|
For the past 3 years a biologist, chemist, physicist,
and science educator at Louisiana Tech University have
worked together to develop a year-long interdisciplinary
science course. The course helps students who are preparing to
be teachers understand that science disciplines differ from
one another in many ways but are all part of the same
scientific enterprise and share a common purpose and
philosophy. Course development was funded by the Louisiana
Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (LaCEPT).
The course was a collaborative venture involving
three colleges and four departments. It consisted of a
three-quarter sequence of science courses (physics,
chemistry, biology) integrated with a science teaching methods course.
The course was team taught, with all four faculty
members present in the classroom at all times. This situation led
to lively discussions among faculty from different
disciplines, who often approached the same concept from different
perspectives and with different vocabularies! Although
topics in each of the courses were traditional to the discipline,
the presence of faculty from other disciplines allowed us to
develop many connections among the sciences. As they
worked to understand how certain water bugs could "walk" on
water and how water could move to the top of a tall
tree against the force of gravity, for example, students
developed an understanding of the particulate nature of
matter, atomic structure, the special properties of water
molecules, and the forces of cohesion and adhesion. These
understandings were developed by students working in groups to
conduct both short-term and long-term investigations as
they attempted to answer questions posed by the instructor
or that arose as a natural consequence of their own
experiences. The investigative process became a common
thread linking all scientific disciplines. Follow-up discussions
to student investigations focused on developing in-depth
understanding of basic science concepts and relating the
science learned in the classroom to the real world.
Instructional techniques designed to promote
student thinking were an integral part of the course. Students
were asked to explain observations that challenged their
current beliefs about how the world works. They drew pictures,
diagrams, and concept maps to clarify and organize
relationships among science concepts. As students designed
and conducted experiments and presented interpretations of
the data they collected, they were actively involved in
discussing science concepts with each other and the faculty.
Faculty asked probing questions to expand student
thinking and clarify conceptual development. Assessments requiredstudents to apply the science concepts they had learned
in a new situation.
Students met weekly with the science teaching
methods instructor to discuss instructional methodologies
that could be used to transfer the science they were learning
to their future classrooms. Activities in the
science methods portion of the course were designed for the
elementary classroom but correlated with and reinforced the
science concepts presented in the interdisciplinary science
portion of the course.
The course format was chosen at the time the
National Science Education Standards (National Research
Council, 1996) and the Benchmarks for Scientific
Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993)
were being finalized. These instruments guided our
thoughts about what all students should know and be able to do
to be scientifically literate. In addition, we based our
course design on inputs from hundreds of science teachers
with whom we had worked. Practicing teachers felt that the
undergraduate science courses they had taken had
required them to memorize science facts with little or no
understanding of basic science concepts and with no idea of how to
"do science". Consequently they viewed science as
something reserved for only a few special individuals and had
great difficulty helping their students understand what
science is and why it is important to them. They urged us to
develop hands-on, interactive science courses that would
involve undergraduates in "doing science".
What have we learned from this experience? There
are major advantages for both faculty and students involved
in this type of science course. As instructors we gained
new perspectives on our own disciplines as well as insights
into the disciplines of others. We also had the chance to
practice and refine many instructional strategies designed to
help students learn science. Students realized that science
was all about questions rather than about answers. They
felt free to question each other and the faculty once they
saw faculty members questioning one another. Students
loved the hands-on, minds-on approach to learning science.
They thought they had a greater understanding of the science
as a result of actually conducting investigations and
discussing the results. In addition, students began to see the
connections among the science disciplines. As one student
explained to an external program evaluator, "We felt
overwhelmed at first with physics and chemistry, but now
we're feeling much better about them. We're beginning to see
how it all fits together now. They (the faculty) all teach in
here at the same time and when we're talking about biology,
one of the other faculty will bring up how physics and
chemistry fit in. We're beginning to get it!" Students also felt
strongly that the integration of the science methods with the
science content helped them understand what and how they
would be teaching in the future. One student's comment
expressed a common feeling, "This class has shown me that science
can be fun, and I'm excited about teaching it."
So where are we now after three years? The biology
section of the integrated course and one of the two quarters
of the physical science portion of the course are regularly
offered for education majors. Methodologies developed in
the integrated science course have been modified and
introduced into large lecture sections of introductory
science courses for all students. Revision of the curriculum for
elementary education majors is continuing. Are we
finished with what we started three years ago? Sometimes we
feel as if we have barely scratched the surface!
For additional information on course content and
instructional strategies contact the authors at Louisiana Tech
University, Department of Biological Sciences, Ruston, LA 71272.
Acknowledgment
Funding for LaCEPT was provided by a grant from
the National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation (DUE - 9255761) and the Louisiana Board of Regents.
|