A Collaborative Approach

The Rocky Mountain Teacher Education Collaborative (RMTEC) was funded by the National Science Foundation to find ways to help preservice teachers (students in teacher-preparation programs) develop pedagogical content knowledge. Colorado State University, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) teamed with three two-year colleges (Aims, Denver, and Front Range Community Colleges) to improve the education of preservice science and mathematics teachers.

The collaborative agreed to address two major issues: the integration of content with pedagogy and the development and use of model teaching practices in college courses. The lecture methods common in higher education differ significantly from methods found to be effective in high schools. To help students connect desired teaching methods with chemistry teaching, several chemistry courses were redesigned to model effective inquiry-based, constructivist (4) teaching strategies. For example, structured cooperative group activities were developed for use in lecture halls. Education courses were redesigned to incorporate these same practices and to incorporate fieldwork. Each year exemplary high school teachers were selected as Teachers-in-Residence to assist in the course revisions and to further their own development as expert teachers. The teachers participated in course delivery, developed teaching materials, and observed and critiqued classes. One of the courses revised was felt to be key to the development of pedagogical content knowledge: a course in the teaching of chemistry.

Seminar in the Teaching of Chemistry

At UNC, in addition to a science methods course, Chemical Education 495, "Seminar in the Teaching of Chemistry" (CHED 495), is required for all chemistry and physical science undergraduates with a teaching emphasis. We wanted to ensure that students who took this course would be prepared to set up a chemistry classroom and laboratory, and implement constructivist and inquiry-based activities.

Class topics were determined by using a survey of practicing science teachers conducted in 1994. The teachers indicated that they felt their preparation to be deficient in the areas of safety and the use of technology, and that one of the most difficult aspects of beginning to teach was setting up a laboratory program. Thus, we decided to focus on safety, laboratory work and management, and the use of technology, as well as on teaching strategies for active learning.

Most school activities differ from those that form the work day of a scientist or teacher (5). Because we wanted to help students bridge the gap between functioning as a student and as a teacher, we developed an environment in which the majority of the activities are "authentic activities" that a teacher might perform (such as presenting a demonstration), rather than "school activities" (such as writing an essay about demonstrations). Every assignment involves students in developing skills that they will later use in their own teaching. For example, students develop and present concept-teaching activities and chemical demonstrations. They also design an inquiry-based laboratory activity and build a conductivity meter. Problems discussed in class are not only simple ones that illustrate one idea or principle, but are often complex ones that students must solve by pulling together ideas from several sources.

Students participate singly or in pairs in the teaching of each class. For example, the class not only performed an inquiry lab, but two students introduced them to it and led the analysis of its learning potential. Students visit exemplary local chemistry classrooms to find out how expert teachers manage laboratories and storerooms and how they integrate student activities into classes. Students are introduced to the World Wide Web and to other instructional software. They must then complete an assignment using this technology.

Students are taught with methods we want them to use themselves. Time is spent in activities, discussion, and hands-on investigations, rather than in lectures. Students construct and evaluate their own models of teaching as they learn by example and experience to conduct chemistry classes that involve students in active learning.

Assessment

Students develop the rubrics themselves for all performance-based assessments. Like the course activities, assessments are authentic; there are no quizzes or examinations. Performance assessments involve the presentation of a demonstration, a hands-on activity, and an interactive concept-teaching lesson, which are evaluated by both peers and instructor. Written assignments are shared among students to use later in their own teaching.

Reactions

After some initial concerns about adjusting to a non-lecture course, students participate enthusiastically and on course evaluation forms they report that they found the course helped them to make connections between chemistry and other fields such as education. They found the field work useful, the learning environment supportive, and the feedback from other students and instructors valuable. Most importantly, students reported that they felt much better prepared to teach chemistry.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program (DUE-9354033). The ideas that led to the work arose from many conversations among members of the RMTEC Chemistry Team, were influenced in very helpful ways by colleagues Henry Heikkinen, University of Northern Colorado, and K. David Pinkerton, Smoky Hill High School, Denver, and were refined with the help of our perceptive students.

Literature Cited

1. Cochran, K.; Jones, L. "The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers"; in International Handbook of Science Education; Tobin, K.; Fraser, B., Eds.; Kluwer: The Netherlands, in press.

2. Shulman, L. S. Educ. Researcher 1986, 15; 4-14.

3. Shulman, L. S. Harvard Educ. Rev. 1987, 57; 1-22.

4. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873-877.

5. Brown, J. S.; Collings, A.; Duguid, P. Educ. Researcher 1989, 18, 32-41.