A Program to Prepare ElementarySchool Science Specialists

Kenneth D. George and Ryda RoseUniversity of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education,

Philadelphia, Pa. 19104

In the summer of 1967, a three-year National Science FoundationSpecial Program in Elementary School Science was initiated at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, in coop-eration with the School District of the City of Philadelphia. Theinstitute was an outgrowth of the increasing interest in the impor-tance of science in the elementary school curriculum, the apparentreluctance of elementary school teachers to handle science materialsbecause of limited backgrounds and experience, and a desire on thepart of the school district and the University of Pennsylvania tostrengthen the elementary school program by helping to raise thequality of science instruction in the city^s schools. The major aim ofthe program was to prepare science specialists from typical classroomteachers, who would then provide the necessary science leadership toinspire other teachers with similar backgrounds.

In accordance with these motivations and this aim, the followingobjectives were outlined for the program of the institute: (1) thestressing of basic facts, principles, theories, quantitative relationships,and the conceptual themes of science; (2) the developing of a realisticconception of the actual work and methods of scientists; (3) the relat-ing of what is learned in (1) and (2) to the teaching of elementaryschool science; (4) the performing of experiments necessary to under-stand the basic conceptual schemes of science at a level meaningfulto participants of the institute; (5) the designing and manipulatingof classroom demonstrations and experiments which would effec-tively develop science principles in the elementary school classroom;(6) the acquainting of the participants with the new science programsat the elementary school level; and (7) the stimulating and coordinat-ing of school-wide efforts to improve elementary school science.Through these objectives it was hoped that the competence and confi-dence of the individual participant would be elevated. It was alsohoped that the participant in this program would be a source of in-spiration and help to colleagues within his own school, and withinthe school district at large, thereby contributing significantly to theoverall objectives of improving the science curriculum in the Phila-delphia public elementary schools.The institute was conducted in four phases. Phase I was an inten-

sive six-week session during the summer of 1967. This was followedby Phase II, which consisted of visits by the university staff to partic-

197

198 School Science and Mathematics

ipants’ classrooms and ten Saturday morning sessions during theschool year. The summer session was valuable due to the greater par-ticipation on the part of the participants, due to the absence of pro-fessional obligations. The Saturday morning sessions during theschool year were used to (1) embellish learnings of the summer ses-sions; (2) share in the problems and successes of teaching science inindividual school situations; and (3) evaluate the participants in theprogram and the different aspects of the institute.

In the summer of 1967, twelve participants were selected on thebasis of possession of a Bachelor’s Degree or higher, of at least threeyears experience in the Philadelphia schools, and upon receipt of anapplication for admission to the program on which the applicant ex-pressed his subjective reasons for interest in the institute, his assess-ment of his own capabilities for assuming a significant role in theelementary school science program in the Philadelphia School Dis-trict, his long-term goals in education, and his future plans concern-ing a career in the Philadelphia school district. The applicant alsowas asked to submit a letter of recommendation from his principalregarding the former’s teaching ability and leadership potentialities,the results of the Miller’s Analogies Test, and all official transcriptsof undergraduate and graduate course work.Upon receipt and consideration of the above, the twelve partici-

pants were selected: Five women and seven men. All were activeelementary school teachers except for one, who was engaged in ajunior high school program. One of the teachers was involved in workwith retarded children and another with disciplinary problems(Table 1).In the first summer session three conceptual schemes [1] were de-

veloped: (1) There is an interchange of materials and energy betweenliving things; (2) Under ordinary conditions, matter can be changed,but not destroyed or created; and, (3) Under ordinary conditions,energy can be changed, but not created or destroyed. Under the firstconceptual scheme, the discussion and laboratory sessions centeredaround the germination of seeds, the behavior of mealworms, and theculture of bacteria. Considerations involving atomic theory, solids,liquids, and gases, and physical and chemical changes illustrated thesecond conceptual scheme. The study of the various types of energyincluded in the study of light and sound, simple machines, magnets,and static and current electricity clarified the third conceptualscheme.As part of the Phase I summer session, twenty-four fifth and sixth

grade children were selected from six Philadelphia schools. The chil-dren volunteered to come to the University to study "Small Things,"a unit developed by the Elementary Science Study. The children,

Preparing Elementary Science Specialists 199

fourteen boys and ten girls, had intelligence scores [2] ranging from80 to 132 and converted STEP science scores [3] from 215 to 283. Forone hour each day, the children inquired into small living things.They handled microscopes, slides, and microscopic materials. The

TABLE 1. THE ORIGINAL TWELVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE NSF SPECIALPROGRAM FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE

Partic-ipant

#̂2

^#̂5f6

P

^^#10

??11

#12Graduate Work

Sex

FemaleMale

Male

Female

MaleFemale

FemaleMale

FemaleMaleMale

Male

EducationalBackground ’.

B.S., M.Ed.B.S., M.S.

B.S.�l yr. GraduateSchool

B.F.A.�Interim CollegeCertificate

B.S.B.A.�2 yrs. Graduate

SchoolB.S.B.S., M.Ed.

B.A.B.S.B.S.�4 yrs. GraduateWork

B.S.,M.A.�Uyrs.

TeachingExperienc<

8 yrs.4 yrs.

2 yrs.

2 yrs.

lyr.3 yrs.

13 yrs.15 yrs.

lyr.2 yrs.

20 yrs.

19 yrs.

Present Assignment

4th grade4-12th grades sci-

ence teaching(only disciplin-ary cases)

6th grade

2nd grade

5th grade6th grade

2nd grade7-9th grade sci-

ence teachingonly

6th grade6th gradeRetarded�

Educable5th grade

twelve teachers observed inquiry in action, while mingling among thechildren actively involving themselves in the children’s investiga-tions.A science education seminar was held one afternoon a week. Dur-

ing this seminar, key people in the educational administration of thePhiladelphia schools and representatives of the various national pro-grams in elementary school science [4] were invited to discuss thevarious aspects of the institution^ science program. The discussioninvolved such topics as teacher-principal-district superintendentcooperation, the acquisition of materials and supplies, sharing tech-niques with colleagues, the development of behavioral objectives,and the objectives of the new programs. On Thursday evenings, aftera social hour and dinner, the elementary school science educationparticipants assembled with the participants in the National ScienceFoundation Science Institutes on the campus for a lecture on a sciencetopic of current interest. Specialists in the fields of modern skin re-

200 School Science and Mathematics

search, information theory, gravitation and the expansion of theuniverse, and ecology of Pennsylvania were guest lecturers.

After the completion of Phase I, Phase II of the program beganwith the periodic visitation of the participants by members of thescience education staff of the University. The staff members observedthe participating teacher and counselled him as to any problems re-garding the teaching of science. During these visits, materials fromthe University were lent to the participant so that he could conductdemonstrations and the children could participate in experiments.These visitations were also to serve as a means of evaluating theprevious summer program in order to improve the subsequent sum-mer program. Three areas were to figure prominently in this aspect ofthe evaluation procedure: (1) the participants ability to presentscience concepts to children; (2) the relationship of the participantto the other members of the faculty in his district; and (3) the par-ticipant’s improvement in the teaching of science from the beginningof the school year to the end of the school year.

In interviewing the participants, the overall reaction is a positiveone. They are convinced that children can inquire into the problemsof science and that the learning of the skills of data collecting anddata processing is the most important objective in the elementaryschool science program. The teachers have been overwhelmed bypupil and parental response. In general, they have found a coopera-tive attitude among their colleagues and the administrative staff.The teachers have gained confidence because of their increased con-ceptual background and because the university and the central schooladministration stand behind them.The Saturday morning three-hour sessions of Phase II proved to be

quite utilitarian for the participants. Each was able to bring his indi-vidual concerns to the total group for discussion and constructivecriticism. Interesting individual lesson plans were shared and com-ments and evaluations of the visits by the university specialists werepresented for the group^s analysis. Conceptual schemes were reviewedand new experiments and concepts added to the knowledge gained onthe previous summer session. Various items contiguous to scienceeducation were discussed, such as: science test construction, studentevaluations, the research of Jean Piaget, and the new science cur-ricula. The group was most anxious to share in each others experi-ences and to offer practical aid in problematic situations which arisein their working relationships with other teachers and school ad-ministrators as well as in their teaching of science concepts to chil-dren.Phase III began with the selection of fifteen new participants to

join nine of the original group (Table 2). Evaluation of the initial

Preparing Elementary Science Specialists 201

TABLE 2. THE SECOND GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE NSFSPECIAL PROGRAM TOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE

Partic-ipant

#1i?2

i?3j?4

#5

f6#7??8^9

^10#11^12f\3fH

#15

Sex

MaleFemale

Male

Female

Male

FemaleFemaleFemaleMale

MaleMaleMaleFemaleFemale

Male

EducationalBackground I

B.A., Graduate SchoolB.S., Sec. Ed. M.S.,

Elem. Ed. 2 NSFCourses

B.S., Graduate Work(53 hrs)

B.S., (El. Ed.)+13hours

B.S. (Ed.) and GraduateWork

B.A., M.A.B.S.-Ed., M.S.B.S. (Ed.)B.A. and GraduateWork

B.S.-(Business Adm.)B.S., M.Ed.B.A. and Graduate WorkB.S. and GraduateB.S. and 4 yrs. GraduateWork

B.S.(Ed.)andlyr.Graduate Work

Teachingexperience

H yrs.17 yrs.

Penna. and Af-

9 yrs.

6 yrs.

8 yrs.

6} yrs.10 years3 yrs.4 yrs.

lyr.2 yrs.3 yrs.

24 years15 yrs.

4 yrs.

PresentAssignment

6th gradeLiason-Univ. of

filiated SchoolsAdministration

District Coordi-nator

4th grade

6th grade

2nd gradeScience Specialist6th grade7th grade

4th grade3rd gradeScience SpecialistScience Specialist7th grade

5th grade

twelve participants showed that three of these teachers did not im-prove sufficiently in their ability to teach science to children. Thescience education staff of the University of Pennsylvania felt thatthese three people would, therefore, not be strong leaders of elemen-tary school science in the Philadelphia public schools. Consequently,the three were dropped from the program and a group of twenty-fourteachers convened for the 1968 summer session. Nine of the twenty-four were second year participants and fifteen were new participants.As a unit, twenty-four teachers studied three conceptual schemes

[5] during the six-week summer program. These included: (1) theorganism is a product of its heredity and environment; (2) the uni-verse and its component bodies are constantly changing; and, (3)living things have changed over the years. Within the first category,the teachers studied the life cycle of crickets and frogs and consid-ered reproduction, genetics, growth, nutrition, behavior, adjustment,and adaptation to changes in environment. In investigating the uni-verse they probed into the sizes and distances of astronomical objectsthrough the construction of models, the universe in motion, gravita-tion, the galaxies, stars, the planets, the forces of erosion, weathering,

202 School Science and Mathematics

rocks, minerals, and the earth’s surface. In the third category therewas field work at the Morris Arboretum, the Philadelphia Zoo, anda school playground in order to study the similarities and differencesfound in living things. As a part of Phase III, the original nine partic-ipants were given the opportunity to teach the afternoon scienceeducation sessions. This procedure was in keeping with the program’sstated aim of providing science leadership and did encourage morepositive teacher interaction.As in the previous summer, twenty-four fifth and sixth grade chil-

dren were brought to the University for one-hour a day to study theSRA-Inquiry Development Programs new Earth Science curriculum.The children were chosen by the identical procedures employed forthe 1967 group; that is, performance in the Cattell Culture FairIntelligence Test, Scale 2; and in the STEP-Science Test, Form 3.Intelligence Quotients of this new group ranged from 94-130. Theparticipating teachers observed the activities of the children andwere encouraged to interact with them. In some instances, the con-tent areas of the teachers’ studies and that of the children overlapped,which added extra interest to the group’s activity.At the present time Phase IV of the program is in active process.

The Saturday morning sessions have included a review of video taperecordings of the participants teaching their classes, a discussion ofthe effect of Piaget on teaching programs, and examples of the var-ious types of in-service possibilities. Future sessions will include adiscussion of inquiry lessons, the evaluation of students and partici-pants, and frogs and tadpoles.

Periodic visitations of the new participants by members of thescience education department are also an important evaluation pro-cedure of this phase of the program.As part of Phase IV, some of the original participants have initiated

in-service programs in elementary school science for their teachercolleagues. Each has employed a different format for their sessions.One workshop is an integral part of the bimonthly faculty meetings,while the others are on a volunteer basis.The evaluation procedure of this program includes video taping the

individual teacher performances. These tapes are replayed before theindividuals concerned and before the group as a whole, with the pur-pose of further assessing the participants’ potential of science leader-ship in working with children and with teachers. The tapes haveillustrated the strong and weak aspects of teaching behaviors as wellas clarified some of the problems of teaching science through inquiry.Phase IV will end with the new participants attending a summer

session for six weeks in 1969, which will exactly parallel the contentand approach of the summer of 1967 program.

Preparing Elementary Science Specialists 203

Present evaluations, in their preliminary aspects, suggest that therehas been significant progress in the teaching of science in the class-rooms of the participants and in the overall science program in theparticipants’ school. Throughout the present school year, however,there will be more sophisticated evaluations which will show what isintuitively indicated; namely, that science in the elementary schoolsof Philadelphia has, in fact, begun to improve.

REFERENCES[1] BRANDWEIN, PAUL F. "Elements in a Strategy for Teaching Science in the

Elementary School," The Teaching of Science, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, 1964. pp. 133-136.

[2] Cattell Cultwe Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 2. The Bobbs-MerriIl Company,Inc., 1720 East 38th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

[3] Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Form 3. Cooperative Test Division,Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. J.

[4] Science�A Process Approach; Science Curriculum Improvement Study,Elementary Science Study.

[5] BRANDWEIN, op. cit.

OFF-SHORE OILThe real lesson to be learned from the Santa Barbara oil leak is not that

offshore drilling should be more closely regulated but that we have no workableprocedures by which the public can make decisions involving non-economicfactors, a University of Wisconsin geology professor contended.Leaks from the Union Oil Company’s station off Santa Barbara, Calif., fouled

beaches for months and killed large numbers of wildlife, resulting in a greatoutcry from conservationists. But, said Steinhart, all the birds didn’t die and theactual number, estimated at about a thousand, was small in comparison to thesize of the bird population. Along the Rhine River in Europe this summer thefish and birds killed numbered in the hundreds of thousands.Another cause for public outrage was the fact that the Santa Barbara drilling

had taken place over a fault in the ocean floor. But, Steinhart pointed out, theearth under every oil field, almost without exception, is full of faults. This islargely how oil fields are formed.The truth, he said, is that the oil leak, though unpleasant and costly, was not

a hazard to life or limb or to the wildlife. The real public issue was that thepeople of Santa Barbara didn’t want offshore drilling to take place at all, forreasons that could not stand up in court.How, for instance, do you measure the harm to a man who builds his dream

home on a hill overlooking the ocean�and then someone comes along andbuilds an oil rig in the water.Yet with present legal procedures the public could not raise the real issue and

so "had to go to court with a technical issue which they will undoubtedly lose,with resulting maximum dissatisfaction all around," he stated.He foresees the same sort of situation developing in Wisconsin. With three

nuclear power plants under construction on Lake Michigan there is generalpublic apprehension and lack of knowledge as to tlie possibilities for thermalpollution and even for radiation leaks.What is needed, he maintains, is a forum for public discussion and resolution

of such conflicts.