Original: English

DATE:

NUMBER:

TITLE: The Education of Science and Mathematics Teachers

INTRODUCTION: The education of science and mathematics teachers comprises both their education in science and/or mathematics and their education as teachers of these disciplines. The first of these, while obviously essential to good teaching, does not necessarily provide for an easy acquisition of the second. To a considerable extent, and more than many other school subjects (3), science and mathematics are "right-answer" disciplines typically driven more by memory and tight logic than by first-hand experience and experimentation. In sharp contrast, learning to teach is an intensely personal experience driven by technique and a rhetoric of practices devoid of well-articulated rationales. This contrast between learning one's discipline and learning to teach can be acutely uncomfortable for teachers of science and mathematics. If it is not understood and resolved during teacher education, then a restricted teaching career can result. The present "Brief" will deal principally with the 'learning to teach' aspect of the education of science and mathematics teachers.

DESCRIPTION: Both teaching and teacher education are shaped profoundly by traditions of practical routines that long ago became disconnected from their original justifications. Our common sense world of everyday conversation assumes, quite erroneously, that learning from experience is an automatic, transparent, and self-evident process. Just as it is incorrect to see learning as a process that is complete as a result of "being told," so it is also incorrect and misleading to assume that learning is complete after "having an experience"--whether one is a science student doing "hands-on experiments," a beginning teacher in a practice teaching assignment, or an experienced science teacher tackling a persistent dilemma of classroom practice.

Major developments in research in mathematics and science education and in teacher education since 1980 are only gradually having an impact at the level of practice in our schools and our programs of teacher education. Central to the developments described below is the questioning of epistemological assumptions embedded in traditional educational practices at all levels of schooling.

The "Project for Enhancing Effective Learning" (PEEL), which began in 1985 in Melbourne, Australia, is an outstanding illustration of a range of similar but less well documented innovations in teaching. The project's primary aim is to "foster students' independent learning through training for enhanced metacognition" (2, p. iii; the term "metacognition" refers to an individual's knowledge about, awareness of, and control of learning). The project also aims to "change teachers' attitudes and behaviours to ones that promote such learning," "investigate processes of teacher and student change," and "identify factors that influence successful implementation of a program to improve the quality of classroom learning."

Overall, the PEEL project seeks to foster "quality learning"--an aim that appeals to virtually all teachers, but one that has traditionally eluded their grasp. One strategy involves identifying students' "poor learning tendencies" and recognizing that many passive student behaviours occur as responses to traditional teaching behaviours. The project has gone on to identify teaching strategies that foster observable "good learning behaviours" by students. Teachers and students alike found the experience of change overwhelming at times (1), yet the goal carried them along. The project's conclusions are particularly relevant to the teaching of mathematics and science: Change is possible, but it requires time, effort, collaboration, openness, support, self-criticism and a focus on the classroom.

The strategies and conclusions of the PEEL project have had their counterparts in Canada (6,7) and elsewhere. It is important to realize that the challenges to science teaching posed by the Australian teachers and researchers have direct parallels as challenges to improve the education of teachers of mathematics and science. Participation by teachers and teacher educators in genuine rethinking of practices demands considerable self-reflection and analysis. While "reflection" has long been an element of teacher preparation, Schön's (9) argument that "reflection-in-action" is a critical process in the development of professional knowledge renewed our attention to that domain of teacher development. While "reflective practice" is now a familiar term in teacher education, finding ways to foster reflective practice in teacher preparation may prove even more challenging for teacher educators than for teachers.

The development of interest in the quality of learning has occurred simultaneously with research into the process by which students learn, particularly with reference to the nature of scientific concepts. This research is often associated with the term "constructivism"--another broad term with multiple interpretations (10). A constructivist perspective holds that learning is a personal and active process of making meaning, not the simple transmission of words from person to person. There is growing recognition within science education that students of science do not relate laboratory experiences directly or easily to the science concepts that the experiences are meant to illustrate or stimulate thought about (4). When Edwards and Mercer (5) studied children learning first-hand about the behaviour of pendula, they concluded that experience often leads to ritual knowledge rather than the desired understanding of principles. Similarly, experiences of teaching--in a practicum or throughout one's career--are not directly or easily related to one's personal beliefs and assumptions about how students learn and why one teaches as one does. If our programs of preservice and inservice teacher education fail to challenge the everyday assumption that action follows from and is consistent with one's beliefs, then teachers will continue to develop ritualized practices. Research at Queen's University (8) is exploring this cluster of issues in the context of the preparation of physics teachers.

CONCLUSION: Changes in the preparation of science and mathematics teachers come no more easily than do changes in the teaching of science and mathematics. New perspectives such as those described above point the way to important new possibilities in an era when schools and teacher education programs are subject to growing criticisms for failing to meet society's expectations. Projects based in schools have shown more progress than those based in teacher education programs. Some teacher educators are realizing that they must apply new perspectives to personal practices before advocating them to others, and this is a promising first step.

New perspectives do not lead directly to defensible new practices, just as learning from experience is not automatic. There are essential processes of critical judgement involved in assuring society that we have improved our educative enterprises (11). All teachers begin with the values implicit in their personal experiences of school and in the disciplines they have studied. New practices must be mediated in terms of the disciplines we teach, by deliberations within relevant professional communities. These include communities of teachers within schools and universities and the community of experienced teachers who observe and guide the earliest experiences of beginning teachers. It is within these communities that new partnerships must be formed to pursue collectively the development of improved practices of teaching and teacher education in science and mathematics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Baird, J., & Mitchell, I. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian Case Study--The PEEL Project. Melbourne: Monash University Press.

2. Baird, J., & Northfield, J. (1992). Learning from the PEEL Experience. Melbourne: Monash University Press.

3. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

4. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

5. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.

6. Erickson, G.L., & MacKinnon, A.M. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becoming a science teacher. In D. A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn (pp. 15-36). New York: Teachers College Press.

7. Nadeau, R., & Desautels, J. (1984). Epistemology and the teaching of science. Toronto: University of Toronto Guidance Centre.

8. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (in press). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education.

9. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

10, Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

11. Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own living educational theories. Bornemouth, England: Hyde Publications.

____________________

The Working Group thanks Tom Russell (Queen's University) for his collaboration in preparing this "Brief".

This "Brief" is one of a series of six. The others are: Science and Mathematics Education in a New Social and Economic Context; The Participation of Girls and Young Women in Science and Mathematics Education; Measuring Success in Science and Mathematics Education; Information and Communication Technologies in Science and Mathematics Education; Partnerships to Strengthen Science and Mathematics Education. The views expressed in this "Brief" do not necessarily represent those of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, but rather reflect those of the Commission's Sub-Commission on Natural Sciences and its Working Group.