|
|
|  | Building Leadership to Sustain Educational Reform (continued) Marye Anne Fox, University of Texas at Austin Science Education Today. Fast-forward, if you will, from the heady days of US science and science education in the 60s to the mid-80s. Although the number of women and minorities then working within science was much greater than in the 60s (with its all white male mission control rooms), there are still far too few to use effectively the talents of that important segment of our population. We have not achieved the sense of free participation among these groups, despite the outstanding individual achievements of women, Hispanics, and African-Americans. Listen to President Bush as he challenged the nation to ensure that American children will be ranked number one in the world in science and mathematics by the year 2000. The very fact that this goal had to be set is in itself significant. How did we lose the apparent mastery and motivation we once had? And how can we possibly achieve this daunting objective? This spring, for the first time in many years, there was a clear indication that we may be moving in the right direction. American 4th graders were ranked among the best in the world, although their brothers and sisters in the 8th grade were far from this level. We need to understand what made the difference for our fourth graders, and why our eighth graders are not performing comparably. We need to grasp how the scientific community can provide leadership to sustain this improved performance throughout later school years and throughout these students' lives. We need to generalize this lesson in order to make science more accessible to our fellow citizens. We need to convince parents that effort, not genetics, leads to success in studying science and mathematics. How can we motivate our young people, particularly those from underrepresented groups, to work hard now in expectation of a rewarding high tech future? How can we convince minorities, who today constitute 86% of the Dallas school population and are projected to constitute 80% of the whole K-12 population of Texas by 2010, that careers in science and technology are accessible to them and that an advanced degree in science, mathematics, or engineering is one of the surest engines to vertical mobility? If the United States is to continue its world leadership in a technologically complex economy, we must find new ways of preparing all of our citizens for that world. We must work together throughout the educational network, from kindergarten not just to grade 12, but to grade 20. Colleges and Universities are the teachers of teachers, and the faculty of these institutions are the responsible guardians of a trust that enables continual educational improvement and lifetime learning for teachers and students. In accepting this responsibility, post-secondary faculties will need to develop, and embrace, the best of the emerging educational technologies. We will recognize that our current students learn completely differently than we did. We will accept the fact that our students process information non-linearly, and that their most rewarding learning experiences are likely to involve real-world experiences encountered within teams of problem solvers. We cannot responsibly complain about the knowledge and skills of our incoming students if we, as University faculty, are not willing to change and to lead in developing the structures that promote reform. educational reform needed in K-12 must be accompanied, or even better preceded by, educational reform in post-secondary teaching. But accepting this leadership role is very difficult for Colleges and
Universities, in part because of the stresses under which these
institutions are increasingly operating. Jim Duderstadt, President
Emeritus of the University of Michigan, recently published an article
that lists seven changes that have stressed higher education.1 I
believe these same differences also present themselves as obstacles
to educational reform of teaching of post-secondary science,
mathematics, and engineering. Paraphrased, they include:
Succinctly, Duderstadt would argue, post-secondary institutions now face a financial crisis, a lack of public confidence, and a vacuum of leadership. What a great time to be at a college or university! Accepting this analysis is correct, the only practical solution available to those who wish to support excellence in teaching of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, especially in the first two years, is to broaden the scope of effort and the range of financial support for innovative education. We must work within our campuses to develop a new business model based on partnerships among all segments of our communities, while actively supporting those who lead this effort. We must regard these new partners with respect, and must earn the confidence of the public, as we work with our campus leadership teams to ensure excellence in all programs that we can influence. We must not allow the structures of the last fifty years to choke the evolution of new methods of learning. What specific actions can we undertake to improve science education for all students on our own campuses? My own views reflect those of the participants in a Convocation called "From Analysis to Action," held in this building in the spring of 1995.2 That group included practicing scientists and classroom teachers, people who worried about both content and teaching methods. First, that group argued for an explicit acceptance of student-centered learning of science and mathematics for all, not just for the next generation of scientists and engineers. It must be truly inclusive of all demographic groups. They acknowledged the need for active learning experiences about nature if the non-scientist is to contribute intelligently to national technology decision-making. They noted the limitless opportunities accompanying the revolution in information technology, and the need to better understand the learning process. They recognized that improved science literacy can only be achieved through strong support and collaborations between the schools and post-secondary institutions. They promulgated the adoption of national K-12 standards for science, engineering, and mathematics education in all elementary and secondary schools, and emphasized the importance of science as a way of knowing, not just for practicing scientists, but for all Americans. They affirmed the importance of outcomes assessment, including the adoption of standards for graduation and for the workplace. They suggested that evaluation and rewards of faculty be associated with effective learning, rather than simply with popularity among students. They focused on the development of an undergraduate curriculum based on inquiry, and acknowledged the need for continual life-long learning for a generation likely to change careers several times during their working years. Recognizing that it is unreasonable to expect K-12 teachers to teach inquiry-based learning if they have never themselves experience inquiry, they called for a true and active integration of teaching and research in our nation's colleges and universities, and for much stronger linkages between traditional disciplinary studies and those conducted by our education schools. They attested to the need to provide intellectual synergy by providing courses formulated by teams working across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Not so coincidentally, these are the same themes recently described in a White House report on the use of technology in K-12 education.3 And they underlie many of the specific suggestions discussed in a practical handbook recently published by the National Research Council's Committee on Undergraduate Science Education.4 Anyone serious about implementing science education reform should own a copy of that handbook, and should seriously plot how to surreptitiously implant its ideas into the thinking of some of our more recalcitrant colleagues. Although the question of national standardized achievement testing has become increasingly partisan, the need for mastering the basics of reading, communication, and mathematics is undebatable. Whether performance standards are defined at the national, state, or local levels, they are absolutely essential. And we must maintain the interest of a large fraction of our students in science, mathematics, and technology if our nation is to have access to a sufficiently competent workforce to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving industry based on technological knowledge. As concerned individuals within the post-secondary community of scholars, we should also insist that progress toward these objectives becomes a routine part of our evaluation of our undergraduate programs. We should insist on active assessment of teaching as a core operating principle of our schools, whether K-12 or post-secondary. We should speak forcefully in our own departments about the need for curriculum reform and for interdisciplinarity, particularly in courses targeted at students who are in their first or second year of college work and who are not likely to pursue a career in science, mathematics, or engineering. I leave you with a challenge that may be, in fact, as daunting as the Sputnik launch was those forty years ago: consider making a commitment to push for one, just one, such reform within your own institution, and pledge to push on until that change is implemented by at least one of your colleagues. Over two centuries ago, Edmund Burke reminded his countrymen that "the best way for evil to triumph is for good men" – and women, I might add – "to do nothing." Please join me in convincing our fellow citizens, and our academic colleagues, of the wisdom of that admonition and of the importance of this effort. References
|
