assessment tools related to pre-service teacher professional dispositions. But again, the tools are contested due to their content, purpose, and validity. Given these debates, many teacher education programs such as that at UNC Asheville provide their own definitions of professional dispositions, and seek to combine formal assessment of them through the use of prescribed tools with performance-based assessment as candidates are engaged in authentic experiences. At UNC Asheville, candidates displaying professional dispositions to a satisfactory degree are defined within the following parameters:

Collaborative teachers who demonstrate awareness of and appreciation for the communities in which they teach and who foster mutually beneficial relationships with the community.

Responsible teachers who exemplify the skills, behaviors, dispositions, and responsibilities expected of members of the teaching profession.

Reflective teachers who maintain a commitment to excellence and to the continuous assessment, adaptation, and improvement of the teaching-learning process.

Humane teachers who value the dignity of every individual and foster a supportive climate of intellectual inquiry, passion for learning, and social justice.

The themes that emerged from the Service Learning Survey results, as described in the Key Findings, show that project participants gained knowledge and skills in the area of acquiring desirable professional dispositions, especially when analyzed in conjunction with participant reflections. For example, one participant noted:

This Science Olympiad experience confirms my compassion and love for children and desire for being a teacher even during some crazy days. It also confirms my desire to help them learn and discover new knowledge while becoming confident in their science skills. This learning experience was really cool to be a part of and I felt like I was doing something truly important to further children’s interest in science and education. I am happy and proud to say that I was able to participate in the Science Olympiad and confidently show the work that my fellow peers and I produced for such a well-known competition. I will always reflect on the experience as a future teacher and use it to influence my decisions as a teacher in a positive way.

The supposition of this researcher is that the field work in which participants were engaged, which can actually be defined as service learning, and the specific Service Learning activities in which they participated can set candidates on the path to civic engagement. Specific civic engagement elements that were realized include the fact that sustainable partnerships were developed, the work was mutually beneficial, and candidates learned to serve a diversity of children. Participants were able to realize the potential for forming partnerships to benefit their future classrooms.  One participant’s reflection showed this clearly, as the participant stated:

If implementation of my own Science Olympiad were not supported in my school or district, I could look to the community and to private industry for support. The concept of the Olympiad is valuable to fostering scientific education and to meeting the current and future needs of the world. Science is life and to neglect it in our children’s education and preparation for life is not an option.

In summary, education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) competencies is a growing area in terms of career and workplace skills. Interest in this area has to be started in elementary schools in order to ensure that students are not only being introduced to science skills but are also actively engaged in scientific processes and engineering design cycles. The KIC and Science Olympiad were designed to support elementary science standards, and to assist teachers in fostering these skills in their students. The involvement of the pre-service teachers who served as participants in this study and created quality, age-appropriate science challenges for students, is helping to achieve these long-term goals for students and support STEM education.

ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) is one of the most prominent professional associations in the field of Education. ASCD provides resources, training, research, and programs that emphasize transformational leadership, global engagement, poverty and equity, redefining student success, and teaching and learning (ASCD 2016). “The ASCD defines citizenship as a concern for the rights, responsibilities, and tasks associated with governing. It identifies citizenship competencies as an important component of civic responsibility. These competencies include acquiring and using information, assessing involvement, making decisions and judgments, communicating, cooperating, promoting interests, assigning meaning, and applying citizenship competencies to new situations” (Constitutional Rights Foundation 2000, 4). The participants in this study were introduced to this information toward the beginning of the EDUC 322 course. Then, throughout the course, discussions were held and activities were completed related to teaching candidates how educating students in STEM areas as well as helping them understand the ethical use of science and scientific data are contributing to candidates’ and students’ citizenship, civic engagement, and civic responsibility—both through their current engagement with students and schools and in their future teaching careers. All of this discussion and activity completion is grounded in the framework of strategies for effectively teaching a diversity of students in the public school classroom according to STEM education principles. Additionally, the participants in this project were provided with a responsibility to both teach and learn within a service and civically engaging context. As a result, they were able to learn to teach using discovery, while engaging in discovery learning themselves. Given their self-reflections, it is evident that the participants are excited about and prepared for the prospects of related responsibilities in their future teaching. And, given the results of the measure of student learning, each group of participants is entering the classroom more prepared in terms of their content and pedagogical knowledge than the one before it.

About the Author

Kim Brown is an Associate Professor and the Chairperson of the Department of Education at the University of North Carolina Asheville.  Kim teaches numerous licensure courses, including Inquiry-Based Science Instruction for candidates seeking elementary licensure.  For her curricular and service work in this course, Kim was named a University SENCER Fellow.  Kim has been very involved in work related to the University of North Carolina Asheville’s liberal arts model, serving as the chairperson of the university’s Integrative Liberal Studies Oversight Committee and the university’s representative on the state-level General Education Council.  Kim was the university’s recipient of the 2014 Distinguished Service Award.

References

ASCD. 2016. “ASCD.” http://www.ascd.org/Default.aspx (accessed June 8, 2017).

Constitutional Rights Foundation. 2000. “Fostering Civic Responsibility through Service Learning.” Fostering Civic Responsibility 8 (1): 1–15.

Cummins, L., and B. Asempapa. 2013. “Fostering Teacher Candidate Dispositions in Teacher Education Programs.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13 (3): 99–119.

Davis, B.M., and D. Buttafuso. 1994. “A Case for the Small Liberal Arts Colleges and the Preparation of Teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (3): 229–235.

Wasicsko, M.M. 1977. Assessing Educator Dispositions: A Perceptual Psychological Approach. https://coehs.nku.edu/content/dam/coehs/docs/dispositions/resources/Manual103.pdf (accessed December 1, 2016).

Download (PDF, 320KB)