Body of Dissertation

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Identifying the problem There is mounting evidence that one component of the science education reform process must be a sustained effort toward making the study of science accessible to more students (Jones, 1997). For example, it was found that only 7 percent of all positions in science and engineering were held by minorities despite constituting 24 percent of the current United States population (National Science Foundation, 2002). Furthermore, reports have indicated that United States students rank very low in science scores with only 2 of 20 nations behind them in international tests (Glenn Commission, 2000). When race is considered, the difference is even more pronounced: while the scores of white students in the U.S. were exceeded by only three other nations, black children were outscored by every single nation (Berliner, 2001). Despite this disparity, documents clearly put forward the idea that all students, regardless of culture, gender, and/or race, are capable of understanding and doing science (National Research Council, 2002). Because 53 % of African-Americans live inside cities and 88 % reside in metropolitan areas (United States Census Bureau, 2001), it is critical to engage and motivate urban students to learn science in order to achieve many of the goals of the National Science Foundation (2002), such as diversifying the workforce. It is increasingly recognized that authentic learning opportunities are one way to make science more relevant to all students (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001; Rahm, 2002). Chinn and Hmelo-Silver (2002) described authentic scientific inquiry as 1 designing complex procedures, controlling for non-obvious confounds, planning multiple measures of multiple variables, using techniques to avoid perceptual and other biases, reasoning extensively about possible experimental error, and coordinating results from multiple studies that may be in conflict with each other. That statement could simply be paraphrased as engaging students in scientific activities similar to those engaged by scientists (Barab & Hay, 2001). Authentic means different things to different people (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Hay & Barab, 2001). I view authentic science activities as providing an opportunity for students to learn how scientists conduct their research; this could be by directly participating with scientists or in simulations (see Barab & Hay, 2001) such as videos taken from research activities (indirect participation) that are brought to schools. The simulation perspective of authenticity provides the possibility for students to engage like scientists where it is not feasible to take students into the scientists’ domains for monetary and/or logistic reasons Using the scientific method, authentic inquiry oriented activities encourages students to think critically (Howe & Warren, 1989) and become scientists by inquiring, testing and observing, collecting and analyzing data, recording findings, and presenting findings and conclusions. These beliefs and visions clearly articulate the active learning environment descried by progressive and constructivist theorists (Cuban, 2000; Dewey, 1929; Orion, Hofstein, Tamir, & Giddings, 1997). Place-based curriculum in informal (or nonformal) outdoor settings (Howe & Disinger, 1988) encourages participants (teachers, students, and community members at large) to achieve local ecological and cultural sustainability (Hungerford, Bluhm, Volk, & Ramsey, 1998; Thomson & Diem, 2 1994; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000; Yerkes & Haras, 1997). I define sustainability as being within carrying capacity of local resources, both ecologically and culturally (i.e., having an understanding of how one relates to their local environment). Informal, genuine, authentic learning environments provide firsthand experiences for people of all ages (Fusco, 2001; Hudson, 2001). Many studies have focused on students participating in authentic scientific activities in outdoor experiences (Barnett et al., 2004; Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001; Rahm, 2002). Odom (2001) noted that outdoor-based activities are not the exclusive domain of exotic wilderness settings, but worthwhile field projects can be done in any setting, including cities. The important thing is that inquiry-based authentic activities allow one to experience, not just imagine, reality (Thomson & Diem, 1994). In the article by Bouillion and Gomez (2001), “Connecting School and Community with Science Learning: Real World Problems and School-Community Partnerships as Contextual Scaffolds,” the researchers described a partnership that bridged the disconnect that existed for students between science (and school) and real world everyday issues. The authors presented a real world problem (river pollution) and showed how fifth grade students and their teachers could create partnerships with the community to fix/solve a problem in a mutually beneficial way to all project participants. This study provided qualitative data to demonstrate that students improved in their ability to access information, form questions, share ideas, and analyze and compare data. Additionally, students talked about an increased sense that they matter, that their voices can be heard, and that they can make a difference in the world – essentially, the students 3 felt empowered because they did something good for their community (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001). The feature that real-world problems have no clear answers afforded a repositioning of authority in the classroom where teachers were able to engage students as co-contributors and co-investigators (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001). Similar studies (Fusco, 2001; Rahm, 2002) have also noted the importance of local community events to aid in students learning science. For example, in Fusco’s community based urban gardening project she found that the practicing culture of science learning was important and relevant because it: was created from participants’ concerns, interests, and experiences in and outside science; was an ongoing process of researching and then enacting ideas; and was situated within the broader community. In this study the enactment of science included access to practical science knowledge and the opportunity to engage in science and action research that served a purpose within the community. Importantly, young people (i.e., students) were at the center of this interaction giving their work relevance and meaning to their activities. Rahm (2002) demonstrated that people learn science in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes, and from a variety of sources. Using an urban gardening program as her means to involve students in informal science education, Rahm found that the science that got done was authentic in the eyes of the youth and meaningful in the context of their everyday lives. Most important, youth were the creators and not merely the consumers of the science curriculum. The results from these studies underline how children can become masters of the science embedded in their everyday communities and practices if provided with 4 opportunities to do science that is meaningful and real to them (Rahm, 2002). These reports challenge the formal model of science teaching, in which adults teach and children learn, instead emphasizing community learning, which defines every person as a learner exploring an issue of genuine concern to the community (Rahm, 2002). A conception of children as their own creators of knowledge, and of adults solely as guides in this process, is an important vision to keep in mind when crafting science education reform strategies. One way to provide students the opportunity to engage in authentic activities is to partner schools with scientists (e.g., Barab & Hay, 2001; Hay & Barab, 2001; Means, 1998). In this collaboration, students can learn the scientific process through their mentors (i.e., scientists) while the scientists can provide important community outreach and at the same time receive assistance in collecting valuable data (Hay & Barab, 2001). Wormstead et al. (2002) described a student-teacher-scientist partnership (STSP) where students collected standardized data from their surroundings that was used in professional research studies. Teachers introduced curricula related to these studies thereby giving students authentic hands-on discovery learning. The need for scientists and schools to form partnerships is important and potentially beneficial for all sides (Means, 1998; Waksman, 2003; Wormstead et al., 2002), especially when engaging in an authentic scientific project. In these collaborations, students get the opportunity to learn from experts (i.e., scientists) in their respective disciplines while participating in legitimate scholarly, school-based activities. These partnerships are important because: one, they introduce students to science and the 5 people that work in these fields; two, they may increase student interest in science; and three, scientists may serve as role models for potential future scientists. Despite the noted importance of these partnerships, it is just as important to document the effectiveness of these collaborations and/or the subsequent student learning that results from these partnerships. For example, there are 6,314 sources in The Bibliography of Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education by Reinders Duit (2003). None of these studies addressed the question of student and teacher learning of animal behavior. However, a few conference proceedings have addressed student learning of animal behavior

Load more