{"title":"The Role of Introductory Geoscience Courses in Preparing Teachers—And All Students— For the Future: Are We Making the Grade?","authors":"A. Egger","doi":"10.1130/GSATG393A.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introductory geoscience courses enroll hundreds of thousands of students a year, most of whom do not major in the geosciences. For many, including future K–12 teachers, an introductory course is the only place they will encounter Earth science at the college level. New standards for K–12 science education have profound implications for teacher preparation, particularly in Earth science. The new standards call for taking a systems approach, highlighting how humans interact with Earth, making use of science and engineering practices, and engaging students in discourse. Analysis of responses to the National Geoscience Faculty Survey (n = 813 in 2004; n = 994 in 2009; n = 972 in 2012; and n = 1074 in 2016) and data from 152 syllabi suggest that a systems approach is not widespread and human interactions with Earth are not emphasized, and that most instructors engage students in mostly low cognitive-level practices. While the use of discourse practices has increased over time, these and other active learning components are not yet widely included in students’ grades. These results suggest that courses are not currently well-aligned with teacher needs. However, instructors have access to many research-based instructional resources to support them in making changes that will help all students— including future teachers. INTRODUCTION Several hundred thousand students enroll annually in introductory geoscience courses at institutes of higher education (Martinez and Baker, 2006). Fewer than 4000 students a year graduate with undergraduate degrees in geoscience (Wilson, 2016), however, which means that these courses serve a very large population of students that major in anything other than the geosciences. Few science majors require their students to take a geoscience course—it is not common for biology (Cheesman et al., 2007), nor recommended as a cognate for chemistry (ACS-CPT, 2015). In most cases, therefore, students enroll in geoscience courses to fulfill a general education requirement (Gilbert et al., 2012). Within this audience is a group of students that will become K–12 teachers, as most traditional teacher preparation programs do not include specific science content courses as part of their curricula (NRC, 2010). In the current teaching workforce, 64% of middle school teachers and 42% of high school teachers assigned to teach Earth science took no geoscience courses beyond introductory (Banilower et al., 2013). One critical purpose that introductory geoscience courses serve, therefore, is providing future teachers with their primary collegelevel Earth-science experience. While it is easy to lament the numbers, teacher preparation is part of a complex system influenced by state certification, district needs and requirements, university degree requirements, and many other components (NRC, 2010). Within this complex system, disciplinary departments at institutes of higher education often play the role of content providers. Given this role, how well do introductory courses in the geosciences serve the population of future teachers? BACKGROUND Starting in 2007, communities of scientists developed consensus documents that define what every citizen should know about climate science (Climate Literacy Network, 2009), atmospheric science (UCAR, 2007), the oceans (Ocean Literacy Network, 2013), and Earth science (ESLI, 2010). A few years later, work began at the national level to develop a new set of science standards for grades K–12. An early step in that process was the publication of the Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012b), which articulates three interconnected dimensions: science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. The disciplinary core ideas in the Earth and space sciences (Earth’s place in the universe, Earth’s systems, and Earth and human activity) emerged from the literacy documents, and thus represent a broad consensus of the scientific community (Wysession, 2012). The Framework provided guidance for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which consist of a limited number of rigorous learning goals expressed as performance expectations (PEs) that integrate the three dimensions (see Table S1 in the GSA Data Repository1) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The vision for K–12 science education in the Framework and NGSS represents a significant shift conceptually and pedagogically, especially in Earth science. Conceptually, the NGSS take a systems approach, emphasizing the dynamic interactions between the atmosphere, Anne E. Egger, Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington 98926-7418, USA, annegger@geology.cwu.edu GSA Today, v. 29, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG393A.1. Copyright 2019, The Geological Society of America. CC-BY-NC. 1GSA Data Repository item 2019217, which includes methods, additional survey results, and selected components of the Next Generation Science Standards, is online at www.geosociety.org/datarepository/2019. ocean, land, and life—an approach that has been advocated for more than 20 years (e.g., Ireton et al., 1996) but has been slow to be adopted. The system includes humans, too: no longer, for example, will it be sufficient for students to describe the global distribution of resources. In the new standards, the PEs ask students to tie that distribution to human activity and assess the impacts of resource extraction on the environment (Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Pedagogically, integrating the three dimensions requires that “students actively engage in scientific and engineering practices in order to deepen their understanding of cross-cutting concepts and disciplinary core ideas” (NRC, 2012b, p. 217). The structure of this sentence is purposeful: active engagement in the practices comes first and leads to deeper understanding. The practices describe the use of data as the foundation for developing explanations that are modified and refined through active discourse (Table S2 [see footnote 1]). In Earth science, the PEs shift the focus from identification and description of Earth materials and landforms to analyzing geoscience data to construct explanations, make decisions, and evaluate solutions (Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Together, these changes led Wysession (2014) to assert that “the NGSS provide America’s best opportunity yet in its almost 240-year history to educate its citizens about the complex and critical issues of Earth science.” This is an exciting development for the Earth-science community but one that will not be fully realized without deliberate effort from all components of the educational system. Because a powerful way that teachers learn to teach is by observation, mimicking the teaching strategies they have experienced as learners (Windschitl and Stroupe, 2017), one key leverage point for effecting change is the science courses that future teachers take. In the geosciences, we have two rich data sets that can be explored to assess the extent to which introductory geoscience courses align with the vision of the Framework. The National Geoscience Faculty Survey (NAGT, 2018) was administered in 2004, 2009, 2012, and 2016. The original survey was developed before the Framework, but is based on the same foundational documents. Over the four administrations, 3853 responses address introductory courses. A second data set comes from participants in professional development opportunities (PD) led by On the Cutting Edge (Manduca et al., 2010), who uploaded syllabi to a digital repository, where they are publicly available (SERC, 2002). The methods of analysis of these two data sets are described in the GSA Data Repository (see footnote 1).","PeriodicalId":35784,"journal":{"name":"GSA Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GSA Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG393A.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Introductory geoscience courses enroll hundreds of thousands of students a year, most of whom do not major in the geosciences. For many, including future K–12 teachers, an introductory course is the only place they will encounter Earth science at the college level. New standards for K–12 science education have profound implications for teacher preparation, particularly in Earth science. The new standards call for taking a systems approach, highlighting how humans interact with Earth, making use of science and engineering practices, and engaging students in discourse. Analysis of responses to the National Geoscience Faculty Survey (n = 813 in 2004; n = 994 in 2009; n = 972 in 2012; and n = 1074 in 2016) and data from 152 syllabi suggest that a systems approach is not widespread and human interactions with Earth are not emphasized, and that most instructors engage students in mostly low cognitive-level practices. While the use of discourse practices has increased over time, these and other active learning components are not yet widely included in students’ grades. These results suggest that courses are not currently well-aligned with teacher needs. However, instructors have access to many research-based instructional resources to support them in making changes that will help all students— including future teachers. INTRODUCTION Several hundred thousand students enroll annually in introductory geoscience courses at institutes of higher education (Martinez and Baker, 2006). Fewer than 4000 students a year graduate with undergraduate degrees in geoscience (Wilson, 2016), however, which means that these courses serve a very large population of students that major in anything other than the geosciences. Few science majors require their students to take a geoscience course—it is not common for biology (Cheesman et al., 2007), nor recommended as a cognate for chemistry (ACS-CPT, 2015). In most cases, therefore, students enroll in geoscience courses to fulfill a general education requirement (Gilbert et al., 2012). Within this audience is a group of students that will become K–12 teachers, as most traditional teacher preparation programs do not include specific science content courses as part of their curricula (NRC, 2010). In the current teaching workforce, 64% of middle school teachers and 42% of high school teachers assigned to teach Earth science took no geoscience courses beyond introductory (Banilower et al., 2013). One critical purpose that introductory geoscience courses serve, therefore, is providing future teachers with their primary collegelevel Earth-science experience. While it is easy to lament the numbers, teacher preparation is part of a complex system influenced by state certification, district needs and requirements, university degree requirements, and many other components (NRC, 2010). Within this complex system, disciplinary departments at institutes of higher education often play the role of content providers. Given this role, how well do introductory courses in the geosciences serve the population of future teachers? BACKGROUND Starting in 2007, communities of scientists developed consensus documents that define what every citizen should know about climate science (Climate Literacy Network, 2009), atmospheric science (UCAR, 2007), the oceans (Ocean Literacy Network, 2013), and Earth science (ESLI, 2010). A few years later, work began at the national level to develop a new set of science standards for grades K–12. An early step in that process was the publication of the Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012b), which articulates three interconnected dimensions: science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. The disciplinary core ideas in the Earth and space sciences (Earth’s place in the universe, Earth’s systems, and Earth and human activity) emerged from the literacy documents, and thus represent a broad consensus of the scientific community (Wysession, 2012). The Framework provided guidance for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which consist of a limited number of rigorous learning goals expressed as performance expectations (PEs) that integrate the three dimensions (see Table S1 in the GSA Data Repository1) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The vision for K–12 science education in the Framework and NGSS represents a significant shift conceptually and pedagogically, especially in Earth science. Conceptually, the NGSS take a systems approach, emphasizing the dynamic interactions between the atmosphere, Anne E. Egger, Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington 98926-7418, USA, annegger@geology.cwu.edu GSA Today, v. 29, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG393A.1. Copyright 2019, The Geological Society of America. CC-BY-NC. 1GSA Data Repository item 2019217, which includes methods, additional survey results, and selected components of the Next Generation Science Standards, is online at www.geosociety.org/datarepository/2019. ocean, land, and life—an approach that has been advocated for more than 20 years (e.g., Ireton et al., 1996) but has been slow to be adopted. The system includes humans, too: no longer, for example, will it be sufficient for students to describe the global distribution of resources. In the new standards, the PEs ask students to tie that distribution to human activity and assess the impacts of resource extraction on the environment (Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Pedagogically, integrating the three dimensions requires that “students actively engage in scientific and engineering practices in order to deepen their understanding of cross-cutting concepts and disciplinary core ideas” (NRC, 2012b, p. 217). The structure of this sentence is purposeful: active engagement in the practices comes first and leads to deeper understanding. The practices describe the use of data as the foundation for developing explanations that are modified and refined through active discourse (Table S2 [see footnote 1]). In Earth science, the PEs shift the focus from identification and description of Earth materials and landforms to analyzing geoscience data to construct explanations, make decisions, and evaluate solutions (Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Together, these changes led Wysession (2014) to assert that “the NGSS provide America’s best opportunity yet in its almost 240-year history to educate its citizens about the complex and critical issues of Earth science.” This is an exciting development for the Earth-science community but one that will not be fully realized without deliberate effort from all components of the educational system. Because a powerful way that teachers learn to teach is by observation, mimicking the teaching strategies they have experienced as learners (Windschitl and Stroupe, 2017), one key leverage point for effecting change is the science courses that future teachers take. In the geosciences, we have two rich data sets that can be explored to assess the extent to which introductory geoscience courses align with the vision of the Framework. The National Geoscience Faculty Survey (NAGT, 2018) was administered in 2004, 2009, 2012, and 2016. The original survey was developed before the Framework, but is based on the same foundational documents. Over the four administrations, 3853 responses address introductory courses. A second data set comes from participants in professional development opportunities (PD) led by On the Cutting Edge (Manduca et al., 2010), who uploaded syllabi to a digital repository, where they are publicly available (SERC, 2002). The methods of analysis of these two data sets are described in the GSA Data Repository (see footnote 1).
1GSA数据库项目2019217,包括方法、额外调查结果和下一代科学标准的选定组成部分,可在线访问www.geosociety.org/datarepository/2019。海洋、陆地和生命——这一方法已经被提倡了20多年(例如,Ireton等人,1996),但一直被缓慢采用。该系统也包括人类:例如,学生不再足以描述资源的全球分布。在新标准中,PE要求学生将这种分布与人类活动联系起来,并评估资源开采对环境的影响(表S1[见脚注1])。从教育学角度讲,整合这三个维度需要“学生积极参与科学和工程实践,以加深他们对交叉概念和学科核心思想的理解”(NRC,2012b,第217页)。这句话的结构是有目的的:积极参与实践是第一位的,会导致更深的理解。实践描述了使用数据作为开发解释的基础,这些解释通过积极的话语进行了修改和完善(表S2[见脚注1])。在地球科学中,PE将重点从识别和描述地球材料和地貌转移到分析地球科学数据,以构建解释、做出决策和评估解决方案(表S1[见脚注1])。这些变化共同导致Wysession(2014)断言,“NGSS为美国近240年历史上教育公民了解地球科学的复杂和关键问题提供了迄今为止最好的机会。“这对地球科学界来说是一个令人兴奋的发展,但如果没有教育系统所有组成部分的深思熟虑,这一发展将无法完全实现。因为教师学习教学的一种强有力的方式是通过观察,模仿他们作为学习者所经历的教学策略(Windschtl和Stroupe,2017),所以实现变革的一个关键杠杆点是未来教师学习的科学课程。在地球科学方面,我们有两个丰富的数据集,可以用来评估地球科学入门课程与框架愿景的一致程度。国家地球科学学院调查(NAGT,2018)于2004年、2009年、2012年和2016年进行。最初的调查是在框架之前制定的,但基于相同的基础文件。在四届政府中,3853份答复涉及介绍性课程。第二组数据来自由On the Cutting Edge(Manduca et al.,2010)领导的专业发展机会参与者,他们将教学大纲上传到数字存储库,并在那里公开(SERC,2002)。GSA数据库中描述了这两个数据集的分析方法(见脚注1)。