Archives for posts with tag: Science Education

UConn researchers, backed by a $3 million federal grant, are beginning an ambitious project aimed at understanding why some urban schools are excelling in science education, research that could ultimately change the way the subject is taught around the country.

The five-year School Organization and Science Achievement Project, funded by the National Science Foundation, will examine science education not only in the classroom, but in terms of the entire educational environment.

John Settlage, an associate professor of curriculum and instruction at the Neag School of Education and the principal investigator, says the idea for the project came from studying elementary science test scores. What was surprising was that certain urban schools in Connecticut were outperforming not only their city peers, but also many suburban schools.

That prompted researchers to look beyond what happens in classrooms to learn how successful science performance arises from systems of relationships. This includes examining all stakeholders, from the school principal to the lead science teacher, and even parents and volunteers who partner with the school.

“We’re taking an ecological view of science education,” Settlage says. “How we teach science is obviously important, but we should not ignore the bigger picture. The interactions among people throughout the school, including with the surrounding community, all contribute to children’s science learning.”

Settlage and his fellow researchers know many outstanding teachers and administrators. But they say that beyond personal traits, institutional factors are also influential in shaping a school’s science program. Once those factors for success can be identified, the information can benefit other schools seeking to improve.

“This is a solvable problem,” he says. “The superhero teachers and administrators don’t come from other planets. They came up through the system.”

Science has moved to the forefront of the public conversation on education. President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, emphasized the need to hire thousands more science teachers over the coming decade. At the state level, the economic vitality of Connecticut requires developing scientific literacy beyond just future engineers and scientists. Otherwise, if uneven success in schools continues, it will translate into unequal access to college and career options for some students. Settlage’s study promises to shed light on improving the quality of all children’s science experiences.

A multidisciplinary project, UConn researchers joining Settlage are educational statistics specialist Betsy McCoach; educational leadership experts Morgaen Donaldson and Anysia Mayer; and post-doctoral fellow Regina Suriel. The researchers are currently working to firm up arrangements with school districts, including Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport. In total, the School Organization and Science Achievement Project will involve 150 schools in Connecticut and Florida, where researchers at the University of Central Florida are collaborating with the UConn team.

Ultimately, the goal is to craft a set of recommendations about school leadership and organization practices that can be used by educators around the country, to help provide the kinds of school environment where science teachers and science students can thrive. These efforts will also inform UConn’s science teacher and school administrator preparation programs.

“You can be the best science teacher in the world,” Settlage says, “but if you’re not in the right environment and there is not solid leadership, then those problems will show on the science test.”

Advertisements

To find out, we need more education research. But not just any kind of education research. Education research is dominated by research on the new: new tests, new technologies, new disorders and new fads. But above all, it’s about new markets.

We don’t need to find more things to spend money on; we need to figure out what’s being done now that is not working. That’s why we have to start directing more money toward evaluating standard practices—all the tests and treatments that policymakers are already pushing.

There are many places to start. Value-added assessments are increasingly finding microscopic abnormalities in the teacher lounge called M.U.T.S., or Maybe Underperforming Teachers. Currently we treat them as if they were invasive cancers, with public shaming, firing and school closures. Some elected officials think this is necessary, others don’t. The question is relevant to more than 3.5 million teachers each year. Don’t you think we should know the answer?

Or how about this one: How should we screen for underperforming students? The usual approach, standardized testing, is simple and cheap. But more and more students and parents are opting out of public schools—over five million students attend private schools alone. And 1.5 million are home-schooled. Untold thousands go to virtual schools, where they learn at home in front of computers. These options are neither simple nor cheap. Which is better? We don’t know.

Let me be clear, answering questions like these is not easy. The Department of Education is in fact preparing to take on the question of whether underperforming youngsters can be made to perform like their peers. The trial, which will involve up to 50 million students, will last a decade and surely cost billions of dollars.

Research like this takes more than grant money. For starters, it takes a research infrastructure that monitors what standard practice is—data on what’s actually happening across the country. Because of PISA, we have a clear view for students aged 15, but it’s a lot cloudier for those under or over 15. Basic questions like how common illiteracy is and what testing is done to determine rates of illiteracy are unanswerable.

It also takes a research culture that promotes a healthy skepticism toward standard pedagogical practice. That requires teacher-researchers who know what standard practice is, have the imagination to question it and the skills to study it. These teachers need training that’s not yet part of any education school curriculum; they need mentoring by senior researchers; and they need some assurance that investigating accepted approaches can be a viable option, instead of career suicide.

We have to move quickly. The administrative demands of teaching, on one side, and the competition for school funding on the other, make it increasingly difficult for teachers to instruct students. They become isolated from standard practice, and their ability to study it diminishes. School leaders who are well positioned to study these issues are increasingly directed toward enhancing productivity—questions about how can we do this better, faster or more consistently—instead of questions about whether the practices are warranted in the first place.

Here’s a simple idea to turn this around: devote 1 percent of educational expenditures to evaluating what the other 99 percent is buying. Distribute the research dollars to match the instructional dollars. Figure out what works and what doesn’t. The Institute of Education Sciences (created as part of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002) is supposed to tackle questions of direct relevance to students and teachers and could take on this role, but its budget—less than 0.003 percent of total spending on education—is far from sufficient.

A call for more educational research might sound like pablum. Worse, coming from an educational researcher, it might sound like self-interest (cut me some slack, that’s another one of our standard practices). But I don’t need the money. The system does. Or if you prefer, we can continue to argue about who pays for what—without knowing what’s worth paying for.