As a newly appointed joint hire in the College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Natural Sciences and the College of Education, Department of Middle/Secondary Education, my charge was to bridge the communication gap between these two departments and colleges. To meet this challenge, I developed four collaborative projects between the Natural Sciences faculty and Middle/Secondary Education science students that will become formally established in future university courses.

Admittedly, we do not live in feudal times, but subject matter specialists (who typically reside in the College of Arts and Sciences) and teacher educators (who typically are housed in the College of Education) have been known to feud. Each college has historically different ontological, epistemological, and methodological commitments; hence, different paradigms are deeply steeped in traditions that contrast one another (Zeidler 2002).

The need for more and better-prepared teachers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology over the next decade is amply documented (NSF 1996; NRC 2000). Because this issue is important, both nationally and in Maine (MMSA 1999), a consortium known as the Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC) was formed and funded by the NSF. This mathematics and science organization focuses on the following three goals:

• increase the number of qualified grade 6–12 mathematics and science teachers graduating from the University of Maine System (UMS) teacher education programs,
• identify and support teachers of mathematics and science who are in their first three years of teaching; and
• improve the quality of UMS teacher education programs with regard to preparation in mathematics and sciences by providing them with opportunities to collaborate with scientists and mathematicians.

As one of the grant coordinators at my university, a public baccalaureate institution with a population of 2000 undergraduates, I was hired into a tenure-track position with a joint appointment in the College of Arts and Sciences (Department of Natural Sciences) and the College of Education (Department of Middle/Secondary Education). In addition to teaching courses in both education and natural sciences, my responsibilities include reducing the cultural gap between the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education by coordinating and improving interaction among faculty and administrators from both colleges. What I have learned over the past three years in my attempts to bridge this gap can serve others struggling to make their courses more integrated in nature.

Bridging the Gap

To open communication, I discussed the existing secondary science education program with my colleagues in the natural sciences and education. I started by identifying the gaps and then helped preservice teachers see the connection between their content area courses and their education courses. After many informal discussions with faculty during my first term in Fall 2001, I implemented a four-stage pilot project to address the following faculty concerns:

• preservice teachers needed a better foundation in their content area,
• preservice teachers needed to see the connection between the content in their science courses and the pedagogical techniques they were learning in education courses, and
• preservice teachers needed to apply what they were learning in both disciplines.

The pilot project lasted four semesters (Spring 2002–Fall 2003) and consisted of four stages. Overall, the pilot study involved 18 undergraduate middle/secondary science preservice teachers, one science educator, and eight natural science professors (three biologists, three chemists, and two physicists).

Stage 1

Scientists and educators learning together. The pilot project began during the Spring 2002 semester and involved two physical science preservice teachers, one chemistry professor, and 62 first-year students who were enrolled in my environmental science course for nonscience majors. The small sample size of preservice teachers was because of my teaching load—I only teach my science methods course in the fall, not in the spring. These preservice teachers both volunteered to participate in this project. In the first stage, they:

• gained classroom experience by creating and teaching a lab to nonscience majors (in this case, extracting nitrogen from soils to compare the amount of nitrogen produced using organic fertilizer versus inorganic fertilizer), and
• collaborated with scientists in their specific disciplines (in this case, a chemistry professor).

The chemistry professor, the preservice teachers, and I discussed the audience for the course (i.e., nonscience majors), their backgrounds in science, and the connection this lab needed to have to the class material. The preservice teachers were entirely responsible for creating, modifying, and teaching the lab to 62 students.

As experimentation began, lab procedures needed to be modified. Originally the lab was written to involve disturbed versus undisturbed soils, but because the preservice teachers had difficulties defining these terms, they modified the lab to analyze organically fertilized soils versus commercially fertilized soils; they then developed a written, step-by-step procedure that accommodated diverse learning styles. For example, to help students visualize chemical concepts, they illustrated what happens as students added various chemicals to the soil to extract nitrogen. To ensure scientific validity of the experiment, the preservice teachers designed, conducted, and ran several practice experiments to refine their methods and identify trends in the data. In this way, they gained experience in planning a challenging chemistry experiment, including preparing solutions, gathering equipment, and understanding the chemistry background needed to engage nonscience majors in the experiment.

The preservice teachers created a lab that incorporated students’ prior knowledge and integrated the lab with class material. The chemistry professor addressed the importance of accuracy in measurement, calculation, and overall chemical processes; at the same time, I emphasized teaching chemistry principles to nonscience majors by incorporating various teaching strategies that the preservice teachers learned in their science methods course.

Both faculty members gained an appreciation of the differences in their academic backgrounds (i.e., chemistry versus science education) and how their academic training influenced their approach to science teaching. For example, the chemist seemed to work from the “inside,” first addressing the details of the lab and then making sure the chemical formulas and calculations were correct and provided tangible results. I worked from the “outside,” identifying how the lab connected to the concepts I was teaching before focusing on the specifics of the lab. In comparing our notes, the chemistry professor and I wondered whether other scientists and educators approached the teaching of science the same way (i.e., the scientist “from the inside” and the science educator “from the outside”).

Stage 2

Incorporating inquiry. We conducted the second stage of the pilot during the Fall 2002 semester in my science methods course. This stage involved seven preservice teachers and three professors—one biologist, one chemist, and one physicist. After the first stage, I realized that creating a standard lab was only the beginning. Preservice teachers needed to learn how to set up inquiry-based learning environments. Therefore, I expanded preservice teacher training by providing an inquiry lab model using the Colorado Science Inquiry Toolkit (Kellogg and Block-Gandy 2002) to modify traditional laboratory experiments (e.g., the nitrogen lab mentioned earlier).

Preservice teachers learned to recognize the difference between an inquiry and a traditional lab and had opportunities to make labs more inquiry-oriented. I also wanted preservice teachers to have field experience using inquiry-based labs right after their sophomore practicum when they had already completed their 100- and 200-level science content courses and before their student teaching.

The preservice teachers were paired with a professor within their content area focus. The biology and chemistry professors taught foundation courses for nonscience majors, and the physics professor taught an introductory course for science majors. Preservice teachers met weekly throughout the semester with their mentor/professor to discuss progress on the modified lab. I set time aside in my methods course to allow students to discuss their field experiences with each other. Once the preservice teachers had completed their labs, they were assigned an introductory lab section to present their inquiry lab.

The results of the project stimulated formal discussions within the Natural Sciences Department regarding how inquiry is viewed within the various disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics. One biology professor commented on the higher level of student engagement and learning as students became more self-guided. “I just stood back and let them take over. I was amazed at the questions they were posing.”

Most faculty members rarely have time to visit one another’s classes. Through my students’ activities, however, science faculty could observe several strategies I was using within my introductory science courses. Faculty involved in the project began discussing various methods and strategies with each other and me. The preservice teachers had an opportunity to practice what they were learning within their science methods course, and I felt enthused and challenged. Yet I knew there was a strong need for students to have an additional field experience.

Stage 3

Preservice teachers as teaching assistants. We conducted the third stage of the pilot in the Spring 2003 term with two preservice teachers and a chemistry professor who was not involved with the other stages. Both preservice teachers had already taken my methods course and were planning to do their student teaching during the Fall 2003 term. They became teaching assistants in a Foundations of Chemistry laboratory and were offered a financial aid package through our NSF grant. This lab coincided with the Foundations of Chemistry course, which was taught by another Natural Sciences instructor and was intended for first-year nonscience majors.

Each preservice teacher taught one section of the chemistry lab, and I attended each lab session to provide additional help. The preservice teachers benefited from this project in two ways. First, each adapted three traditional labs to become more inquiry focused by incorporating a lab project for students to complete. And second, because the majority of students in these classes were freshmen and struggled with science, the preservice teachers experienced what teaching science might be like when they began their public school student teaching.

The preservice teachers said they benefited from the additional content they were exposed to through working closely with a scientist, interacting extensively with students throughout the entire semester, and taking additional responsibility for students’ performance. As the chemistry instructor involved with this project stated, “Both students were talented individuals who brought perspective to the chemistry lab that comes from their own undergraduate experience. They both were able to anticipate student needs that regular faculty might not normally consider, and students in the lab also benefited by having an additional resource to draw on. This is also a win for the professor who can now spend twice as much time assisting individual students. Another side benefit, the lab is now a safer workplace.”

Student evaluations (n = 36; 40 students were originally enrolled) for the preservice teachers focused on lab planning, content, expectations, subject area interest, and activating students’ prior knowledge (Table 1). Overall, student evaluations were very positive, indicating that having teaching assistants in the lab with the instructor was beneficial for all concerned.

Stage 4

Science methods course modification. I conducted the fourth stage of the pilot during my Fall 2003 methods course. Participants included seven preservice teachers, two biologists, one chemist, and two physicists. Neither the biologists nor the physicists had participated in the previous three stages. Before registering for the course, each student who needed to take science methods was interviewed by me. I asked them to choose an introductory science lab in their discipline and to set time aside in their schedules to attend each lab session and help natural sciences professors prepare for the lab. The inquiry lab component mentioned in the previous stages was also continued.

One form of assessment included students’ keeping journals about their experiences as teaching assistants within these labs. They focused on lab preparation, safety, content delivery, and assessment of student learning. At the end of the semester, students videotaped their reflections of the entire experience, describing what they learned from the field experience in general and what additional content and pedagogical knowledge they gained. A second assessment of the experience included a questionnaire that students completed in conjunction with their student evaluations. The student population consisted of seven preservice middle/secondary science majors. Four were biologists (two females and two males), and three were physicists (one female and two males).

Table 2 illustrates that preservice teachers felt they gained additional content knowledge; however, several of them were still undecided about explaining various scientific concepts. Two professors involved in this experience indicated that some of the preservice teachers were uncomfortable with the content material that was being covered in their labs. I knew this might be the case, because students in my methods course vary in their abilities to understand content knowledge and in pedagogical skills. Written comments from preservice teachers suggested that I provide natural sciences professors with better guidelines on how to use preservice teachers more effectively within their labs. It should be noted that, at our university, natural sciences professors teach all of their own labs and some of the instructors were reluctant to release control of their lab to a preservice teacher.

Based on these results, next fall I will interview natural sciences faculty and preservice teachers at the same time, providing clear guidelines and expectations for all of the participants. In addition, I’ll schedule interviews one semester in advance to allow the natural sciences faculty member time to include the preservice teachers’ participation in the lab. Students who need additional mentoring in content and pedagogical skill will receive extra support from me throughout the semester.

Communication Bridge

There are many opportunities for science professors to collaborate with colleagues in different departments. At the onset of this pilot project, only a few professors were involved; then, as time passed and conversations sprang up, I found collegial relationships strengthening and interest spreading. Soon, other science instructors and additional students became involved, and all parties are interested in continuing this work next year.

This experience has not only helped me revise my methods course by adding an additional field component for my preservice teachers but also it has helped me strengthen my science courses. Introductory science students who may find it difficult to ask me a question now have someone else to whom they can go. Preservice teachers provide additional study and tutoring sessions. In addition, having an extra person in the lab and in the field has been extremely valuable for safety reasons.

I encourage science professors at other institutions to contact science educators and ask if students in their methods class would be interested in an additional field experience. Faculty in the Natural Sciences Department have even asked my students to create a science clinic for introductory students. The science clinic would enable preservice teachers to serve as tutors for both first-year science and nonscience majors.

As a member of both the Natural Sciences and Middle/Secondary Education departments, I have been able to modify my courses by establishing direct lines of communication between the two colleges. My science colleagues frequently ask me why my science education students think the way they do, generating rich discussions that focus on what is best for our students and how to engage all students in learning science.

One of the most important aspects of the pilot project has been establishing the willingness of the Natural Sciences and Middle/Secondary Education faculties to communicate across their two colleges. Their willingness to share ideas has led to a breakthrough that has lessened the cultural barriers that have traditionally existed between these two disciplines.

Grace Eason is an assistant professor of science and science education at the University of Maine at Farmington, 173 High Street, Preble Hall, Farmington, ME 04938; e-mail: geason@maine.edu.

Acknowledgments

The Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC), funded by a National Science Foundation grant NSF-DUE 9987444, provided the financial and collegial writing support through WRITE ON!, an empowering writing retreat, to help make this article possible.

References

Kellogg, N., and L. Block-Gandy. 2002. An Introduction to the Science Inquiry Toolkit: WestEd Leadership Academy. Workshop conducted at the Maine Science Teachers Annual Conference, Gardiner, Maine.
Maine Math and Science Alliance. (MMSA) 1999. Age and Retirement Rate of Science and Mathematics Teachers in Maine. Auguste, Maine: Maine Department of Education.
National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Available online at www.nap.edu/books/0309070333/html.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (HER publication number nsf96139). Arlington, Va.: Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate of Education and Human Resources.
Zeidler, D.L. 2002. Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education 13(1):27–42.