National Academies Press: OpenBook

High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow (1989)

Chapter: Part V: Teacher Preparation

« Previous: Part IV: Instructional Procedures and Materials
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Part V: Teacher Preparation." National Research Council. 1989. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1328.
×
Page 242

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

PART V Teacher Preparation

Biology Teacher Education Panacea or Pitfall . JANE BUTLER KAHLE Recent reports of international and national assessments of science education (IEA, 1988; Humrich, 1988; Rothman, 1988) tell the same old tale: most of our students are inadequately prepared to do science, to solve science-related problems, or to resolve science-related social issues. For example, results of the second International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) science study show that, compared with the science achievement levels of their peers in other countries, our fifth- graders rank eighth of 15, our ninth-graders rank fifteenth of 16, and our advanced students who have had 2 years of biology rank last in a field of 14. Increasingly, we are educating citizens who are scientifically illiterate. Education in biology, among the sciences, is in a key and pivotal position to alleviate the current situation key, because it is the only science studied by the vast majority of our students, and pivotal, because study of biology may provide the motivation, stimulation, skills, and interest that encourage a child to elect optional science courses, such as those in chemistry and physics. Therefore, biology teacher education may be the panacea or the pitfall as we attempt to reform science education in our schools. My remarks are intended to provide an overview of the current situation so that we can formulate directions for change. Jane Butler Kahle is Condit Professor of Science Education at Miami University and a former president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. She has published numerous articles on teaching secondary-school science and on women and minorities in science education. 197

198 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY The education of biology teachers is usually a two-part process: pre- service (or undergraduate) education and in-service (or postgraduate) ed- ucation. In the United States and most other countries, the preservice education of biology teachers consists of two components: general under- graduate education and specific professional training. The undergraduate biology and related science education of prospective American teachers varies greatly, depending on the type of institution they attend. For exam- ple, at most liberal arts colleges, prospective biology teachers complete the same courses as do all biology majors. In colleges specializing in teacher training, the content courses may be special ones that are directed toward specific teacher licensing requirements. The type of biology background received at large universities varies according to the structure of the uni- versity; that is, biology courses for teachers may be taught under the aegis of the college of education or of the college of arts and sciences. Both the type of course and the level of competition may be radically different, depending on the organization of the teacher education program within the university. Furthermore, biology teachers may be certified by religious colleges and universities that do not recognize or teach evolution as the unifying theme of biology. While the median required number of hours in biology for teacher certification in the United States is 24, 21% of biology classes are taught by teachers who have had less than 18 hours in undergraduate biology classes (Helgeson et al., 1977~. Generally, undergraduate courses taken by preservice biology teachers are the same courses taken by students preparing for professional or graduate schools. Large, impersonal lecture courses with structured laboratories are the most common format, and prospective teachers have few opportunities to participate in long-range laboratory inquiries, to lead fruitful discussions, or to ask and respond to penetrating questions. The infrequent use of creative inquiry teaching in biology classrooms may be related to the fact that teachers rarely experience it in their college preparation. Currently, the education of biology teachers is considered by many to be a pitfall. About 4 years ago, many professional societies and accreditation groups examined the teacher education process in general and recommended sweeping changes. Generally, the reform movement has focused on higher standards of admission to teacher education programs. Although the situa- tion is not as drastic in biology, generally prospective teachers have verbal and quantitative Scholastic Aptitude Just scores 32 and 48 points, respec- tively, below the scores of students choosing other careers. And the bright students who indicate an interest in teaching are routinely discouraged from it by professors of biology. In addition, an academic major in biology and a subsequent professional internship are recommended. Teacher assessment, including success on the national teacher examination, is another focus of the reform movement.

BIOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION 199

200 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY responsibility with increased competence (Darling-Hammond, 1984~. The other views teaching as an art, which any educated person can practice. We need to provide perspective and suggestions as we strive for ways th make biology teacher education a model for science education. REFERENCES AACl ~ (American Association of Colleges for leacher Education). 1986. AACTE Directory 198~1987. Washington, D.C.: AACl~. Backman, C. 1986. Positions on Current Issues in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities. Daniels, L 1988. More minority teachem may quit. New York limes, October 7:B12. Darling-Hammond, L. 1984. Beyond the Commission Reports. Series R-3177RC. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation. Helgeson, S. L., P. E. Blooser, and R. W. Howe, Eds. 1977. The Status of Precollege Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975. Volumes I, II7 and III. SE 78-73. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Humrich, I. 1988. Sex Differences in the Second IEA Science Study: U.S. Results in an International Context. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, April 10-13. IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). 1988. Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report. New York: Pergamon Press. Olson, Lo 1986. Indiana University's status in Holmes group uncertain. Educ. Week November 26. Rothman, R. C. 1988. Science: Achievement levels on test "distressingly low." Educ. Week September 28. Warren, W. J. 1988. Alternative certificates: New paths to teaching. New York Times, September 28:B10.

Professional Teachers for High-Schoo} Biology ALPHONSE BUCCINO A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE Programs for the education of teachers must be designed with a vision of the results they are to achieve. I propose that our model program aspire to a vision of a master teacher, which is a status achieved as a result of a significant developmental process that extends over some period and encompasses preservice preparation and subsequent professional practice coupled with continuing professional development involving formal study. This perspective suggests that we must be concerned not only with what teachers should know and be able to do, but also with the context in which they must practice their profession. Thus, as we move forward with the design and improvement of our programs for the preparation and continuing professional development of teachers, we should note that all current proposals, including those of the Holmes Group (1986) and the Disk Force on Caching as a Profession (1986), address twin goals: to reform teacher education and to reform the teaching profession. Inclusion of the latter goal indicates recognition that the quality of teaching in our schools depends on several factors in addition to the intrinsic quality of teacher preparation programs in our universities. Alphonse Buccino is dean of the University of Georgia's College of Education and professor of mathematics education. Before being named education dean, in April 1984, Dr. Buccino served in several professional positions in science and engineering education at the National Science Foundation. He received undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the University of Chicago. 201

202 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY This paper further extends the twin goals by separating each into two others: teacher preparation programs comprise content and peda- gogy, while the profession is affected by certification and influences on professional identity. This paper emphasizes two of these four elements: pedagogy and professional identity, especially as the latter is or was affected by the National Science Foundation (Nap) teacher institutes. However, for completeness of the perspective indicated here, remarks are presented about content and certification. CERTIFICATION "Teacher certification" is the name given the licensing of teachers. A license to teach is required by each of the 50 states, although the criteria and standards for certification (licensure) may vary from state to state. Because certification in all states requires higher education on the part of candidates, the degree programs of colleges and universities strongly influence teacher certification criteria and standards. However, certification also responds to the perceived supply of and demand for teachers and to hiring practices and needs. School managers (i.e., principals, superintendents, and their designees, who are a powerful force as an informal lobby) want as much flexibility as the managers of any organization. They want less regulation, rather than more. As a result, one sees a tension between the generalist approach and the specialist approach to teacher preparation and certification. The trend nationally in all states is to certify generalist science teachers-despite the efforts of professional organizations, such as the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), to develop standards for teachers who will specialize. In Georgia, for example, certifying biology, physics, chemistry, or earth science specialist teachers is possible, but the certification of the generalist science teacher for all four subject areas is not only possible, but preferred by school officials for reasons cited earlier. In fact, the generalist certification is the more prevalent route for science teachers in Georgia and elsewhere. However, there is no degree program in the university preparing the generalist teacher, who is so certified by a special review by the state department of education of his or her course record. Another aspect of certification that should be mentioned is what I call the "back door." Teaching is the one profession where quantity consider- ations tend to take precedence over quality. 1b avoid the phenomenon of the empty classroom, all but two of the 50 states have mechanisms that provide substandard, limited, or emergency licenses to persons lacking the qualifications for full professional certification. Clearly, these back-door devices can lower the quality of persons who actually teach in the schools,

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS FOR HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 203 independently of the quality of teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities. TEACHER KNOWLEDGE: CONTENT Aside from the impact of certification standards on the content knowl- edge of those actually teaching biology in the nation's classrooms, there are other factors to consider. To begin with, the responsibility for content in the preparation of biology teachers (in terms of both the major in biology and the content courses that are part of general education) lies outside the jurisdiction of the school or college of education, which generally has the primary responsibility for teacher preparation. There is much room for improvement in the colleges of arts and sciences of our universities as regards their part of teacher education. Unintegrated programs in general education, excessively narrow subject-area majors (depth of subject without breadth of subject), and poor teaching role models abound. Moreover, the school or college of education needs to have some impact and oversight, which it may not now have, regarding the content experiences of future teachers. The content knowledge required for biology teaching is set forth in many places, notably the aforementioned NSTA and NAB T standards. As Shulman (1986) points out, the teacher's knowledge must go beyond concepts and facts of a domain to an understanding of the structures of a subject. For example, the biology teacher must understand that there are a variety of ways of organizing the discipline, as is reflected by the yellow, green, and blue versions of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study texts. In addition to these considerations, the content base for biology teach- ing is especially complex, owing to four factors. First is the need to include basic mathematics, chemistry, physics, and earth and environmen- tal sciences in the program. Students majoring in other subjects are less dependent on the study of other disciplines. Second, biology is at the in- terface between natural science and social science. This requires successful teachers to have sophisticated knowledge of both. Third, there is pressure to include medicine in biology education. Fourth, the controversial and so-called science-technology-society issues are prominent in biology, such as the ethical issues and societal problems associated with such phenomena as in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering, and AIDS. TEACHER KNOWLEDGE: PEDAGOGY Pedagogical Knowledge of Teaching Not long ago, a legislator asked me whether I might provide him with some pointers and techniques for dealing with a class of fourth

204 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY graders that he was scheduled to visit With the help of facula members in our college of-education, we produced a page or so of notes that included such items as the following: fourth-graders have short attention spans, so keep the interactions on a given topic brief; children of this age are beginning to develop a sense of independence, but still have some dependence characteristics, so they like being treated like "big" boys and girls; and they love presents. The legislator followed the advice we gave him, remembering also to bring a little gift for each student. He credited the information we provided with the enormous success he later reported of the visit. The kind of information we provided the legislator might be called "pedagogical knowledge of teaching" what Shulman (1986) refers to as "generic principles of classroom organization and management and the like." It is widely agreed that such knowledge is essential for effective teaching and must be included in successful teacher preparation programs. Moreover, this kind of knowledge is commonly recognized as the responsi- bility of the school, college, or department of education- in contrast with subject-matter content, which falls in the jurisdiction of the arts and sciences components. Without meaning to minimize or diminish the importance of this kind of knowledge on the part of teachers, I do want to emphasize another kind of pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical Knowledge of Content This other kind of pedagogical knowledge focuses on the question: What does one need to know about a subject in order to teach it? Great teachers from the beginning of history-have known that a special kind of knowledge is associated with teaching a specific subject. Scientists, especially, often speak of their desire to help students to grasp the power and beauty of science, quite beyond facts and concepts. We owe a lot to Shulman (1986) for successfully and pointedly calling our attention to pedagogical knowledge of content as a fundamentally important element of teaching and teacher preparation: for the most regularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. Since there are no single most powerful forms of representation, the teacher must have at hand a veritable armamentarium of alternative forms of representation, some of which derive from research whereas others originate in the wisdom of practice. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons. If these preconceptions are misconceptions, which they so often are, teachers need knowledge of the

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS FOR HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 205 strategies most likely to be fruitful in reorganizing the understanding of learners, because those learners are unlikely to appear before them as blank slates. This kind of knowledge is a special form of content knowledge and is, therefore, subject-specific. Once it is identified, it is immediately clear that pedagogical knowledge of content is quite important for teachers and, consequently. should have a central role in teacher Preparation. Unfor 1 J ' ~ 1 Innately, the opposite seems to be the case. By opposite l mean teat, despite the preoccupation with subject matter in current concerns about education, and despite the evident significance of pedagogical knowledge of content for the teaching and learning of subject matter, the emphasis in teacher education is on the generic, and not the subject-specific. For one thing, it is not clear whether primary responsibility for peda- gogical knowledge of content in university teacher education programs lies in the college of arts and sciences or in the school or college of education. Both education and arts and sciences have a role, but the degree of em- phasis may differ. On the arts and sciences side, this kind of knowledge is often recognized. The physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, in his invited address to the American Psychological Association (Oppenheimer, 1956), discussed the role of analogy in the development of knowledge in physics. He described five examples of the use of analogy in atomic physics to illustrate his argument that "analogy is indeed an indispensable tool for science." If analogy is essential for the creation of new knowledge in science, it surely is essential for the teaching and learning of it. Unfortunately,, the use of analogy in this regard is of uneven effectiveness. Glynn et al. (1989) studied the use of analogies in high-school physics textbooks. They found that, while all texts used analogies, the use in some instances was much more effective in pedagogical terms than in others. On the school or college of education side, Shulman (1986) points out that research paradigms on the study of teaching are characterized by the omission of one central aspect of classroom life: the subject matter. In fact, Shulman and his colleagues refer to the absence of focus on subject matter among the various research paradigms for the study of teaching as the "missing paradigm" problem. Thus, a premier issue in teacher education today is subject-specific versus generic pedagogical knowledge of content. For teacher education, the missing research paradigm translates into an imperative to integrate content and pedagogy. Unfortunately, as indicated earlier, the trend is in the opposite direc- tion. There are two forces I would describe as spurious that are driving schools and colleges of education to the generic at the expense of the subject-specific. First and foremost is size and efficiency. Many teacher ed- ucation programs are so small that they cannot afford to distinguish science from mathematics, or even distinguish science from the humanities, such as

206 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY language arts. One response-albeit politically difficult, if not unrealistic- is to terminate programs that lack the requisite critical mass. That would mean termination of about half the teacher education programs currently on the books in American colleges and universities. But even in large programs that have the wherewithal to specialize, the trend is to the generic. The second spurious force acting on teacher ed- ucation programs concerns program identity. More and more, schools and colleges of education are suppressing specialization within themselves in the interest of projecting a common and unified image. Faculties are choos- ing to add "common experiences" for all prospective teachers, rather than several diverse subject-specific or otherwise specialized approaches. More and more, institutions call attention to their respective teacher education programs, emphasizing generic characteristics, while few call attention to programs preparing subject-specific high-school teachers of biology, math- ematics, physics, or chemistry. The Role of Theory This appeal for special attention to pedagogical knowledge of content in the preparation of teachers challenges us to seek learning theories for guidance. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) reminds us, among other things, of the truism that we teach as we were taught. Thus, in a real sense, the preparation of future teachers begins in the early grades. However, there surely is an admonition here for college and university faculty members who teach teachers, to model the sort of teaching behavior they expect their students to exhibit. Current theory has been strongly influenced by research about mis- conceptions associated with science learning (alluded to in the Shulman quotation presented above). As I observed earlier (Buccino, 1985), this research calls into question the strong tendency to present science as a fresh new subject, something the students have not really encountered or experienced before. The child is the clean slate on which the new scientific information is to be inscribed, or the empty vessel into which fresh scientific knowledge is poured. This research on misconceptions lends support to constructivist or modern cognitive theory that questions the accuracy of the clean-slate and empty-vessel metaphors. Contemporary thinking and research about teach- ing and learning indicate that children construct their own understanding; they do not just reflect what is given to them. Moreover, the learner's for- mulation of understanding is based on a great deal of prior information. A child's cultural and familial environments affect how information transmit- ted in a classroom is processed in the child's mind. These "environmental" factors affect what is retained by the child, what is pursued further, and

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS FOR HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 207 what is virtually ignored. Thus, children come to their first and subsequent science classes with surprisingly extensive theories about how the natural world works. These naive theories affect what they perceive to be happen- ing in the classroom and in laboratory experiments. These naive theories are developed as a natural human tendency to come to grips with and find order in a world that, especially to a child, seems incredibly complex. Moreover, they often continue to attach their incorrect and naive under- standings to situations even after instruction supposedly provides correct versions (Resnick, 1983~. The misconceptions of students are especially acute in biology, because a child's thinking is animistic. We know that the sun is alive because it gives heat, that a stone is alive because it can move as it rolls down a hill. Today, animism extends to computers as children consider that the device with which they may interact is alive (sparkle, 1984~. The animistic thinking is only gradually overcome by knowledge and experience. It is unclear how this affects students in high school, but the teacher surely should be prepared for surprising and incorrect naive understandings on the part of students. From this perspective, pedagogical knowledge of content is all the more important. Moreover, in science the special role of laboratories and demonstrations makes even greater demands. As though this were not enough of a challenge, ways of treating controversial subjects and science- technology-society issues also make special demands not easily dealt with from a base of subject-matter knowledge alone. Continued Professional Development Given these complexities, let us recall the vision of the master teacher with which we began this discussion. It is clear that the initial preparation of teachers must be followed by additional professional development. The structure of our graduate teacher education programs at the Uni- versity of Georgia illustrates the foregoing discussion. The University of Georgia's teacher education programs based in the College of Education are unusual for their subject-specific emphasis, in both organizational and program terms. These programs are organized into departments that rep- resent content domains. Specifically included are departments of language education, mathematics education, science education, and social-science education. Each of these departments offers programs for teachers, in- cluding programs at two graduate levels, and each has nine to 14 faculty members who are expert in both the content and the pedagogy of their subject areas. This is in direct contrast with the predominant generalist ap- proach to staffing in many teacher education programs. Teacher education students at the University of Georgia do not take general courses, such as

208 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY curriculum, instruction, or computer applications. Instead, they enroll in programs that are content-specific. On the other hand, teacher education students do not take any content knowledge courses in the College of Ed- ucation. All these offerings are in the College of Arts and Sciences. The critical mass of faculty and students in each content area greatly facilitates this arrangement and allows it to be cost-effective. THE TEACHING PROFESSION Is teaching a profession? Shulman (1986) identifies three kinds of knowledge that a teacher ought to have: propositional knowledge, case knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Propositional knowledge arises from research and experience. Propositional knowledge represents the wisdom of practice and the accumulated lore of teaching. Because this is incomplete, we also need case knowledge to provide details and contexts. Propositional knowledge and case knowledge on the one hand imply and on the other hand can be understood only in a conceptual or theoretical framework This is where strategic knowledge comes in-the knowledge a teacher needs to make a judgment on how to proceed when propositional principles conflict or cases appear incompatible. The reliance of teaching on strategic knowledge is what makes it a profession, and not merely a craft (Kilpatrick, 1987~. Following Shulman (1986), Kilpatrick argues that a craft may be mastered by learning to follow a set of rules, while a profession requires that indeterminate rules be applied to particular cases. The professional practitioner is someone who has developed an awareness of the reasons for making professional decisions. Thus, a teacher is not merely a practitioner, but a thinking practitioner. From this perspective, a teacher does not merely respond automatically to a teaching situation, but makes reasoned judgment through a self-conscious conversation with the teaching situation. Clearly, this view of the teacher as thinking practitioner calls for an end to the separation of research and practice in teaching. Accordingly, teachers need to be helped to redefine the role of research in their work and to recognize that research not only is applied to practice, but also grows out of it. But in terms of current practice, is teaching a profession? Despite the foregoing argument that teaching is (or should be) a profession, rather than a craft, many observers have noted that, like many occupations, teaching has become seriously deprofessionalized. The following conditions appear to be minimal for calling an occupa- tion a profession: self-regulation through systematic required training and collegial norms; a base of technical, specialized knowledge (that is usually assessed before entrance to the field-or shortly thereafter); and a code of ethics. Teaching fulfills the last of these three criteria-as teaching is

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS FOR HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 209 still widely held as a "calling" in our socie~where the unwritten code espouses altruistic service. But the other two criteria present problems. Regarding the first two of the above criteria, the traditions of recruit- ment, norms of preparation, and conditions of work in schools are such that the claim that teaching is a profession is weakened (Holmes Group, 1986~. The Holmes Group report further points out that during the last century, teaching has frequently been a transient career with young adults teaching school temporarily before assuming the responsibilities of their real careers. Women often chose marriage and full-time housekeeping, while men moved from precollege teaching into higher education or edu- cational management. Teachers (especially in the elementary grades) are overwhelmingly female, while most principals and other administrators are male. The Disk Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986) discusses two ad- ditional criteria for characterizing teaching as a profession: autonomy and discretion regarding the organization and content of instruction. Autonomy and discretion, according to the report, are the most attractive aspects of professional work. Schools, however, operate as though consultants, school district experts, textbook authors, trainers, and distant professionals possess more relevant expertise than the teachers in the schools. In the post-Sputnik era of major national curriculum development projects supported by agen- cies like NSF and the U.S. Office of Education (now the U.S. Department of Education), one frequently heard of "teacherproof" curricula, even though teachers were on the curriculum development project teams. Today, many local and state school officials contend that the teacher's primary role is to deliver the curriculum determined by someone else and rarely to modify it. This view of teaching hardly allows for autonomy and discretion. Teachers often complain that the conditions they find in their schools do not allow them to use all the worthwhile skills and knowledge they acquired in their teacher preparation programs. Bureaucratic management of schools, proceeding from the view that teachers lack the talent and motivation to think for themselves, goes against the idea of professional autonomy. Furthermore, the increase in testing as a means of monitoring student progress (and, in turn, teacher and school performance) leads to a narrowing of the curriculum in anticipation of tests. This trend in America is rather ironic, in comparison with trends in other nations. In recent years, England, France, Japan, Kenya, and other countries which have a long history of testing their students in academic high schools are broadening their curricula in order to enhance student learning opportunities and teaching flexibility. The dilemma about autonomy and discretion, and the proper role of the teacher, is further illustrated by the following examples. Case

210 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY studies (Atkin, 1983) of science and social-science education identified a fourth-grade teacher who was a skillful and talented rock collector. As a consequence, her students could expect to devote a significant portion of their science time to identification and classification. A third-grade teacher was successful at incubating chicken eggs and communicating the intricacies associated with that phenomenon. Her science program consisted mostly of developing, examining, and preserving chick embryos. In addition to these two examples discussed by Stake and Easely (1978), B. Lindsay (personal communication, 1987) reported the example of the social-science teacher who collected dolls during her American and international travels and used them in her classes. The dolls, dressed in clothes of the particular region or country, helped raise many questions about people elsewhere. The school syllabus may not specify rocks in grade 4, chicks in grade 3, or dolls in social-science classes; but for these teachers and their students, science and social-science classes were the most interesting time of the school day. Students and teachers enthusiastically awaited these periods. But there are well-intentioned forces that inhibit this kind of innovation, autonomy, and discretion. The goal orientation and accountability now being emphasized in schools, reinforced by testing programs, are reasonable and proper. How- ever, they may stifle the idiosyncratic strengths of creative teachers (part of the norms in teaching), for the sake of guarding against teacher weak- ness. The tension between autonomy and discretion, on the one hand, and accountability, on the other, inhibits efforts to strengthen teaching as a profession. But another tension also has this effect: the tension between parent and teacher. Parents want the teacher to do what is best for their child. Yet, teachers must take into account the needs of the entire group of students in the classroom and their own teaching styles. For example, one teacher reported a persistent conflict she has with parents regarding her treatment of the periodic table of the elements in her chemistry class. For scientists, the periodic table of the elements is regarded as a great achievement, because its significance rests primarily not on its individual entries, but on the structure and relationships of atoms that the table represents. The teacher reports that despite the great effort she makes to teach the underlying structure and relationships, she and her principal regularly receive complaints that she cannot be a very good chemistry teacher, in that she does not require her students to memorize the periodic table. Parents often think and perhaps rightly so that tests require their children to cite the individual entries. Clearly, there is some question as to whether teaching, as experienced in American classrooms today, is the profession that many think it ought to be. The status of teaching as a profession depends on several factors, such

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS FOR HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 211 as the relationships among the working conditions of classroom teachers and their need for autonomy and discretion, the need for accountability to parents for the education of their children, and the need for school officials to ensure quality educational standards. In view of this conflict between the vision of the teacher as a profes- sional and the reality of deprofessionalization of teaching, it is essential that additional steps be taken to strengthen teaching as a profession. The foregoing suggestions for altering university programs for the preparation of teachers so that teachers may increase their specialized knowledge are necessary, but not sufficient. An interesting mechanism with significant potential for strengthening teachers' identification with a profession can be found in the NSF Science Teacher Institutes. The NSF institutes were begun on an experimental basis in the mid-1950s, were expanded greatly as a result of Sputnik in the late 1950s, became a major force in American science education while reaching their zenith in the 1960s, and were discontinued in the early 1970s. There were two public reasons given for the discontinuation of the NSF institutes: they were no longer needed, and there was a lack of evidence of their effectiveness where effectiveness was defined in terms of the impact of the institutes on the learning of the pupils of the teachers who attended the institutes (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984~. The first reason is certainly politically understandable. However, the second reason involves what I call the Winnie the Pooh fallacy that distracts attention from the real significance and impact of the NSF institutes. In one of the Pooh episodes, Pooh wants to capture a heffalump, alleged to be roaming in the forest, and Pooh and Piglet ponder what sort of trap is needed. When the trap is found to be empty the next morning, Pooh and Piglet are unsure whether this means there are no heffalumps in the forest or they just didn't set the right trap. This fallacy of evaluation if you can't find (or measure) it, then it is not there is not a sound basis for public-policy formulation. On the other hand, there is solid evidence of some real impacts of the institutes. For one thing, they promoted the integration of content and pedagogy in science education to a degree unheard of before or since. They were especially strong in the area of pedagogical knowledge of content long before Shulman (1986) identified it. The institutes represented one of the few forces that existed for a focus on subject matter in teaching and on subject-specific pedagogy. Another important impact of the NSF institutes was strengthening teachers' identification with the professional scientists in the subject fields of their teaching. If teachers left the classroom as a result of enhanced capabilities resulting from institute participation, the evidence is that they stayed in science education, by becoming supervisors or taking on other

212 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY posts in school leadership or by going into higher education and becoming teachers of teachers. 1b this day, NSF teacher-institute participants of 20 or more years ago generally exhibit a professional elan not shared by all their colleagues. I believe that the re-establishment of the NSF institutes, especially those promoting full-time, in-depth study during the academic year or summer, would be a significant step in support of the current movement to strengthen teaching as a profession. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the significant contributions to this paper of Patricia Simmons and Russell Yeany of the University of Georgia College of Education's Department of Science Education. REFERENCES Atkin, J. M. 1983. The improvement of science teaching. Daedalus 112: 167-188. Bandura, A. 1973. Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of initiative responses. In K. C. Murray and R. Fitzgerald. Interaction analysis modeling and student teacher verbal behaviors. Contemp. Educ. Janua~y:174-178. Buccino, A. 1985. Responding to the condition of science education. Appraisal: Science Books for Young People 18~1~:3-15. Glynn, S., B. Britton, M. Semrud-Clikeman, and K D. Muth. 1989. Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks, pp. 383-398. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, and C R. Reynolds, Eds. Handbook of Creativity Assessment, Research, and Theory. New York: Plenum. Holmes Group. 1986. Tomorrow's Teachers. East Lansing, Mich.: The Holmes Group, Inc. Kilpatrick, J. 1987. The medical metaphor. Focus Learn. Prob. Math. 9~4~:1-13. Oppenheimer, J. R. 1956. Analogy in science. Amer. Psychol. 11:127-135. Resnick, L. 1983. Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science 220:477-478. Shulman, L. S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15~2~:4-14. Stake, R., and J. Easley. 1978. Case Studies in Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. 1986. A Nation Prepared: Teachem for the 21st Centuty. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Ibrkle, S. 1984. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster. U. S. General Accounting Office. 1984. Report on Impact of NSF Teacher Institutes. Washington, D.C.: U. S. General Accounting Office.

24 Biology Teacher Training: Preparing Students for Tomorrow PATRICIA C. DUNG We are In the midst of a scientific revolution and critical period In science education. Never before have so many scientific and technological advances been made in so short a time. Only with enough well-trained science teachers are we, as a nation, going to keep up with the demand for top-level scientists, technicians, and educators. But the percentage of high-school students taking 3 years of science across the nation is only approximately 25%, compared with 100% in other industrial nations, such as the U.S.S.R., West Germany, and Japan. Of our nation's students, 84% do not take physics, 65% do not take chemistry, and 23% do not take biology (NSB, 1983~. Currently, there is a shortage of science teachers in general and an acute shortage of science teachers with current backgrounds in the subjects they teach (National Journal, 1987~. But in our nation's biology classrooms we are not only training future biologists, technicians, and educators, but also educating the majority, the future citizens of an increasingly technological society and threatened world. The gap between science and technology and the scientific literacy of the average citizen in the United States is ever-widening. As we examine the - Patricia C. Dung is a science adviser in the Office of Instruction, Los Angeles Unified School District. She is also director of Los Angeles Educational Pannership's Target Science Project, a National Science Foundation-funded project, and instructor of the clinical-methods course in secondary-school science at the Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles. Ms. Dung taught high-school biology for 20 yeam in the Los Angeles Unified School District. 213

214 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY trends in science proficiency of students from 1969 to 1986, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we see that, although there have been some gains over the last 4 years, a majority of high-school students in our country "are poorly equipped for informed citizenship and productive performance in the workplace." The results also indicate that only 7% of high-school students have the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in college-level science courses (Rothman, 1988~. Females and members of minority groups enroll in fewer science courses (Deboer, 1986) and have decidedly lower achievement scores (Thomas, 1986) than males and whites. It is distressing to see that our school systems are producing citizens lacking in the basic understanding of humans' effect on the ecological balance of the Earth, the implications of recombinant-DNA research, and the greenhouse effect, to name a few areas affecting the world as we currently know it. This is a very serious challenge; one that can be met only with motivated and well-trained biology educators in our nation's schools. Any preservice or in-service training for biology teachers must, by necessity, look at the desired outcome or product, the student, as goals are set and strategies planned. What knowledge and skills must average citizens have to deal with the uncertain future? Certainly they must have an understanding of basic scientific concepts, be able to deal with new information and not be mired in outdated dogma, and be able to relate and apply scientific ideas. Future voters should be able to make informed, intelligent decisions regarding science and society. Future workers, we are told, will have an average of five careers during their lifetimes, and students of the present must be readied for lives and jobs that may not exist today. The future generation will also be the caretakers of the planet. In order to accomplish our goals, students should experience biological science as a method of solving problems to understand better the place of science in our society. Hands-on, process-based experiences should be a vital and integral part of any high-school biology course (Shymansky, 1984~. The best science learning environment is one where students act like real-life, practicing scientists, who engage in a systematic, reciprocal process of theory-building and -testing (Straw, 1983~. Student engagement is necessary for active learning. Biology instruction should emphasize the development of conceptual understanding and critical thinking, rather than the memorization of facts. Biology teachers must have a model of science instruction that will develop the student skills just described. In the absence of teacher training and analysis, teachers teach as they were taught (Galleger, 1967~. Many of our nation's science teachers may not have been presented with good models when they were science students. They may have been students in biology classrooms where they acquired knowledge-based content only,

BIOLOGY TEACHER TRAINING 215 delivered by heavy doses of lectures and textbook work, and did not engage in activities that promoted higher-order thinking skills. If this is true, the preservice and in-service development must provide the missing models, as well as providing appropriate training. School districts alone cannot provide the growth experience necessary for biology teachers. Schools must be joined by partners from universities, the private sector, and cultural institutions, such as science museums and zoos, in a collaborative effort. Each partner has an important stake in this endeavor. The private sector would like a more informed and skilled work- force in the future; the universities would like better-prepared in-coming students. Appropriate outside resources, when properly coordinated and channeled, can be critical elements in stimulating and facilitating an im- proved instructional environment (NSB, 1983~. But the separate partners must do what they do best. Private-sector researchers should not presume to tell teachers how to teach, but can provide important knowledge of technological applications of scientific theory for their colleagues in the classroom. Universities, being institutions of research, can best provide biology teachers with content updating and research experience and findings. Cur- rent advances in immunology, DNA research, and other areas can be imparted to teachers through precollege teacher institutes and conferences. As indicated earlier, many teachers do not have the specific content knowl- edge of the biology topics they are expected to teach. Also, many biology teachers are lacking in knowledge of the ecology of their immediate envi- ronment, such as the city, and thus lack examples relevant to their students. University professors can provide valuable basic content information to content-deficient teachers through classes and institutes. Most biology teachers have come through undergraduate science pro- grams without ever having engaged in research activities. The research experience is important in order to convey to students the true nature of scientific research. Programs like those of the Research Corporation and the Industry Initiatives for Science and Mathematics Education-Los An- geles (IISME-LA) match science teachers with university researchers for summer internships that provide experiences that enhance the background of science teachers and produce ideas for classroom laboratory activities. Graduate schools of education can convey current pedagogical research findings that validate excellent teaching practices through seminars for lead teachers and science specialists. Workshops can then be developed that train teachers in these practices. Information on, for example, teacher questioning and wait-time, teacher expectations, sex differences in the sci- ence classroom, and cooperative group learning does not get translated into classroom practice if it is only published and not disseminated through other means.

216 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY School district in-service training planners must recognize that teach- ers learn successful classroom strategies best from other teachers. Every in-service program must provide as models the very behaviors that lead to excellence in biology teaching. Employment of cooperative group learning, hands-on activities, the art of questioning, and other good practices are nec- essary. Currently, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is im- plementing a 16-hour advanced-placement biology in-service program with a ratio of one teacher-leader to four less-experienced teacher-participants for small-group discussion and laboratory practice. This low participant-to- leader ratio seems to be promoting greater networking and participation among teachers and the transfer of successful practices from experienced teachers to less-experienced ones. Another in-service model in the LAUSD, funded by Public Law 98-377, uses lead advanced-placement biology teachers to teach first-year college- level content and process much as they are taught in advanced-placement classes to teachers deficient in particular content areas. Both basic content and good classroom practices are taught. Workshop in-service programs may provide excellent teaching strate- gies and models, but an important ingredient is missing: the students. Observing the enthusiasm of students engaged in learning biology pro- vides not only a more complete model, but the stimulus for the observing teachers to try new strategies in their classrooms. Observation of lead or mentor teachers is a most important activity that should continue through- out a teacher's career. Release time should be provided for all teachers to observe other teachers. In the absence of release time, video tapes of exemplary teachers and their classes are helpful (Yeany and Padilla, 1986~. Peer or self feedback and analysis without fear of teacher evaluation have also been effective in producing behavioral change (Yeany and Padilla, 1986~. Collaboration between private organizations and school districts can provide the stimulus for educational change. The Los Angeles Educational Partnership (LAEP) was formed as a response to the national educational reform movement. Target Science-funded by the National Science Foun- dation, the Carnegie Corporation, and private contributors-is a project of LAEP and the LAUSD. Target Science channels science-rich resources to K-12 feeder-school complexes in predominantly minority-group areas. Grants are given to teachers to promote innovative classroom ideas and unique professional development experiences. Museum workshops are held for isolated minority-group parents and students for whom visiting the museum is a unique experience. Dialogues between teachers take place to promote teacher decision-making by assessing the state of science in- struction in each feeder complex and forming solutions that lead to an articulated and activity-based K-12 science instructional continuum.

BIOLOGY TEACHER TRAINING 217 Another Target Science program is IISME-LA' adapted from the suc- cessful IISME pilot initiated in San Francisco by the Bay Area industries and the University of California. In Los Angeles, 8-week work experiences at universities and in business and industry are provided for science and mathematics teachers in urban impacted schools. Experience in the private sector provides teachers with real-world examples of practical applications of scientific theory and information about science-related career pathways for students. During this period, teachers actively engage in applications of the science they teach. By so doing, they meet the following objectives: professional development by learning science through the act of engaging in the process itself and stimulation of ideas on how to incorporate real-world experiences to make curriculum more relevant and current. Examples of the research projects that teacher-fellows have participated in are those on the effects of a company product on aortic plaque and on characterizing enamel-making proteins in embryo teeth. Each teacher-fellow is required to develop a curriculum project that can be taken back to the classroom and disseminated to other teachers. Staff time is provided by the company for a mentor for the teacher-fellow. The full cost of employment is funded by the private sector and grants from foundations and organizations, such as National Medical Enterprises. Target Science also uses private-sector partners as workshop presenters who provide teachers with updated knowledge of technology and science applications, university professors who deliver content, and lead teachers who model hands-on activities and teaching strategies. Topics have included acid rain, urban ecology, immunology, and molecular genetics. Through TELEventure, another program of Target Science, local in- dustry and university scientists will be "on-line" through an electronic bul- letin board with teachers In the Los Angeles area to promote the exchange of information, resources, and activity-based lessons. All the stakeholders In science education have their own objectives, but it is only through collaboration that we can begin to attack the enormous challenge facing us all. REFERENCES Deboer, G. E. 1986. Perceived science ability as a factor in the course selections of men and women in college. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23:343-350. Galleger, J. 1967. Teacher variation in concept presentation in BSCS curriculum program. BSCS News. 30:8-19. National Journal. 1987. The numbers game statistics on the new school term, a shortage in the classrooms? 19:1996. NSB (National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology). 1983. Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Plan of Action for Improving Mathematics, Science and Technology Education for All American Elementary and Secondary Students. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

218 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY Rothman, R. 1988. Science-achievement levels on test "distressingly low." Educ. Week. 8~4~:1,11. Shaw, T. 1983. The effect of a process oriented science curriculum upon problem solving ability. Sci. Educ. 67:615-623. Shymansky, J. ~ 1984. BSCS programs: Just how effective were they? Am. Biol. Teach. 46:54-57. Thomas, G. E. 1986. Cultivating the interest of women and minorities in high school mathematics and science. Sci. Educ. 70:31-43. Yeany, R. H., and M. J. Padilla. 1986. Raining science teachers to utilize better teaching strategies: A research synthesis. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23: 8S-95.

an Standards for the Preparation and Certification of Biology Teachers WILLIAM C. RITZ Standard: that which is set up and established by authority as a rule for the measurement of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1969~. Accreditation and credentialing are procedures through which an agency publicly declares that an institution or individual has or has not met certain standards [Floden, 1988~. INTRODUCTION Interest In teacher education In the United States seems to emulate a roller coaster ride. Periodically, it becomes a "hot" topic, but then, for long stretches of time, concern about how teachers are prepared appears to stagnate. In the mid-1980s, interest In teacher education emerged from one of its long periods of stagnation when reports of the Holmes Group and the Carnegie Commission raised serious questions about the standards of entry into the profession, what teachers need to know and be able to do, and how we as a nation can ensure an adequate supply of high-qualitr teachers for our nation's classrooms. Central to much of the debate are William C. Ritz, director of the Science and Mathematics Education Institute of California State University, Long Beach, sewes as president of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. He chaired the National Science Teachers Association committee that developed the association's Standards for the Preparation and Certification of Secondary School Teachers of Science. 219

220 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY concerns about the standards that are used to decide whether adequate quality exists. Standards are useless unless applied. Professional standards, such as those dealing with biology teaching, are typically applied to "certification" or "credentialing" processes of one kind or another. What are the purposes of certification or credentialing? Floden (1988) summarizes them as follows: The purposes of credentialing within any profession fall into three major cate- gor~es: protection of the public, stimulation of improvement, and advancement of the profession. The public is protected if credentialing screens out inade- quate schools and incompetent practitioners. Institutions and individuals already meeting minimum standards may be stimulated to further improvement by par- ticipation in credentialing procedures. The profession may gain status and other benefits by raising the quality of its membership and by publicly demonstrating responsible intra-professional quality control. It may be helpful to examine ways in which standards are typically used to attain each of these ends. USES OF TEACHER PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION STANDARDS By and large, the most common and important use of professional standards is to protect the public. With regard to biology teaching, the goals are to ensure that institutions do a proper job of preparing teachers to teach the subject and that those entering the profession will be com- petent biology teachers. Here, standards are being applied in two very different ways on the one hand, to assess institutional teacher-preparation programs, and on the other, to assess the competence of individuals seeking to enter the profession. While state departments of education are usually active in both arenas, we shall see that professional organizations are also assuming important roles in each. Not surprisingly, professional organi- zations also take a special interest in the other two functions listed by Floden: stimulating further improvement in teacher-education programs and upgrading the status of the science teaching profession by publicly demonstrating responsible "quality control." THE GREAT DEBATE Before considering statements of standards adopted by two leading professional groups, it is important to become aware of what some of my colleagues refer to as the debate between the "lumpers" and the "splitters." "Lumpers" are those who espouse what is sometimes referred to as "broad-field certification." In broad-field programs, teachers are prepared or certified to teach several subjects. A clear example here

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS 221 is elementary-school teachers, because they are typically prepared (and certified) to teach many subjects, ranging all the way from mathematics to music. At the high-school level in science, broad-field certification usually means licensing teachers to teach at least two subjects; in extreme cases, it can be a license to teach any and all high-school sciences. I received a New York State certificate some 30 years ago that "certifies" me to teach "all secondary sciences" biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, and general science. Now, while some may feel qualified to handle all these courses, I certainly do not. If nothing else, my situation clearly illustrates another important point about certification one can be certified to teach one or more subjects without necessarily also being qualified to teach those courses! More about the difference between being "certified" and being "qualified" later. "Splitters" view preparation and certification as a matter of educating teachers to be subject-matter specialists. Therefore, in splitter states, one is certified to teach a single subject, such as biology. Actually, most splitter states also make provisions for teachers who specialize in one subject to "add on" authorization to teach additional subjects. The debate between broad- and narrow-field certification continues to this day, and each side has some good points to make. The lumpers point out that most science teachers are expected to teach more than one subject, and they argue the importance of acquiring an interdisciplinary nersnective of the sciences. Splitters emphasize the importance of mastery 1 1 ~ , , of one's discipline and the belief that one acquires a better perspective of how science works when one specializes in a single discipline. School administrators and boards tend to be lumpers, teacher versatility being es- pecially attractive when you are responsible for making faculty assignments. Subject-matter specialists and many members of the science-teaching pro- fession tend to be splitters, believing in the advantages of specialization. The profession certainly does not speak with one voice with regard to broad-field or more specialized certification. We see some evidence of the two sides of the debate as we compare two very prestigious statements about the education and certification of biology teachers-those of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 1987~. While the standards set forth by NAB T (Appendix A) imply a specialization perspective, the organization nonetheless recommends that high-school biology teachers also be prepared to teach "at least one other science" (a splitter statement with a hint of lumping?. The standards of NSTA, on the other hand, clearly favor specialized preparation, even though NSTA separately makes provision for preparation in a second teaching field (Appendix B). Neither organization supports broad-field certification

222 NIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY per se. In fact, the NSTA statement reiterates the association's long- standing position that no science teacher ought to be responsible for more than two concurrent course preparations. A close look at the NABT and NSTA statements may prove informative. I would be remiss if I did not first acknowledge some important predecessors of the current statements: those of the Commission on Un- dergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences (CUEBS, 1965, 1969) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Commission on Science Education (1971~. Even though we will focus on the more recent statements in this paper, it must be noted that the content of both the CUEBS and AAAS statements remains highly pertinent to this day. To begin, it should be noted that the NSTA and NABT statements are much more alike than they are different. Both favor strong and broad preparation in biological subject matter (NABT, 24 semester-hours; NSTA, 32), and they specify similar subdisciplines to be studied. Both encourage significant study in related sciences (NABT, 24 semester-hours; NSTA, 16~. As already noted, the NABT statement makes explicit its position that all high-school biology teachers should be prepared to teach at least one other science. The NSTA position statement does not speak directly to this notion. (Remember, however, that NSTA does state policies pertaining to the "supplementary authorization" to teach an additional science, and it also acknowledges the need in small schools for science teachers to be able to teach more than two sciences.) There are some other differences, which may be unintentional. The NSTA statement, for example, makes it explicit that science-teacher prepa- ration ought to address specifically the development of candidates' com- munication skills, their knowledge of safety in science teaching, and their development of broad research skills-the latter at least to the point of being able to comprehend research results and then communicate them to the public. NABT is less specific about these issues. The considerably more detailed NSTA statement also is more specific about the length and nature of student teaching and other field experiences. IMPLEMENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL STANI)ARDS Standards can be applied as a sort of "metric system" for the pro- cesses of accreditation and certification, but in order to serve that function, they must first attain widespread acceptance. The NSTA standards took a giant step forward a few years ago when the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) decided to involve profes- sional organizations, such as NSTA, directly in the accreditation process.

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS 223 NCATE, the teaching profession's primary mechanism for voluntary regula- tion, accredits 525 of the nation's 1,276 teacher-education programs. These programs prepare about 80% of our teachers (Padilla, 1988~. Science-teacher preparation programs of colleges seeking NCATE ac- creditation are now being evaluated by NSTA committees, which use the NSTA standards in their deliberations. This gives the NSTA standards the potential to serve as a powerful tool to strengthen college programs for the preparation of science teachers. It has also caused people to take a much more direct interest in the standards. For example, some who paid very little attention to these standards as they were being developed now find their programs coming up short vis-a-vis those standards. That can be very uncomfortable. No one enjoys being told that his or her program is in some way "below standard." Many have chosen to use the standards as a wedge to bring about changes in their programs. A few have reacted to negative comments about their programs by demanding that the standards be made more compatible with current practices. In developing statements of standards, most organizations believe that, while standards need to be in tune with reality, they should nonetheless work to "stretch" organizations and agencies in directions deemed more desirable. It does little good to set standards so high that no one can attain them. Setting standards at the lowest common denominator is also foolish, wasting, as it does, any opportunity to promote positive change. The NSTA-NCATE accreditation process is relatively new, but it is moving ahead rapidly. In the fall of 1987, the applications of 45 programs were reviewed, and some 50-60 more are expected to be reviewed in November 1988. While a number of problems have yet to be ironed out, an NSTA-NCATE coordinator has been chosen, and training programs are being conducted for potential reviewers. The exciting part of all this is that a professional organization is now in a position to influence how teachers entering that profession are being prepared. NSTA'S PROGRAM TO CERTIFY INDIVIDUAL SCIENCE TEACHERS NSTA is making yet another use of its standards. A few years ago, it began a program that invites individual teachers to submit their educational and professional records to the scrutiny of their science-teaching peers. What does an individual teacher gain from such certification? Two rewards come to mind: recognition from the association (in effect, from one's science-teaching peers) and being able to announce to one's colleagues and school board, C`I am an NSTA-certified science teacher!" Those who helped to implement this new program hope that, as an increasingly large nucleus of NSTA-certified teachers develops, states and those hiring teachers will

224 HIGlI-SCHOOL BIOLOGY pay more attention to the organization's standards and what they mean- perhaps even adopting those standards as their own. Recognition as an NSTA-certified teacher may also reduce the possibil- ity of misassignment. The organization plans to support any NSTA-certified teacher threatened by misassignment or replacement by an unqualified teacher by notifying the appropriate school board and local media. It is NSTA's intent that this program shall be entirely self-supporting, so those seeking individual certification are required to pay a fee (currently $50) for this service. Even though the program is still new, about 150 teachers have been certified (roughly 10% in biology). While this program has yet to have an impact on an impressive proportion of NSTAs member- ship of almost 50,000, the interest being shown in individual certification seems to indicate that many science teachers see themselves as members of a proud profession and that many of its members want to be recognized for their scholarly and professional attainment. NSTA is also developing a program of recognition for teachers seeking to claim a still higher level of science-teacher status. While the details are still under development, current thinking involves requiring candidates to have completed at least 5 years of successful full-time science teaching, to submit videotaped science lessons for assessment, to provide acceptable evidence of leadership in science teaching, and, possibly, to attain a stated minimum score on the Graduate Record Examination. ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS GOOD NEWS - AND BAI) NEWS In recent years, so-called alternative certification programs have re- ceived a good deal of publicity. The purposes of such programs are to supply needed numbers of teachers more quickly and to attract promising candidates who might otherwise not enter the profession (Huling-Austin, 1988~. Among the states offering such programs are New Jersey, Virginia, California, and Pennsylvania. What is different about the alternative programs? While the ap- proaches vary, it is possible to identify several characteristics usually found. Most commonly, traditional student-teaching is replaced by entry into a paid, full-time teaching position. The assumption is that carefully selected, mature, confident candidates will be able to move directly into the class- room. That assumption identifies some of the other characteristics one typically finds in alternative programs: · More stringent selection processes are employed, to identify com- petent, mature, and confident candidates. · Participating schools are required to provide on-site support, usu- ally through a mentor teacher.

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS 225 · A cooperating university provides needed professional education coursework on a reasonable schedule for candidates. · A university supervisor monitors the candidate's progress through periodic visits and consultation. In what ways do the candidates for alternative programs differ from those in traditional programs? They tend to be older and to hold a college degree already. Many are migrating to teaching careers from previous careers in business, industry, or the military. Because many candidates are older than their "traditional,' counterparts, they tend to bring greater maturity to their entry into the classroom. Often, candidates indicate that they cannot afford to engage in traditional (and unpaid) student-teaching experiences, since they have families to support. As indicated, alternative programs usually involve accelerated entry into classroom teaching, a feature particularly attractive to many students. Less desirable is the fact that accelerated entry into teaching usually comes at the expense of preparation for the realities of classroom teaching. Candi- dates often are called on to complete their preparation in methods as they teach. And, while most programs promise on-site support from mentor teachers, such support is often limited. Since accelerated programs often are available in large urban school districts, candidates frequently end up in "hard-to-staff" schools. Hard- to staff positions receive that designation for a variety of reasons, but it often means serving a particularly difficult population of students. Not unexpectedly, such placements are challenging to even the best and most experienced teachers. The difficulties for one just entering teaching can be overwhelming. For some, alternative certification programs work very well. They provide early entry into paying positions and tenure tracks. For some candidates those who are especially mature and self-assured alternative certification can provide a wonderful match. Sadly, however, there is evidence that the turnover rate for those entering accelerated programs may be excessively high. Almost half of all teachers entering the profession will leave during the first 7 years. Citing inadequate preparation and on-site support, coupled with placement in difficult teaching situations, Huling-Austin (1988) speculates that the dropout rate for "accelerated" teachers is even higher. The programs that work well are often those providing the strongest assistance and support to candidates. Huling-Austin makes an excellent case for the types of support needed to increase the retention of teachers. She cites the need for careful placement, appropriate on-site support, and careful attention to meeting the specific needs of the individuals involved in the program as key factors determining success. My own experiences with

226 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY the accelerated program at California State University, Long Beach are in tune with the points made by Huling-Austin. With early placement of carefully selected candidates in settings that nurture their development as science teachers, alternative certification can work very well. 1b the extent that these conditions are not met, we risk wasting promising candidates who might under better circumstances develop into excellent science teachers. QUO VADIS? ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ANI) RESOLVED Despite the progress that is being made toward ensuring that every high-school science student will be taught by a fully qualified teacher, a number of serious problems remain. Among them are the following: · In the absence of a firm research base, the impossibility of knowing whether anyone's standards, if met, will ensure high-quality science teaching. · Sometimes weak state standards for science-teaching credentials. The misassignment of teachers and the use of "emergency" cre dentials. · The use of standardized tests as the sole determinant of subject- matter competence. · The continuing need to re-evaluate and rewrite standards. · The limitations of standards to effect real change. A serious problem with all standards is the lack of data that might tell us whether one set of standards is significantly better than any other. The analogy of medical and legal credentialing practices is often raised, but Floden (1988) points out that even there, very little evidence is available to support the credentialing of these professions. Be that as it may, most of us hold an intrinsic belief that there exists some minimum of preparation below which satisfactory performance as a science teacher is highly unlikely. In the case of biology teaching, is that 20 semester-hours of preparation? 30? 40? Whatever that number is, what sort of distribution of study in biology should exist? Is it imperative that every biology teacher assimilate the equivalent of two courses in botany? What about embryology? Evolution? We simply do not now have research-based answers to these questions, even though statements of standards exist and those standards are being used to make important decisions about who shall and who shall not teach biology. Obviously, then, there exists a great need for data on which a rational set of standards can be based. Whether one is philosophically a so-called lumper or a splitter with regard to the preparation and certification of teachers, all professional scientists and science educators should take an active interest in what is happening in their own states. Are the standards adequate? Do they fall

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS 227 significantly short? While most of us would agree that the typical high- school biology teacher does not need to have a Ph.D., we would also tend to agree that there is some minimum amount of education in the life sciences that ought to have been attained. If your state's standards are significantly less demanding than those of the NABT or NSTA, you and your colleagues ought to see what might be done about that situation. Increasingly, states are turning to standardized testing as a major tool to determine who does and who does not get a teaching credential. Some have greater faith in the efficacy of standardized testing than do others, including me. Should the results of a standardized test determine who may and who may not teach high-school biology? Is course- and credit-counting more reliable than test results? Most of us have our own beliefs with regard to all this, but we have alarmingly few data to support our views, whatever they may be. As to misassignment of teachers, school districts can and frequently do assign teachers to classes that they are both uncertified and unqualified to teach. This practice tends to occur most frequently during times of teacher shortages. Weiss reported in 1987 that some 11% of high-school biology classes are being taught by teachers who did not major in biology. In a reanalysis of the data, however, she found that 805 of the nation's biology teachers have actually completed at least eight courses in their discipline (Weiss, 1988a). Despite this seemingly good news, however, only about one-third of biology teachers meet all the NSTA standards referred to earlier. It appears from Weiss's more recent study (1988b) that misassignment in science most typically places science teachers in science classes for which they are but partially prepared. Weiss estimates that some 655 of high-school science classes are taught by teachers with very little science background. She notes that misassignment is less likely to occur in biology than in chemistry or physics classrooms. It is easy to criticize teacher misassignment, but problems at the local level can make avoiding the practice very difficult at times. If you were the principal of a high school, and you were short one biology teacher, would you or wouldn't you assign another teacher, unfortunately not certified, who was available? Your rationale might be that that teacher did actually take a few biology courses as an undergraduate. And isn't a course called "Exercise Physiology" really a life-science course, even though it was not offered through the biology department? And if we don't have this person teach one or more science courses, we might even have to let her or him go! The forces that operate in favor of misassignment are indeed strong and difficult to counter. At the very least, however, we ought to insist that school districts that misassign a teacher into a biology classroom be obliged to help that teacher to become properly qualified for that assignment. One of the difficulties we encounter once standards have been written

228 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY is that there is a tendency to think of them as being "finished." There are some very understandable reasons for this. It is not much fun to sit down and write standards. These tasks are usually done by a committee, and that implies a need to achieve consensus. Even worse, they are usually created under the auspices of an organization, and achieving consensus under these conditions is even more difficult. And so, once standards have been written, have passed the scrutiny of an organization's members, and have finally appeared in print, few persons have the courage or determination to continue the developmental process. And yet standards, once written, must continue to be evaluated and, as necessary, rewritten. ~ the extent that this does not happen, we increase the odds that the standards will fail in their intended purpose. It is always vital to keep in mind the things that standards cannot do. Establishment of standards today does not mean that the problems addressed by those standards will go away tomorrow. When change in organizations and bureaucracies does occur, it typically can occur but slowly. Standards are tools that can be put to good use as we work together to improve the quality of high-school biology teachers, but it takes much work, over a great deal of time, for those changes to occur. REFERENCES AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1971. Guidelines and Standards for the Education of Secondary School Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Miscellaneous Publication 71-9. Washington, D.C.: AAAS. CUEBS (Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences). 1965. Preparing the Modern Biology Teacher. Position Paper of the Panel on Preparation of Biology Teachers. Reprinted in BioScience 15:769-772. CUEBS (Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences). 1969. The Pre-service Preparation of Secondary School Biology Teachem. A. Lee, Ed. CUEBS Publication 25. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University. Floden, E. 1988. Analogy and credentialing, pp. 13-19. In Action in Teacher Education, Spring-Summer 1979. In Action in Teacher Education: Tenth-Year Anniversary Issue, Commemorative Edition. Reston, Va.: Association of Teacher Educators. Huling-Austin, L. 1988. Factors to consider in alternative certification programs: What can be learned from teacher induction research?, pp. 169-176. In Action in Teacher Education: Tenth-Year Anniversary Issue, Commemorative Edition. Reston, Va.: Association of Teacher Educators. National Association of Biology Teachers. Undated. NABT Biology Teaching Standards. Arlington, Va.: National Association of Biology Teachem. National Science Teachers Association. 1987. Standards for the Preparation and Certification of Secondary School Teachers of Science. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association. Padilla, M. J. 1988. Using the NSTA Teacher Education Standards: Preparing NCATE Folios Applying for NSTA Certification. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 1969. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers.

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS 229 Weiss, I. R. 198&. Course Background Preparation of Science Teachers. Paper prepared for the AAAS Forum on School Science, 1987. Data quoted in The Present Opportunity in Education (p. 6), a position paper of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education, September 1988. Weiss, I. R. 1988b. Course background preparation of science teachem in the United States: Some policy implications, pp. 97-118. In ~ B. Champagne, Ed. Science Teaching: Making the System Work. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

230 Standards For Preparation of the Biology Teacher (candidates completing a biology teacher certificate program must in ~lc~d`. this curricular goals listed~below and be able to demonstrate sl,~if'` skills and knowledge. 1 Knc~wledgt~ of the fundamentals of Biology. · Demonstrate a knowledge of basic concepts and of laboratory t`~chnicJues concerned with the study of: systematize; cl``v`,lol~ neat, evolution, genetics; ethical implications of technology (rat combinant DNA, organ transplant, in vitro fertilization), '`` ologY; behavior; cell biology; bio-energetics, homeostatic n,~`chanisms; and all the life processes in animals, plants and microbes 2. Knowledge of the interrelationships of living organisms with their biotic and physical environments, including field experiences and thin study of ecology or environmental bi°l°dV · L)emonstrate in writing a knowledge of the basic concepts of ecological population factors; ecosystems; energy flow; nutrient ~ Ycles and the sociobiological aspects of ecology · Demonstrate an ability to conduct and direct meaningful field trills and investigations concerned with obtaining information on <:oncepts of ecological populations; ecosystems; energy flow; nutrient cycles and the sociobiological aspects of ecology. 3 Knowledge of chemistry, mathematics, and physical science or physics, and computer science- · Demonstrate: a basic knowledge of the concepts and a command of the laboratory techniques equivalent to those included in general college chemistry; the concepts equivalent to those in- cluded in lower division, undergraduate physical science course, or a college physics I course; a command, or working ability of mathematics equivalent to that in college algebra; and an ability to utilize computers in teaching and in record storage. 4. A methods course for biology teaching designed to organize, plan, present, and evaluate the learning of biology subject matter con- tent. HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY APPENDIX A NABT Biology Teaching Standards PROGRAM SCOPE: A biology education program should prepare teachers for both the junior high/middle school and senior high school levels of instruction and should be designed to educate college and university students to teach any secondary biology or other life science courses. The suggested program should include a minimum of 24 semester hours in the biological sciences, including course work to ensure the proficiencies stated below; plus a minimum of 24 semester hours in chemistry and introductory physics; and proficiency in mathematics through college algebra. A minimum of 12 semester hours in science should be upper division hours. All secondary biology teachers should be prepared to teach in at least one other science area. In addition, biology teachers must continue to improve their skills and knowledge in the ever changing world of life sciences. S`,l`'ct, purchase, operated used in teaching biology Use current biology curricular materials in the ~ lassroQr,, and '~aintai','~quipment dad subs L)emonstrat`. an ability to develop curricula that motivate students as well as consider individual differences [)~'nonstrate `~, lability try construe t and acin~ir~ist~`r student evaluation instruments for subject matter ~onc``l~ts, l~ri',~il~l'~s, and techniques Demonstrate a com'~itm',nt find dedication to duration elf early adolescents and continual self-in~l~rov~'n~ent Foster enthusiasm about biology in students of diverse back- grounds - L)e'~`onstrdte. interest in professional growth by .~ct~v`.ly l~ltr- ti`:il~ating its local, regional, or 'rational bi`,l`,gY <,sso~ iati`~, l~ro- grams. Standards for Professional Growth of the Biology Teacher Teachers who wish to maintain their skills and knowledge gained in unrl`~rgraduate work must include the following goals in their profession 1 Maintain standard of excellence and broaden knowledge of life sc fences. · Demonstrate professionalism by participating ire a biological science teacher education program which will lead to `~ higher degree · Participate in biology inservice programs and/or surer in- stitutes to learn new teaching methods and laboratory tech',i- ques · Participate in local, regional, and national biology conferences to keep abreast of new trends and discoveries. Demonstrate a functional knowledge of the science inquiry pro- cesses and be able to distinguish between assumptions, hypotheses, theories, data, controls, independent and dependent variables, and generalizations. Define and describe a philosophy of present-daY science teaching. Demonstrate a command of the mechanics of everyday teaching, including laboratory and field experiences. · Demonstrate commitment to learning by reading professional journals 2. Establish close relationship with scientific community, businesses, and industries. · Demonstrate interest in scientific community by participating in local and national biology organizations . Develop communication with local businesses, nonprofit organizations and private institutions. · Demonstrate leadership by taking active role in maintaining scientific integrity in the community and by sharing biology teaching ideas with colleagues

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS APPENDIX B Standards for the Preparation And Certification of Secondly School Teachers of Science I. Science Content Preparation The program for preparing second- a~y school teachers of science should require specialization in one of the sciences (in preparation equivalent to the bachelor's level) as well as sup- porting course work in other areas of science. Dine pro&ems should require a minimum of 50 semester hours of course work in one or more of the sciences and additional course work in related content areas such as mathematics statistics, and comput- er applications to science teaching. The programs and courses should be designed to develop a breadth of scientiflc lite~r that will provide Me preselvicc tether with · positive attitudes toward science and an accompapylng motivation to be a lifelong reamer in science; · competency in using the processes of science common to all scientific disciplines, including the skills of Investigating scientific phenomena interpreting the findings, and com- municating results; · competency In a broad range of :h laboratory and field skills; · h~of~en~dficcor~eptsarxi principles and their applications in technology and society · an understanding of the r~ffon- ship between science, technology, society and human values; and · dectston-making end valu~ana~ skills for use In solving science rdated problems In society. O`remll, the programs should be de- stgned for the unique needs of se- conda~y school science teachem. 231 II. Science Teaching PreparaHon Science Teaching Methods and Curricula lithe program should prepare pres- ervice teacher'; in the methods and curricula of science Method coumes should model desired teaching be- havior in the secondary classroom. These experiences should develop a wide variety of skills, Including those which help presetvice science teachers to · teach science pn~cesses, attitudes, and content to learners with a wide range of abilities and socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds; · become knowledgeable of a broad range of secondary school science curricula. instructional strategies and materials, as well as how to select those best suited for a given teaching and learning situation: · become proficient in constructing and using a broad variety of science evaluation tools and strategies; and · become knowledgeable about the leaning process, how people learn science, and how related research endings can be applied for more effec- tive science teaching. The program should include at least one separate course (~5 semester hours), and preferably more in science teaching methods and curricula Com~tt^n same and Classroom Management Techniques The program should prepare pres ervice teachers to speak and write effectively and demonstrate effective NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 1742 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W~ WASHINGTON D.C. 20009

232 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY use of elbowroom management tech- niques when teaching laboratory activities, leading As discussions, conducting field trips, and carrying out dally Groom instruction in science P=para~don i" Rematch Skmn The program should prepare pre- service teachers to conduct or apply, wKielstar~ and interpret science edu- cation Arch and to communicate information about such Ash to others (ego students, teachers and parents k Satotsr In Relend Tcachlug The program should require expe- riences that develop the ability to identify, establish, and maintain the highest level of safety In classrooms, stockrooms, laboratories. and other areas used for science instruction. Other Educational Experiences Courses in other educational areas including general curricula and methods, educational psychology, foundations and the special needs of exceptional students, should be a part of the program in order to comple- ment the science education comply nents described above m Classroom E~penence FIeld experience Field experiences in secondary school science eln~crooms are essen- ffal for the thorough preparation of preservice teachers of science. The field experience of preservice teachers should begin early with an emphasis on observation. participation, and tutoring, and should progress from small to large group instruction. Ihe Student Taming E~cricnce The student teaching e~cpenence should be full-time for a minimum of 10 weelcs The pram should require student teaching at more than one educational level (such as~unior high school experience combined with that of worldng in the high school) or in more than one area of science (i.e., biology and chemistry) if certification is sought in more than one area The program should give prospective teachers experience with a full range of in-school activities and respon- sibilities. Day-to-day supervision of the stu- dent teacher should be done by an experienced, master science teacheris). University supervision should be pro- vided by a person having significant secondary school science teaching experience Responsibility for working with student teachers should be given only to highly quallfled. committed individuals, and close and continuing cooperation between school and uni- versity is imperative. IV. Supportive Preparation in Mathem-`des, stamps, ~d Computer Use The prog~n should require com- petencies in · mathematics as specified for each discipline; · scientific and educational use and interpretation of statistics; and · computer applications to science teaching, emphasizing computer tools such as: (a) computation, (b) inter- facing with lab experiences and equipment, (c) processing informa- tion, (d) testing and creating models, and (e) describing processes, proce- dures, and algorithms. NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. 1742 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009

STANDARDS FOR BIOLOGY TEACHERS Standards for Each Secondary Discipline Biology I. Me program in biology should re quire broad study and emergences with living organisms. These studies should include use of experimental methods of Inquiry in the laboratory and field and applications of biology to technology and society. {L Me program would require a mini- mum of 32 semester hours of study in biology to include at least the equiva- lent of thme semester hours In each of the following: zoology, botany. ph:,siol- ogy, gerKtics' ecology, mlerobiology. cell biology/biochemistry, and evolution; interrelationships among these areas should be emphasized throughout. III. The program should require a minimum of 16 semester hours of study in chemistry, physics, and earth science emphasizing their relation- ships to biology. IV. The program should require the study of mathematics, at lent to the pre calculus level. V. The program of study for preser- vice biology teachers should provide opportunities for studying the tnter- action of biology and technology and the ethical and human Implications of such developments as genetic screening and engineering. cdoning, and human organ t~nsplantaffor~ VI. bile program should require ex- periences in desigrdng developers and evaluating laboratory and field in- structional activities, and in using special slcills and techniques with equipment, facilities. and specimens that support and enhance curricula and Instruction In biology. NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOeCLATION, 1742 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009 233

26 Current Issues in Biology Education for Teachers EXYIE C. RYDER Biology education currently faces several critical issues, particularly in the area of teacher preparation. Like other programs in education, biology education will most probably be affected by recent calls for reform in the teaching profession by the Holmes Group, the Carnegie Disk Force on Caching as a Profession, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Science Board, and others. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss two current major issues in biology education for teachers. The first is the biology-content component within the undergraduate teacher-education curriculum, and the second is the Holmes Group report and its potential effects on the recruitment of teachers from minority groups. THE BIOLOGY-CONTENT COMPONENT OF THE TEACHER-EDUCATION CURRICULUM The preparation of quality biology teachers must include a solid foun- dation in biology content. Prescribed courses of study should provide breadth of the basic concepts and principles on which the discipline of biology is built, but must also concentrate on the depth of knowledge Exyie C. Ryder is professor of biological sciences at Southern University in Louisiana. Her pri- ma~y interest is in biological science education. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michi- gan. 234

ISSUES IN BIOLOGY EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS 235 available in the subject-matter field. For many years, the academic subject- matter component of teacher-education programs has come under scrutiny; however, recent outcries for improving the quality of teaching and the teaching profession have raised new concerns over this issue. These reports call for teachers to demonstrate competence in academic subjects and for institutions of higher learning to "make the education of teachers more intellectually solid" (Holmes Group, 1986~. It has been stated by Cadenhead that teaching as an intellectual aceiv- ity should include knowledge, linking content and methodology, and sen- tences (Cadenhead, 1985~. This statement suggests that a quality teacher- education program in biology should include courses in biology content, scientific methods, general education, and liberal studies. There is no con- sensus on the proportion of the curriculum or the number of credit hours that should account for each of these four areas. Consequently, there are wide variations in courses required in different curricula. A primary reason for the inconsistencies is the fact that the teacher-education curricula are usually developed around each state's unique certification requirements. Since most states' requirements for certification lean heavily toward the professional-education component, rather than the subject-matter compo- nent, the result is that teacher-education programs tend to be long on professional education, including pedagogy, and short on subject-matter content. This condition has prompted critics of the teaching profession and those involved in the current reform movement to recommend that prospec- tive teachers earn a baccalaureate degree in their subject-matter area before being allowed to enter a professional teacher-education program (Holmes Group, 1986; Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986~. It is important that a teacher thoroughly understand a subject in order to teach it effectively. This idea is aptly expressed by Murray (1986), who states: The teacher's role is to find and present the most powerful and generative ideas of a discipline in a way that preserves its integrity and leads to student understanding. This implies that a teacher comprehends the structure of the discipline, its key points and their origins, and the criteria by which one distinguishes the important from the trivial. This kind of understanding, slighted in traditional programs, is of fundamental importance to the teacher and must have a central place in the teacher's education. He further states that "the traditional major often does not confer a level of understanding that empowers the teacher (or even the typical college graduate) to understand" (Murray, 1986~. Breadth and Depth of Content Within the biology departments of colleges and universities, a prospec- tive teacher of biology should acquire a thorough, up-to-date grasp of the

236 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY subject matter. This can be achieved by following a curriculum that provides state-of-the-art content, state-of-the-art laboratory skills, and state-of-the- art biological research techniques that are acquired only in a research laboratory setting. The combined experiences offered the students in the lecture, the laboratory, and the research environment will enable preservice teachers to gain confidence in their ability to "do and perform the subject matter, and not just talk about it" (Murray, 1986~. Before any attempts to reform the subject-matter component of the biology teacher-education program are made, several questions regarding the nature of such changes must be asked. For example: Is it really necessary, as some advocates feel, to earn a bachelor's degree in biology before being admitted to a biology teaching program? Who should decide what content and experiences within the biology department will be most meaningful for students majoring in biology education? Should there be increased breadth or increased depth in the coverage of the content? Who should determine whether a teacher has acquired adequate mastery of the discipline? Ideally, the answers to these questions should be derived from the collaborative efforts of the faculty in education and the faculty in the biological sciences, for the responsibility for preparing high-school biology teachers should be shared by the two groups. For too long, cooperation and collaboration between the subject-matter faculty and the education faculty, with respect to teacher training, have been minimal. What is needed now is a biology faculty that is sensitive to the problems and needs of high-school biology teachers, particularly since the high-school biology teachers prepare the next generation of college biology majors. The biology department faculty can contribute its subject-matter exper- tise, its knowledge of the structure of the discipline, and its knowledge and understanding of contemporary topics of research and investigation. The biology faculty can also assist in the identification of a core of courses that will provide the necessary breadth and depth of content in the biological sciences and can recommend a sequence of advanced-level courses that will expand prospective teachers' knowledge base and simultaneously offer enough depth in biology to give the students a high degree of proficiency in biology content and in laboratory skills and techniques. The biology faculty should encourage biology-education majors to develop research skills as an integral part of their training. This could easily be accomplished if the faculty engaged in research projects would use education majors as research assistants in the same way that they use noneducation science majors. In summary, the biology departments must be more responsive to the needs of teacher-education majors, and they must develop greater respect for the role that high-school biology teachers play in preparing students to pursue careers in biology, medicine, allied health, and related fields.

ISSUES IN BIOLOGY EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS The "Content" Issue and the Curriculum 237 Since the present 4-year teacher-preparation curriculum is already crowded, how can the content component of the program be strengthened? Proponents of curriculum reforms in the teaching profession favor moving teacher education to postbaccalaureate status and leaving the 4-year under- graduate program for content specialization, general education, and liberal studies. On the other hand, there are those who recommend reorganizing the present 4-year baccalaureate teacher-education program, with a view to eliminating the redundancy in professional-education courses, thereby leaving space in the curriculum to augment the subject-matter area. Alan ~m, a proponent of redesigning the 4-year curriculum, argues against establishing a postbaccalaureate professional school of education, for he feels that doing so "tends to artificially separate the academic and the professional aspects of teaching" (~m, 1986~. In the revised NCATE-approved curriculum guidelines for biology teacher-education programs, prepared by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), it is recommended that high-school biology teachers complete a minimum of 32 semester-hours in biology, with the neces- sary support courses in other sciences, mathematics, and computer science (NSTA, 1987~. The guidelines specify the biology courses that should be included and point out that the approved curriculum gives the biology teacher-education major the content "preparation equivalent to the bach- elor's level" (NSTA, 1987~. The revised NCATE-approved guidelines for high-school teachers are as follows: II. I. The program in biology should require broad study and experi ences with living organisms. These studies should include use of experimental methods of inquiry in the laboratory and field and applications of biology to technology and society. The program would require a minimum of 32 semester hours of study in biology to include at least the equivalent of three semester hours in each of the following: zoology, botany, physi ology, genetics, ecology, microbiology, cell biology/biochemistry, and evolution; interrelationships among these areas should be emphasized throughout. III. The program should require a minimum of 16 semester hours of study in chemistry, physics, and earth science emphasizing their relationships to biology. IV. The program should require the study of mathematics, at least to the precalculus level. The program of study should provide opportunities for studying the interaction of biology and technology and the ethical and

238 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY human implications of such developments as genetic screening and engineering, cloning, and human organ transplantation. VI. The program should require experiences in designing, develop- ing, and evaluating laboratory and field instructional activities, and in using special skills and techniques that support and en- hance curricula and instruction in biology. In concluding the discussion of the first major issue, I strongly suggest that each institution that prepares biology teachers consider establishing a biology teacher-education council consisting of faculty from precessional education, science education, and the biological sciences. The council would be responsible for periodically reviewing the biology teacher-education curriculum to ensure a solid foundation in biology content. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE HOLMES GROUP REPORT ON THE RECRUITMENT OF TEACHERS FROM MINORITY GROUPS Overview of the Holmes Group Proposals The Holmes Group report, Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986), is one of several recent reports that propose major reforms in teaching and in teacher preparation. Among the recommendations in the report for improving the teaching profession are the following: · 1b abolish the undergraduate-degree program in education and institute a 5- or 6-year program of study as a prerequisite for certification, licensing, and entry into the profession. · 1b establish a three-tier system within the profession that would identify and recognize differences in levels of knowledge, skills, and com- mitment among teachers. fession. 1b create standards of certification to monitor entry into the pro There is widespread feeling among minority groups, and nonminority groups as well, that the reform agenda, if implemented, would decrease the number of minority-group members entering teaching and teacher- education programs. Implications of the Recommendations The recommendations of the Holmes Group come at a time when the teaching profession is becoming less and less attractive. For years, women and minority-group members staffed the nation's classrooms when opportunities for higher-paying, more attractive positions were unavailable to them. Since many of the barriers to other occupations have been

ISSUES IN BIOLOGY EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS 239 removed, minority-group members and women are opting for careers other than teaching. The minority-group teaching force in the United States is dwindling- ironically, at a time when the number of minority-group students in the schools is increasing significantly. By the year 1990, members of minority groups could constitute 30% of the American school population. According to Shirley Malcom, of the Office of Opportunity in Science of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, blacks "are projected to account for only 5 percent of the teaching force by 1990" (Jacobson, 1986~. Hispanics and members of other minority groups are expected to account for approximately 3% of the teaching force (Haberman, 1988~. It is estimated that the nation will need more than 200,000 new teachers by the year 2000. Many of these teachers will be needed in the areas of science and mathematics, where the shortage is predicted to be very acute. The Holmes Group report recommends extending the period of study for persons entering teacher-education programs. The impact of this rec- ommendation on minority-group teacher recruitment would be devastating, for lengthening the period of schooling would add substantially to the cost of a college- education and could result in severe financial setbacks for most minority-group students and their families. Clearly, the implementation of a 5- or 6-year curriculum model would be a deterrent to many minority- group students who might be contemplating teaching, and their reluctance to commit themselves to a career that offers little financial reward is un- derstandable. In short, the prolonged study period would severely hamper the recruitment of minority-group members into the teaching profession. On the other hand, the extended programs could be made attractive to minority groups if assistance in the form of stipends, grants, fellowships, scholarships, and loan-forgiveness programs were made available. With teacher shortages at a crucial level and expected to rise contin- uously, it could be argued that the diminishing pool of qualified teachers could be offset if steps were taken to identify a larger body of prospective teachers and provide the necessary academic and financial support for their education and training. ~ the contrary, it is felt that reforms outlined by the Holmes Group and other commissions will create a very narrow pool of prospective teachers who can afford to elevate themselves (through additional education and training) to the top of the profession. The Holmes Group's recommendation regarding the establishment of a three-tier system within the teaching profession is also expected to have a negative impact on minority-group teacher recruitment. Minority groups view with skepticism the career ladder with its built-in "hurdles" for advancement. In particular, the vagueness of the phrasing in the report is a matter of concern to many. For example, Beverly Gordon, in referring to the Holmes Group recommendation '`to recognize differences in teachers'

240 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY knowledge, skills, and commitment in their education, certification, and work," points out that minority groups must, in fact, be sure that the so-called differences do not "translate into deficiencies" (Gordon, 1988~. Another critic of the career-development proposal calls attention to the fact that "race is a critical variable in any career development scheme" (Oliver, 1988) and notes that the increased emphasis on examination, the extended study period required, and the higher standards for certification all tend to discourage minority-group members from entering the teaching profession. The Holmes Group also proposes the creation of standards of entry into the teaching profession. While higher standards are desirable and necessary, there is apprehension among minority groups with respect to the standards that are to be created and how they will be applied. Over the last few years, the nation has witnessed the effects of competence testing on minority groups. The result has been the elimination of large numbers of members of those groups from teaching and from entering the teaching profession. An alarming example of the impact of extensive testing is that which has occurred in Florida and 18 other states where testing is apparently the primary reason for the reduction in the minority-group teaching force since the early 1980s (Smith, 1988~. It is estimated that if the Holmes Group proposal to create standards of entry into the teaching profession is adopted and implemented on a national level, 50-85% of minority-group members will be eliminated from teaching. These-eliminations will occur through testing, assessment of on-thejob performance, and other forms of evaluations, if the evaluation instruments are developed and validated using the same procedures that have been used previously and if minority groups are not involved in the test development and validation processes (Smith, 1988~. Clearly, this trend must be reversed, as ways are sought to attract and retain minority-group teachers. Minority-Group Teacher Recruitment: The Need and Some Proposed Solutions The most important reason why minority-group teachers must be re- cruited is that they are needed in the classrooms as role models for minority-group students. As cited previously, minority-group enrollment in the schools is rapidly increasing, while the supply of minority-group teachers is steadily declining. This situation has resulted in fewer role models for minority-group students, who now account for more than 50% of the enrollment in most of the largest school districts in the country and who are expected to account for more than 38% of the school population in

ISSUES IN BIOLOGY EDUG4TION FOR TEACHERS 241 the United States by the year 2000. The presence of minority-group role models is important, because they provide a psychological support system in the schools for minority-group youth and because they are important in the development of those students' self-esteem. Minority-group teachers are needed in the schools for yet another reason: they contribute to the diversity of the teaching profession. Diversity is a factor that is valued in America's "melting pot," because it allows people of various backgrounds and cultures to interact and learn to appreciate and respect each other and their differences. ~ offset the potential effects of the Holmes Group recommendations on the recruitment of minority-group teachers, I propose several solutions: · Provide incentives to attract minority-group students into the teach- ing profession. Monetary incentives such as scholarships, stipends, assis- tantships, grants, fellowships, and loan-forgiveness programs would be most desirable. · Identify a pool of prospective, talented, minority-group teaching candidates and involve them in an academic intervention program that will enable them to enhance their academic skills and improve their test-taking skills. · Involve more minority-group institutions in the planning for the reforms in teacher education. · Involve minority groups in the construction and validation of teacher-evaluation instruments. · Raise the salaries of teachers. The need for minority-group science teachers is as important as the need for minority-group teachers in general, for minority-group science teachers serve as scientist role models for minority-group students. There- fore, efforts must be made to recruit minority-group members into science teaching. The recruitment of minority-group members into science teaching must begin with attracting youth to the sciences and then attract them into science teaching. This should be initiated as early as middle school and junior high school, when minority-group youngsters should be encouraged and challenged to enroll in science and mathematics courses beyond those which are required for everyone. An early start will enable the students to develop interest in the sciences and at the same time obtain the prerequisites necessary for success in higher-level science courses. I strongly suggest that the Holmes Group report and its potential effects on minority-group teachers in general and minority-group science teachers in particular be critically examined. .

242 HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY REFERENCES Cadenhead, K 1985. Is substantive change in teacher education possible? J. Teach. Educ. 36~4~:17-21. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. 1986. A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. The Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. New York: Carnegie Corp. Gordon, B. 1988. Implicit assumptions of the Holmes and Carnegie reports: A view from an African-American perspective. J. Neg. Educ. 57:141-158. Haberman, M. 1988. Proposals for recruiting minority teachers: Promising practices and attractive detours. J. Teach. Educ. 39~4~:38-41. Holmes Group. 1986. Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, Mich.: Holmes Group, Inc. Jacobson, R. 1986. Carnegie school-reform goals hailed: Achieving them called tall order. Chron. High. Educ. 32:1-23. Murray, F. B. 1986. Teacher education: Words of caution about popular reforms. Change 18:16-25. NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). 1987. NCATE-Approved Curriculum Guidelines for Biology Teacher Education Programs. Washington, D.C: NSTA. Oliver, B. 1988. Structuring the teaching force: Gill minority teachers suffer? J. Neg. Educ. 57:159-165. Smith, G. P. 1988. Tomorrow's white teachers: A response to the Holmes Group. J. Neg. Educ. 57:178-194. Tom, A. 1986. The Case for Maintaining Teacher Education at the Undergraduate Level. Paper prepared for the Coalition of Teacher Education Programs. St. Louis, Mo.: Washington University.

Next: Part VI: Accomplishing Curricular Changes - Institutional Barriers »
High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $100.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Biology is where many of science's most exciting and relevant advances are taking place. Yet, many students leave school without having learned basic biology principles, and few are excited enough to continue in the sciences. Why is biology education failing? How can reform be accomplished? This book presents information and expert views from curriculum developers, teachers, and others, offering suggestions about major issues in biology education: what should we teach in biology and how should it be taught? How can we measure results? How should teachers be educated and certified? What obstacles are blocking reform?

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!