Forging A Link

Forging A Link: An Experiment in Generating Grass-Roots School - College Partnerships

Donald Cronkite¹, Anne Atkins-Bostic², James Bader³, Donald Bockler, Alice Brewington, Bev Clendening, Terri Derting, Charles Drewes, Joseph Fail, KenBek Fairbanks, Janice Haldeman, Davin Henrikson, Betty Jean Tolbert Jones, Judy Lachvayder, Janna Rynders McClean, Rod Mitchell, Alicia Mundy, Jewel Reuter, Laura Steinberg, Andrea Stewart, Joyce Tamashiro, Laura Thompson, Gail VanGenderen, Leslie White, Kathy Winnett-Murray

1. Hope College, Holland, MI, 2. Bruns Avenue School, Charlotte, NC, 3. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH,...

In 1999, using funds from an NSF-AIRE award to Hope College, Donald Cronkite called together 20 of the best high school teachers in the country and 20 teachers of undergraduate biology to a meeting called "Forging a Link" to discuss two questions: What do we have in common? What can we do to help each other? We found that we had much in common: students who needed to learn biology, an ever widening field of knowledge, a desire to improve the numbers and quality of students wanting to enter into high school and college teaching, and a mutual respect for what each of us has to offer. We discovered that we could help each other by forming partnerships that addressed specific needs in each of our respective communities. We decided on the basis of that meeting that we should convene again in a year to discuss high school-college partnerships and, in the interim, to form partnerships where needs could be met.

We were especially influenced that first year by Donald Mitchell, Professor of Chemistry from Juniata College and a delegate to our first meeting. He told of Juniata's "Science in Motion" program, a van of lab equipment that supplies rural schools with the opportunity to do significant lab exercises they could otherwise not conduct. The program has four goals: access to resources, access to professional development opportunities, improved student performance, and the development of good curricula (Reference: "Science in Motion," pamphlet from Juniata College, Huntingdon, PA). Mitchell told us that the most important thing they did in setting up their successful program was listening to teachers. This us to spend the year listening.

We met again in 2000 with the stipulation that all participants return with a partner: K-12 teachers from the first meeting had to bring a college faculty member, and college teachers from the first year had to bring a K-12 teacher. The approximately 20 partnerships represented at the second meeting could be divided into at least 7 different categories (See box). We saw that we were beginning a grass roots effort on forming partnerships at a time when such alliances were being advocated from many quarters (Some references to calls for partnerships).

In March, 2001, we met again, this time to learn about assessing partnerships and to apply that knowledge to our own experiences. In our 2001 meeting, the Forging A Link delegates addressed another question: What can we do to help others form partnerships? We decided to apply our knowledge to writing a paper on high school - college partnerships for publication. In this paper, which you are now reading, we planned to say, "If you want to start a partnership, here is what ...."

What follows is the distillation of our experience into advice for 7 different forms of partnerships as well as general observations about generating grass-roots partnerships. As a supplement to this paper we have also prepared descriptions of our individual partnerships and published them on the Internet where more details are available.

A primary concern is the question of support, both financial and institutional. Our partnerships were created because of the needs of specific people rather than because an over-arching program mandates partnerships or a particular kind. Each partnership is unique, and many rest on new, often untested ground. The institutions that house the partnerships are often not ready to provide funding; sometimes they are even suspicious of the partnerships. In the case of partnerships that involve un-tenured faculty, some institutions discourage participation preferring that faculty member’s spend time on their “real” work,research and grant seeking.

The twin ingredients of mutual self-interest and mutual regard is what makes these partnerships successful. From the beginning, we have been committed to genuine two-way partnerships, not linkages in which, for example, a college provides gel boxes to a school without any thought to what can be learned from the K-12 teachers who are involved. We advocate respect for the professional qualifications and contributions of all of the people in a partnership.

We describe three successful partnerships between high school and post-secondary educators. The primary goal of these partnerships is to share experiences and facilities as a means of increasing recruitment and retention of students in the sciences at all levels of education. This seamless transition of students requires that faculty have a working knowledge of the educational experiences of students at all levels. However, the improved learning in the sciences is not restricted to students but also benefits the faculty members within the partnerships. With the working knowledge gained from partnerships, we strive to encourage support from both faculty and administrators toward partnership development. Results of partnerships are both tangible and intangible and often lead to obtaining grants and upgrading curricula. Increased respect and collegiality among high school and post-secondary faculty has also been demonstrated. Faculty have actively improved their teaching skills and engaged in new professional development activities. The number of partnerships has increased as a result of extramural funding and dialogue among colleagues.

The primary goal of sharing experiences and facilities is to increase recruitment and retention of students in the sciences at the high school and post-secondary level of education. To accomplish this goal we build long-term partnerships. Working as an educational team we can build upon each other's teaching activities to provide a seamless education for students; beginning with their initial introduction to science in elementary schools and continuing through their in-depth studies in post-secondary schools. Typically, high school and post-secondary faculty work independently, having little knowledge of the challenges, curriculum, and work atmosphere experienced by each. To bridge the divide, mutual respect and collegiality must be established between high school and post-secondary faculty. Accordingly, we strive to stimulate interest and support of faculty and administrators toward partnerships. At the same time we establish and continue to build long-term partnerships.

Seamless transitioning of students requires that K-16 faculty (and beyond) have a working knowledge of the educational experiences of students at all levels. To meet this goal, we work together with each other's classes. For example, a university professor and high school biology/chemistry teacher work together in undergraduate introductory courses for majors and in general and AP high school classes. As a result of our classroom interactions we gain an understanding of the pedagogy, learning environment, expectations, and challenges associated with high school and post secondary teaching. Students also benefit from interactions with faculty who have differing areas of expertise and approaches to teaching. New faculty-student interactions are not limited to the classroom, but also include research and internship experiences, attendance at research seminars, and use of university faculty as mentors. We discuss our activities and experiences with our peers to inform them of the beneficial interactions and knowledge gained through partnerships that join different academic levels.

The need for improved learning in the sciences is not restricted to students. Faculty at high schools have a need of updated training in science content and modern technology. Also, many post-secondary faculty lack knowledge of current pedagogy and alternative approaches to teaching and learning. To rectify these deficiencies, partners learn directly from each other by attending each other's courses, sharing effective teaching strategies, participating in workshops, and sharing equipment, facilities, and other resources. In effect, we serve as resources for each other in different but mutually beneficial ways.

With the working knowledge gained from our partnerships, we strive to stimulate the support of faculty and administrators toward partnership development. As with any educational endeavor, a networked system of partnerships on a local, regional, and national level will be far more productive than the efforts of isolated partners. Consequently, we communicate with others about our activities, successes, frustrations, and ideas. Integrating discussions of K-16 education into the conversations that occur at our home institutions helps us identify and recruit faculty to establish new partnerships, develop and write grant proposals, and increase the visibility of partnership activities and outcomes. In addition, on-going dialogues among partners, our colleagues, and administrators contribute to the maintenance of long-term associations.

The results of our partnerships are both tangible and intangible. A major result is increased attention to the quality of science education. At least 10 grants that focus on undergraduate science education have been submitted to the National Science Foundation by partners and associated colleagues during the past three years. Nine of the grants have been funded. Several of these grants (e.g., Course, Curriuculum, and Laboratory Improvements grants) focus specifically on revisions to introductory science curricula, thereby demonstrating a new awareness of the difficulties students have when transitioning to a post-secondary level of study. High school partners have obtained grants that support teacher training and equipment purchases that result in use of modern technology in their classrooms. We are in the process of collecting data to assess changes in recruitment and retention at our home institutions. For example, we are tracking the number of high school students that proceed to a post-secondary level of education, retention of students at undergraduate institutions, retention of students in science majors, and participation of high school students in science-related activities outside of the classroom. On a more subjective level, we do know that both our high school and undergraduate students have established comfortable working relationships with participating faculty. Students readily ask questions of faculty on a variety of issues, ranging from current topics of study to career options and the availability of research opportunities.

Increased respect and collegiality among high school and post-secondary faculty has also been demonstrated. The expertise of our partners has been sought out by other faculty. For example, university faculty that depend on traditional "chalk-and-talk" teaching have asked high school partners to model teaching that incorporates active inquiry with collaborative groups. On-going dialogue has been established through meetings attended by partners, departmental chairs, deans, and high school administrators, usually in conjunction with a funded project. Working lunches have also been implemented by partners to discuss teaching issues, strategies, and partnership plans. As a result of these interactions, partners have developed into mentors for each other and interested faculty. Administrators are looking to members of partnerships for feedback and advice regarding educational issues.

Faculty have actively improved their teaching skills and engaged in new professional development activities. High school teachers have attended undergraduate classes to develop their expertise in specific content areas and to experience a modern undergraduate classroom. Several faculty have become members of professional education societies such as the National Association of Biology Teachers and the Association of Biology Laboratory Educators. As a result of shared expertise, faculty have implemented new activities and approaches to learning in their classrooms, students have engaged in distance learning workshops (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute Holiday Lectures) and researchers have become involved in discussing their research programs with high school students. With improved access to modern technology, faculty have gained new skills and learned new techniques. Summer workshops directed by partners will be offered to help middle and high school teachers improve their understanding of science as a process of inquiry. Information about our teaching improvements and innovations is disseminated to other partners and interested faculty.

The number of partnerships has increased as a result of extramural funding and dialogue among colleagues. The new partnerships have expanded beyond biology to include faculty in middle schools and in chemistry, physics, astronomy, and mathematics departments. Individual partnerships continue to endure, with current life-times ranging from two to six years. Public awareness of our partnerships continues to grow through web sites and press releases that highlight major events and accomplishments.

Because of non-supportive attitudes between differing levels of education, our accomplishments were not achieved easily. High school faculty have a different emphasis for their career development compared with partners from universities whose emphasis is usually research, publication, and obtaining grants. Within the professional scientific community, accomplishments in the area of education often earn little respect and recognition. Efforts directed toward improved partnerships and education of students do not substitute for other professional activities. Rather, those efforts are usually over-and-above the current professional expectations for university/college faculty and often do not count towards tenure and promotion. The lack of sabbatical programs that are related to teaching rather than traditional research also hindered the professional development of post-secondary partners. Release time for high school teachers was available but concerns regarding interrupted instruction cutailed the days taken by high school partners. As a result, the time available for developing and conducting partnership activities was limited. Differences between high school and university schedules resulted in scheduling conflicts for partners.

Based on our collective experiences, effective partnerships will require support from home institutions. Financial support can be obtained from external funding agencies, but recognition of the need, benefits, and professional scholarship involved in partnerships must be present at home institutions. If support is available, we recommend that faculty initiate partnerships that have a high probability of succeeding (i.e., accessible, compatible, mutually beneficial). Partners need to be pro-active. Informing others of partnership activities and benefits is essential to sustain and expand partnership programs. Publishing new activities and accomplishments, giving presentations at professional meetings, writing grant proposals, using the media to inform the public of significant events, and including colleagues in partnership activities are important contributors to the vitality and long-term success of partnerships.

A Discussion Group for High School and College Faculty

Rod Mitchell, Vashon Island High School, Vashon, WA
Joyce Tamashiro, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA

A simple model for the promotion of collaboration between secondary and college biology teachers is to form a discussion group. One such group was founded in the Pacific Northwest. The goals of this group were 1) to create a two-way partnership between secondary and college biology teachers to exchange subject-matter content and methodologies of presentation, 2) to form a network for the exchange of information about opportunities, events, and materials related to biology teaching, and 3) to provide a source of personal support. The group consists of approximately 15 public and private school instructors of biology from 3 colleges and 5 secondary schools as well as the education coordinator from the local chapter of the Audubon Society.

A major theme of the group is the equitable exchange of ideas between faculty teaching at different levels. College teachers bring content expertise, research and teaching methodology, and a knowledge of their literature and curriculum. High schools teachers bring a different set of methodologies, different literature resources, and their own curricular vision. This allows both groups to have a better understanding of the educational progression their students experience. All members gain from the environment of support and an e-mail network has been established for broadcasting information about conferences, seminars, and resources that may be of interest to colleagues at other institutions. Two individuals founded the group and serve as coordinators; the e-mail list is maintained by one individual who also sends out meeting reminders and summaries.

While there is an obvious difference between colleges and high schools, there are also "cultural" differences among institutions at the same level, due to different structures and student bodies. Represented in the membership are faculty from both public and private high schools teaching a wide range of socioeconomic groups. The colleges represented include 2 year and 4 year institutions, both private and public. This diversity of institutional settings fosters a better understanding of institutional cultures with which individuals might not have previously been familiar.

The group meets every 4-6 weeks and, this year, the discussions have centered on the book GENOME by Matt Ridley. In a typical meeting, one or two chapters from Genome are used as a springboard for discussion, and members bring an article or idea to contribute to the meeting. Participants have contributed journal and popular press articles, teaching ideas, and class assignments. For some specialized topics, such as ABO blood group genetics and lectin biochemistry, one or two individuals have prepared short presentations.

Major successes revolve around the establishment of a growing network of educators. Especially encouraging has been the interest expressed by both high school and college faculty. A sense of isolation has been a problem for many of the members; this group has provided a needed sounding board to share and evaluate ways to best present biology to students. The only problem encountered has been finding a common time to meet. With this meeting format, everyone can and does make a contribution—there is an equal exchange of ideas and experiences from faculty teaching at all levels.

Building Linkages through Summer Workshops
James Bader, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
Donald Cronkite, Hope College, Holland, MI
Charles Drewes, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Judy Lachvayder, Parma Senior High School, Parma, OH
Jewel Reuter, Archbishop Rummel High School, New Orleans, LA

Most college/university professors, at some point in their careers, lament the preparation of students entering their institutions. Similarly, high school teachers, at some stage in their careers, may lament their own access to new ideas and technologies that would improve teaching and learning. Professional development workshops are partnerships that can provide mutual benefits for all involved, benefits that are apart from possible financial remuneration or academic credit. From the standpoint of the high school faculty, benefits include: (a) expanding content knowledge, (b) training in new technologies, and (c) accessing university resources. Furthermore, summer workshop experiences build camaraderie among teachers, leading to a broader network of colleagues with whom they professionally interact during and after the workshops. Although easy to overlook, this outcome is extremely important in terms of sustaining teachers’ enthusiasm and creativity in their classrooms, building their self-confidence, and stimulating them to pursue related educational and professional development opportunities outside their classrooms.

From the standpoint of college faculty, potential benefits of patnerships with high school teachers include: (a) satisfaction of making a difference in quality of incoming students, (b) satisfaction of working with teacher colleagues who show enthusiasm for and appreciation of new learning opportunities, and (c) opportunity to better understand the pre-college educational process and apply this understanding to their own teaching efforts. For many research faculty, these benefits may not be recognized, or benefits may be perceived as insufficient to offset the commitments required to engage in professional development workshops. Greater incentives are therefore needed to encourage involvement by more faculty in partnerships. This will require institutional recognition of the benefits of partnerships, as well as repriortization of resources and rewards.

Workshops have long been an integral component of continuing education for science teachers. Summer workshops have distinctive advantages. College and university faculties and facilities are more accessible in the summer. The high school teachers, free from classroom responsibilities, can become immersed in a program and have adequate time to prepare for the integration of new materials and teaching strategies into their science curriculum. Summer workshops may be designed to update and improve teacher's course content knowledge, to expose teachers to new pedagogical strategies, and/or to provide training in new instrumentations and technologies. The workshop theme should be based on the target audience. The size and interest of the target audience must be considered. Will there be a sufficient number of teachers to support the workshop? Will the workshop be a recurring event? Including an experienced teacher or group of teachers in the development process is an excellent mechanism for insuring the relevance of the content and gaining insight into the participant perspective.

After determining that there is a need for a workshop, it is necessary to define the goals and focus of the workshop. The instructor should have a clear idea of what the participants should take away from the workshop, and the participants should be well aware of these goals prior to the workshop. There may be an emphasis on presenting conceptual content, laboratory and field techniques, classroom activities, demonstrating new pedagogical strategies, or some combination of these. Each instructor and participant brings a different set of skills to the table, and the workshop should reflect and build on their strengths. The need to expand high school teachers' inquiry skills led to the development of a one-week summer workshop, The Toucan Project, at Hope College. College and high school faculty, who are recognized as inquiry and technology specialists, worked with teachers on new approaches to teaching and learning.

It is extremely important to consider the backgrounds of the target audience to be sure the material is presented at an appropriate level. New materials and activites must be made suitable for incorporation into the curriculum and must be consistent with existing standards. At Case Western Reserve University, teachers in the biotechnology workshop submit an application that includes information on their educational background, the courses they teach, and their reasons for attending. This is to insure that the workshop is at an appropriate level for the participants. Teachers receive continued support during the academic year when they borrow class sets of equipment and supplies from the Biotechnology Equipment Loan Center. Faculty are readily available to assist teachers in trouble-shooting as they perform the experiments in their classroom. This extended partnership has proven to be effective.

Below are descriptions of three established summer workshops that address different needs of biology teachers.

Title: Colleges providing Resources, Expertise, and Training

Authors: Dr. Charles Drewes, Dr. Betty Jean Tolbert Jones, Andrea L. Stewart, Leslie White

Restricted access to state-of-the-art technology, technologically based training, and technical expertise in general, seriously limits students' future opportunities in education and careers. If such resources, expertise, and training are made available to educators, students, and communities, then these opportunities can be optimized. Partnerships involving colleges, schools, industry, and government are required in order to take advantage of these opportunities. This section describes goals and dynamics of three different partnerships.

Biotechnological training, provided by the Piedmont Virginia Community College Biotechnology Training Center offers many benefits to students. In addition to giving students the knowledge and skills necessary to be competitive for research and laboratory specialist positions, the biotechnology training program presents job placement internships, mentoring, student support, as well as scholarships. The program encourages teacher networking opportunities and gives students a broader awareness of the importance and relevance of biotechnology. The interactions derived from this program are mutually beneficial to high school and college institutions, resulting in a seamless transition between high school and college. At Charlottesville High School, science educational guidance offered to the students through the biotechnology club, makes them aware of biotechnology research, programs and careers in that field. The PVCC biotechnology training program was developed in response to a demonstrated need for additional laboratory specialists at the University of Virginia.

As the need for teaching high tech and biotechnology increases, but high school science budgets remain the same, the need for sharing resources becomes evident. Sharing high cost equipment between schools is the only way for some schools to provide modern laboratory experiences for their students. Juniata College provides this equipment as well as a visiting master teacher who models the use of this equipment. Master teachers and college faculty provide summer workshops for local high school teachers to enhance their expertise in new technologies. New labs are also introduced at this time. At these workshops, teacher networking is encouraged. Pedagogy, problem solving and success stories are shared between all involved. These interactions energize the teachers and burnout is decreased. The college benefits from this partnership as many participating high school students choose to attend and study science at this institution. The percentage of female science students also increases, encouraging gender equity.

Funding. This is the most important resource needed to start a similar partnership. Grants can be obtained from private foundations such as Howard Hughes, Dow Chemical, Toyota, and Westinghouse. In addition, many times local sources may be found. State and federal government programs are also likely sources of funds. Without institutional commitment from all participants, infrastructural resources such as lab facilities, office space, qualified teachers and staff, technical equipment, supplies, and transportation may be difficult to obtain. If a demand for services exist, institutions will be willing to participate in a partnership. Additional marketing and publicity continue the demand for a partnership.

Problems. While there are many benefits to creating partnerships, some difficulties may be encountered in the process. Securing and maintaining funding can be a major hurdle to overcome. Once the funding is secured, another consideration is the time constraints on developing the partnership. After the partnership is established, the major problem is an overwhelming demand for resources. Reaching the underrepresented student population is a constant and immediate concern. Logistical problems due to distance and weather must be addressed.

When high school students engage in independent research they gain numerous benefits, all of which are potentially reinforced by a distance-mentoring support system. Student benefits include: (1) learning to communicate more effectively, (2) learning to deal with a long-term project and planning ahead, (3) using critical thinking to design experiments and interpret data, (4) becoming more flexible and open to feedback, (5) learning to deal with sub-optimal outcomes, or failure (6) expanding science interest and experience beyond the classroom, (7) accomplishing a challenging goal, (8) gaining confidence, independence, and/or recognition, (9) obtaining better preparation for challenges and opportunities in college, and (10) gaining clarity or reinforcement of career directions.

Benefits gained by the distance-mentor as a result of successes in mentoring activities appear to be fewer and less obvious. Mentors gain personal satisfaction by promoting students' scientific development, as described above. In a small way, the mentor constructively contributes to the credibility and sustainability of the enterprise of scientific research in general. Finally, the mentor directly contributes to the reputation and visibility of their own institution and department.

The Biotechnology Program at Piedmont Virginia Community College represents a unique partnership between the community college, the University of Virginia, the Weed and Seed Network, and the city of Charlottesville. Successful completion of the program gives students the knowledge and the skills necessary for laboratory specialist and laboratory research positions at the University of Virginia and at Biotech companies. As a high school Curriculum Advisory Committee member of the program, my community college partner, Patricia Franklin and I have worked together closely to: define clearly the goals and purposes of the program, develop program curricula, and publicize and market the program to a wide spectrum of the community.

Through the concerted efforts of the program staff, community resources and support services, several students from the first class have successfully completed the program. Working links for student placement have been established between PVCC-UVA and local biotechnology companies. Marketing sub-committees have advertised and marketed the program broadly. Information and orientation sessions reach wide community areas. I have organized a Biotechnology Club at Charlottesville High School to create interest and biotechnology experiences to students. The program materials are given to the students through the Charlottesville High School guidance department.

Expanding our focus to reach a broader segment of the underrepresented student population in the local schools and in the Charlottesville and surrounding communities is a continued concern.

For the past thirteen years, the Juniata College Science in Motion program has successfully provided a complete system for high school biology and chemistry teachers in central Pennsylvania. The project addresses the three greatest challenges to good science education: access to adequate resources, access to good professional development opportunities for science teachers, and the development of good science curricula. Using specially designated vans, certified science teachers deliver modern scientific instrumentation to high schools and provide support to the local teachers as they introduce and make use of the equipment in their own classrooms. Teachers attend summer programs in which they practice with the equipment and also work with other teachers to develop experiments and curricula for their students.

Improved student performance is the program's greatest success. Testing by an independent consultant indicates that students who are involved in the Science in Motion program show a 50% increase in test scores when compared to students who do not use the program. This includes academic, applied, and vo-tech students. The program has been copied by the states of Alabama and Delaware as well as local programs in many other states. Pennsylvania has recently decided to expand the Science in Motion program statewide.

For years, the major problem faced by the project was financial. Corporate, foundation, and government sponsors funded the project on a year-to-year basis. In 2000, the Pennsylvania state government voted to completely fund the project as a line item in the budget. Other problems are mostly logistical...too many schools that are too far apart, and too many schools to service adequately.

In recent years, distance-mentoring activities by Charles Drewes, a professor in the Zoology and Genetics Department at Iowa State University, have served over 60 students, from more than 25 states. His experiences provide a basis for the ideas and insights outlined here. Typically, when students request his mentoring assistance, they have decided to engage in a research project that reflects his expertise in invertebrate biology (especially the oligochaete worm, Lumbriculus variegatus). Usually, students’ projects are independent, outside-of-class efforts (such as science fair projects). Often the focus of student projects is toxicology, segment regeneration, or behavior of Lumbriculus worms. However, other invertebrates such as earthworms, daphnia, and brine shrimp are also subjects for their research. Types of support provided varies, depending on the nature of the project and the needs of the student. His support may involve: (a) sending background information or research articles to the student; (b) providing suggestions via email about experimental design or interpretation of results, if and when requested; (c) sending samples of organisms or special materials, as needed; (d) being generally responsive to the student’s questions and supportive of their progress. Based on hundreds of email correspondences generated through my mentoring activities, it appears that outcomes in numerous cases have been quite successful and that requests for mentoring are recurring from some of the same schools.

Based on Drewes' experiences, he suggests that mentors realize that students who request mentoring support are at early and highly formative stages of their scientific development. Their communications with the mentor may represent the students’ first experiences in investigative biology. Patience and care on the part of the mentor are required and students are usually quick to express their appreciation of such mentoring efforts. Especially productive outcomes occur when the following steps are taken: (1) student confers with teacher about research project, (2) student decides to seek distance-mentoring support and explains project via email to mentor, (3) mentor provides feedback, suggestions, encouragement, and printed information to student, and (4) repeated cycles on mentor-student communication occur, as time and interest permits.

For more information related to benefits, pitfalls, or general guidance about distance-mentoring, please feel free to contact Charlie Drewes, Zoology & Genetics Dept, Rm 339 Sci II Bldg, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Email: cdrewes@iastate.edu
Web: http://www.zg.iastate.edu/~c_drewes/

Teaching As a Form of Learning

Davin Henrikson, University of Maryland Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract: What was done

Two partnerships are used to describe the “Teaching as a Form of Learning” model, characterized as being between high school teachers and a non-faculty member of an academic institution. The first partnership was between John Durant (Engineering School Professor) of Tufts University and Donald Bockler (Science Teacher) of Arlington High School. This allowed for the unique opportunity for High School and College students to interact. Dr. Durant designed and co-taught a service-based course with a colleague in the engineering school through the Experimental College at Tufts University. Bockler provided feedback to Durant from a secondary school perspective during the summer prior to the course. Approximately twenty undergraduate engineering students enrolled in this course. The undergraduate students were grouped according to interest and project choice and then paired with several local high school science classes. During the course, undergraduate students were required to meet with teachers and classes at the designated high schools. The undergraduate students designed and implemented inquiry based lessons on environmental science topics using data collected by the high school and/or Tufts University. After presenting their lessons to their classmates at Tufts, the undergraduate students were to present their lessons to the high school students. Results obtained from these inquiry-based lessons were to be posted on a Tufts web site for high school students to view and use at a later time. Bockler’s “Ecology of New England” class of eighteen juniors and seniors at Arlington High School was chosen for one of the partnerships. After meeting with Durant's Tufts class in the fall semester, Bockler was partnered with three undergraduate students working on a project involving soil contamination of the local watershed. This watershed included the toxic dump in Woburn, MA made famous by the book, A Civil Action. Bockler wanted more background information on this site, and the partnership with Tufts provided a rich supply of information, monitoring data, and photographic slides that he could use in his Ecology class. The undergraduate students researched scientific journals and the Tufts database on the toxic site and integrated the information into a ten-day lesson on soil contamination. They also designed a working stream table model of a watershed with a built-in contaminated site.

The second partnership was created and maintained by Judy Brown, freelance teacher and writer, and Davin Henrikson, graduate student at the University of Maryland Center of Marine Biotechnology. They developed and co-taught several programs including biotechnology courses for high school students enrolled in a Tech-Prep biotechnology program in Baltimore, MD. Students came one afternoon a week for the five-session laboratory-based program they developed. Another program consisted of weekly "brown bag" seminars with a self-selected group of high school sophomores, to explore opportunities for student research internships. Brown and Henrikson designed and taught a two-week program to acquaint students to standard laboratory protocols, the process of scientific thought, and understanding the culture and etiquette of working in a professional research laboratory. They identified faculty research mentors to work with these students. They held a summer seminar that met weekly with students to get updates on student progress, and arranged for seminar presentations given by researchers. To assist students with entries in the Intel Science Talent Search, they met weekly with students who were preparing research for submission to the competition. Brown and Henrikson also participated in a statewide biotechnology consortium project by providing a three-week credit-bearing biotechnology institute for high school teachers. They taught a biotechnology laboratory course that included a weeklong marine biotechnology lab exploration. During this course, a module titled, “Clone Your Lunch”, was developed and distributed to all of the participating teachers.

Goals

There were multiple goals of the Tufts University/Arlington High School (Tufts:AHS) partnership. Durant created a service-based college course in Tufts’ Experimental College as an outreach program to the nearby community. Tufts University has long had a “good neighbor policy” toward surrounding communities. The undergraduate students in his class developed a teaching module for high school science classes and were to develop a web site to post monitoringl data. The high schools gained access to university faculty and facilities, interactions between high school and university students, and access to data and materials not readily available to high school teachers. The high school teachers acquired additional content information on environmental conditions of the local watershed and developed professional contacts with university faculty.

The Graduate Student/High School Teacher partnership (Grad: HS) shared many of the same goals, such as access to university faculty and facilities, access to data and materials, and interactions between high school and university students. The Grad: HS partnership sought to teach biotechnology to inner city students, using the process of hands on scientific investigations. Also, this partnership wanted to help area teachers update their background knowledge and laboratory skills in biotechnology. The Grad: HS partnership wanted to attract the interest of other graduate students to help continue partnerships that may otherwise end upon their graduation.

How do we know when the goals are met?

The service-based course designed at Tufts University Experimental College offered credit to undergraduate engineering students. Undergraduate students produced several products. These consisted of a weeklong teaching module on local soil contamination studies, and a classroom stream table model built to show soil contamination process. Photographic slides and other materials were provided for classroom use. In contrast to assignments that are completed for a grade and then discarded, this process authenticated the effort put forth by the university and high school students. Both levels of students felt that they were making a contribution to science. The interaction developed between the Tufts: AHS partners continue.

In the Grad: HS partnership, in a two-year period a total of forty students completed the biotechnology laboratory course. Twenty inner city students had summer internships at various research institutions throughout Baltimore, MD. An opportunity to guideand edit the creation of a Biotechnology Teaching Module by high school teachers was fulfilled. Other graduate students are now expressing an interest in co-teaching opportunities.

Successes

Overall Tufts: AHS partnership was successful. Both undergraduate and high school students enjoyed sharing experiences with each other. The undergraduate students were impressed with the thorough jobs done by their peer groups. They received passing grades and credit for participating in this service-based course. Upon completion of the course, copies of each module were given to the partnered schools. The information and materials, including stream table model and photographic slides, were useful in teaching Bockler’s present and future ecology classes. The high school teachers were able to cover the environmental topics in greater depth and with more student enthusiasm than would have been possible without the Tufts partnership.

For the Grad: HS group, 100% of participants in the Tech-Prep biotechnology program completed the course, and went on to internships in the biotechnology industry. The "brown bag" seminars sent 80% of the participants on to research internships, and eight of those students submitted their summer research projects to the Intel Science Talent Search. Publication of the module, “Clone Your Lunch”, is pending.

Disappointments

The Tufts: AHS partnership was generally successful with a few problems. Among the problems, the project took more time than the university students had planned, and student interest waned toward the end of the semester. However, all the university students were impressed with the thorough jobs that each of the groups successfully completed. None of the undergraduate students had prior teacher training, nor did any of them express interest in changing majors to education. Upon completion, each curriculum was given to the partnered school, but the undergraduate students were generally unavailable to aid the high school teachers for the implementation. The Tufts web site was never implemented. The Experimental College course was not offered subsequently due to time and tenure constraints.

Despite evidence for success in the Grad:HS partnership programs, there appears to be no institutional interest in supporting the opportunity for other teachers and graduate students to form partnerships. The interest exhibited by other graduate students has not led to establishment of additional partnerships.

How to Perpetuate The Model

Formal assessment of the Tufts: AHS model must be made to convince university administration that service-based courses are as important as courses that result in publishable data. The creation of teaching modules for use in neighboring community schools would help to validate the process of partnerships and improve public relations. Dissemination of these teaching modules through print or web-based communication could facilitate the formation of other partnerships between schools with similar needs.

The Grad: HS teacher partnership would like to institutionalize their model in the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute system. This would involve getting the University to support the formation of partnerships, as a form of community outreach. The partnership would like to find funding to support graduate students, perhaps as an alternative to assistantships. The partnership would also like to generate a network to create other partnerships.

Other Considerations

Many institutions of higher learning emphasize service-based programs that reach out into neighboring communities. Forming partnerships with community schools can be beneficial to both sides of the partnerships as well as other groups in the community. The institutions of higher learning should consider the positive community value of such partnerships when they evaluate new faculty for tenure. In addition, many local businesses and industries may desire partnerships like those described in this paper. We recommend that industries follow similar guidelines suggested in this paper to form successful partnerships.

For the Grad: HS partnership, identifying the need to establish a rapport between the high school partner and the advisor was essential. Graduate students must understand administrative culture and scheduling limitations of the high school, and high school teachers must understand university culture. It is important to remember that partnerships take time. There is a need for multiple formats of communication, such as email, telephone, actual contact, and fax. These communication formats are needed because of the differing schedules and locations of the partners. Since it is a teaching environment, teachers need to take the initiative role and the graduate students have the role of reviewing for scientific accuracy, up-to-date methodology, safety issues, alternatives in protocols, and current journal reviews.

Beverly Clendening, Hofstra University
Jewell Reuter
Laura Steinberg, Tulane University

Research partnerships between University/College scientists and high school teachers can vary greatly in size and format depending on the nature of the research project, the training and committment of the high school teacher and the interest and availablity of the scientist. The goals of the two research collaborations begun under the auspices of the NSF-AIRE project included:

Independent Research for High School Students (Hofstra University)
This project provided an opportunity for a limited number (10 students over 3 years) of high school students to undertake a research project in a University-based research laboratory. Sophomore and Junior level students were involved. The students typically worked on projects that were an integral part of the on-going molecular genetic research in the laboroatry. Two students did projects that they had designed with their high school teachers.

Drosophilia Research Projects (Hofstra University)
These projects involved a collaborative effort in which a university-based biologist worked with high school science teachers to develop research projects that could be carried out in the high school laboratory. These projects were based on the on-going research program in Drosophila molecular genetics of the research biologist. Initially the researcher guided the project by visiting the classroom to provide an explanation of the research and the scientific background and by providing instruction in technology to the high school teacher. As the project progressed, the researcher was available for consultation and additional on-site help as needed.

Roof and Wall Runoff Projects (Tulane University)
These projects were jointly initiated by a high school teacher and two college professors. Building upon a University project funded by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the three educators designed a complementary high school project which provides data that both supplements the data collected by the college researchers, and generates stand-alone results. The project revolves around new efforts by the State of Louisiana to identify non-point sources of aquatic pollution. The high school students and university researchers collect roof runoff and wall runoff during rainstorms, test it for heavy metals, including lead, zinc, and copper, and then statistically analyze the data. A project web site provides weekly uploads of the measurements made. The project has become a focus of cross-curricular efforts in the high school, generating new science, reading, mathematics, and writing curricula at the school.

Assessment Plans
We use a variety of assessment tools to detemine how much progress we have made in the attaining project goals. First, all project activities are evaluated for compliance with the National Science Education Standards. Student enthusiasm for science and teacher familiarity with new concepts and technology are assessed by surveys before and after the initiation of projects. Pre- and post-tests are used to measure gains in content knowledge and understanding of and ability to apply the scientific method. Follow-up surveys of participants in all of the projects indicate how many participating students are major in science in college and how many eventually pursue careers in science.We will also monitor the number of student projects that lead to submission of papers to local, regional and national science competitions and how many of these win awards. The database will also contain information on the number of scientific publications that included data collected by students involved in the projects.

Successes
Independent Research for High School Students
These projects are considered successful when the students' progress in their research is sufficient to warrant entry in local, regional and national science competitions and when students demonstrate continued interest in science by declaring majors in science on enrollment in college. Over a four year period 10 students participated, two became Intel semifinalists, numerous projects were awarded Long Island Science and Engineering Fair awards. All students won awards in local competitions. Four of the participants are presently enrolled in pre-medical or biology programs (Duke, Princeton, Cornell and SUNY, Stony Brook). Three of the students are seniors and are applying to college and planning to major in biology. None of these students are expected to attend the host institution as undergraduates. This project reached only a small number of students.

Drosophilia Research Projects
One project is complete. 10 students participated. All of the students involved are presently pursuing independent research projects and are planning careers in science or medicine. Measures of improvement in content knowledge are not presently available. A second project is scheduled to begin in September 2001. Twenty students will be involved. In addition to other external measures (papers and awards), a pre-and post-test will measure increases content knowledge.

Roof and Wall Runoff Projects
Through brainstorming ideas, developing tasks that could be performed by high school students with high school laboratory equipment, writing successful grant proposals, and developing lines of communication, the three partners were able to satisfy most of the goals of the project. Ultimately, 585 students from Archbishop Rummel High School and Christian Brother Middle School have participated in the project. Also, the project has stimulated environmental awareness at Archbishop Rummel High School and led to new science, reading, mathematics, and writing curricula at the school, ultimately involving a total of 1335 students. It has provided a theme for a wide variety of disciplines at Archbishop Rummel. Seven core faculty have become involved in the project, including four high school teachers, 2 college professors, and one middle school teacher. Fifteen auxilary science, math, english, art, and Head Start teachers also participate in the work. In addition, a Tulane graduate student is using this project as the basis of her Masters degree in Environmental Engineering. The results have been successfully published on the project website, http://www.classtech2000.com/runoff/index.htm. The work has received:

Disappointments
Independent Research for High School Students
The administrators of the host university are disappointed that so far none of the students who have spent time in research laboratories have enrolled as undergraduates at that university.
Drosophilia Research Projects
The first classroom project was severly hampered by time limitations and problems of physical seapration.
Roof and Wall Runoff Projects
Time is a big problem for all the core teachers. It was surprising how much time and energy it took to identify the appropriate technology for state-of-the-art research and teaching. Start-up was slow. The core teachers found that coordination of the project between them was sometimes a problem because of conflicting and hectic schedules. Also, this project was heavily dependent on the occurrence of rain events; unfortunately, southern Louisiana is currently experiencing a severe drought and rainfall has dropped to approximately half of the normal amount. Thus, it has been difficult for the researchers to collect the requisiterainwater samples.

Research-oriented partnerships, because they are a part of on-going research projects, have the advantage of natural perpetuation. New project ideas are continually generated and students have the opportunity to develop their own projects that are offshoots of this research. The classroom and field-based projects have the advantage involving many students in the research.

These projects are very time-comsuming in their inception. Promotion and reward structures of many colleges and universities are not supportive of this type of outreach project. Unfortunately, this may be a limiting factor in the success of such projects. In the best-case scenario, university faculty who participate in this type of research outreach feel constrained to guide only projects that mesh with their general research programs.

Research projects supported by this NSF-AIRE project, were initiated by non-tenured faculty. One participant was only able to participate because the project was previously planned and the participating high school teachers were able to work relatively independently. Another un-tenured university participant was forced to dropped out of the partnership after one year to concentrate on research productivity expected for tenure. Another untenured faculty participant is also facing tenure difficulties, due in part to time spent in this and other outreach and service activities. Others may also be in this position. Until the value of work such as that done by all participants of this NSF-AIRE project is recognized as valuable be the Academe, it will be difficult for junior faculty members to participate in such efforts.

The ideas for the research projects documented here came from the participating university faculty. This is due primarily to the lack of technical and research training of high school teachers. A research-trained high school teacher is better able to independently develop and implement research ideas at the high school. Projects that originate from an individual high school student or high school teacher may be difficult to initiate or sustain because of the increased time-commitment required of the university faculty member.

Some types of research are more amenable than others to this type of outreach. There are many excellent examples of research projects in ecology and environmental biology that have been carried out by high school students or classes. Ecology and the environment are key concepts that are taught in high school and all high school biology teachers should be familiar with the content of these fields. Projects in these fields usually require input from the university scientist primarily at the project design and data interpretation stages. Projects that involve molecular genetics require more intensive involvement by the university scientist participants. One effective way to deal with this problem is to first train the teachers by offering biotechnology and molecular genetics workshops for teachers and by involving undergraduates (science majors doing research projects and science education majors) and graduate students in these efforts. Another option is to offer research experiences for teachers and science education students. Trained teachers and undergraduate/graduate students working together in high school classrooms would be a reasonable substitute for the active researcher. This scheme is not only an efficient use of the researcher's time but also an excellent opportunity for reciprocal mentoring between the high school teacher and student teachers. Involvement of student teachers in these programs will have the added advantage of fostering the perpetuation and dissemination of these programs as the student teachers tend to take positions in other high schools in the same local area as they attended college and student teach.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Elementary and College Partnerships
Anne Atkins-Bostic, Bruns Avenue Elementary, Charlotte, NC
Joseph Fail, Jr., Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, NC
Gail Van Genderen, Novi Meadows Elementary, Novi, MI
Kathy Winnett-Murray, Hope College, Holland, MI

Abstract
Both of the elementary college partnerships represented at "Forging a Link" conferences centered on ecology as an interdisciplinary focus for teaching integrated science and capitalized on the use of resources available on each school's campus. While both partnerships shared the same kinds of goals and successes, the teaching styles and techniques used in the partnerships were quite different. One sites used a variety of techniques including story based teaching by college faculty to convey the concepts of complex ecological interrelationships and the other site stressed the development of outdoor, inquiry based activities by the teachers and their students.

Introduction
Elementary and college teaching-learning partnerships provide avenues for early introduction of scientific principles and methods to very young students. The goal is to expose elementary school students to the interrelationships of basic scientific principles and to help them see how these principles apply to the world they live in. Teachers use variety of teaching techniques, including scientific story-telling and inquiry based activities to facilitate these hands-on science education activities.

The immediate goal of the elementary college partnerships is to support elementary teachers in using their schoolyards as a laboratory for teaching science and to provide avenues for college teachers to learn more about creative teaching methods. Students benefit by experiencing a research-based style that is more directly scientific than traditional elementary science instruction. The ultimate goal is to produce educated voting citizens who view themselves and their actions within the contexts of the natural world they live in rather than within an artificial world apart from them.

Case Studies
Two different sites, one in Charlotte, NC and one in Holland, MI forged elementary-college partnerships that attempted to reach the goals.

Holland Michigan Site
The partnership at the Holland, Michigan site was between Gail Van Genderen, formerly of West Ottawa Public Schools (currently at Novi Community Schools), as the lead teacher and Kathy Winnett-Murray, Hope College, as the lead ecologist. As partners, they participated in SYEFEST (Schoolyard Ecology for Elementary School Teachers), a national project funded by the National Science Foundation. The schoolyard is a focus of SYEFEST because it is a place where students can study local organisms and environments directly. The ultimate goal of SYEFEST is to promote quality ecology education for elementary students.

SYEFEST involved fifteen sites across the country. Kathy and Gail attended two national five-day leadership workshops. At these leadership workshops, Kathy and Gail designed a two-week Teacher Institute, which they hosted in the summers 1994 and 1996. A unique feature of the Michigan site was the inclusion of pre-service teachers in the Summer Institute. In addition, Kathy and Gail presented SYEFEST activities at state and national conferences such as Michigan Science Teacher's Association and the National Science Teachers Association.

A success of the Holland Michigan site was that it included 20 area teachers and 20 pre-service teachers who were directly impacted by the program. These teachers have gone on to develop nature trails at their schools, play a key role in science curriculum reform in their schools, and model inquiry based science to colleagues and supervisors. Due to the SYEFEST partnership, many participants attended and presented at the annual MSTA (Michigan Science Teacher’s Association) conference. SYEFEST has reached many more teachers than just the Summer Institute participants because Kathy has presented many SYEFEST based in-service workshops in response to word of mouth feedback from former participants. SYEFEST principles have become incorporated in many other programs which Gail and Kathy have since been involved, such as The West Michigan Science Festival, The Galileo Leadership Consortium, and the Michigan Natural Heritage Program of the Department of Natural Resources. Kathy and Gail feel that one of the greatest successes of their partnership is the connection made between SYEFEST and their own continuing professional development.

Charlotte, NC Site
In the fall of 1999 Dr Joseph Fail, Jr. from Johnson C. Smith University contacted lead teacher Anne Atkins-Bostic at Bruns Avenue Elementary School to suggest what has come to be known as the Urban Ecology Initiative. They were hoping that a partnership between this historically Black university and an inner-city school would help the young mostly minority students see themselves as future scientists. As an ecologist Dr. Fail also aimed at allowing students to discover the interrelated stories of ecology. This was done by presenting the basic biological processes of life - respiration and photosynthesis - as an interrelated story illustrating the dependency of each process on the other; and showing students how they were tied in to these crucial life processes. Ideas of neighborhood tours to investigate the ecological region around the school evolved into "No Holds Barred" ecology classes for 3rd and 5th graders from our school. Experimentation and data collection labs usually reserved for high school were included in the effort. Simple sampling protocols produced simple data sets that could be easily outlined and discussed by the students and then immediately interpreted in light of hypotheses previously proposed by the teachers and the students. This partnership also gave the students the opportunity to visit the university campus and attend classes with college students where they used laboratory equipment and techniques and thereby gained some confidence in their abilities to do disciplined scientific work.

In the second year of the partnership the focus was expanded from dealing with 3rd graders and the study of plants to include 5th grade students and topics in water quality. Students participate in one 45-60 min class per week taught by either Professor Fail or one of the college students trained by him for these courses. The lessons focus on theories in botany and chemistry and are therefore often difficult for the young target audience. But through thorough planning of the curriculum with hands-on activities and story-like lectures we were able to make it meaningful to the students. Frequent fieldtrips to the neighborhood stream allow the students to use the water testing protocols. This long term study and chemical analysis give them the opportunity to apply skills from math and language arts in a meaningful context. For example, it was found that oxygen levels in samples of stream waters decreased over several days of residing in dark bottles. Reasons for this result were explored by students with guidance from the teachers involved. In addition Professor Fail has continued to teach a botany class to the third graders that involves learning about plants as partners in our world as well as plant structure and functions.

The constantly evolving curriculum presents concepts that take the state mandated curriculum beyond its prescribed boundaries. This is sometimes a daunting task because the vast majority of students benefiting from the partnership function below grade level in math and language arts, but the additional challenging instruction provides avenues for increasing performance in those subject areas.

Successes, Problems, and Future Challenges
Participating elementary teachers are beginning to feel more confident in their abilities to engage their students in investigative science. They are willing to give the students more freedom to explore topics since they can get technical support and information from their college partners. In addition, both students and teachers become more scientifically literate and are introduced to the tentative nature of scientific inquiry. Elementary/college science partnerships can include participation and practice in experimental design, data gathering, and data interpretation. These exercises can lead to a greater appreciation of how scientific knowledge is generated and also how other disciplines - mathematics for example - can be directly used and appreciated.

Benefits to college faculty include an increased understanding of K-12 educational strategies and classroom challenges, and direct experience with how children learn science. This experience, in turn, helps the college faculty develop improved programs and activities that are more relevant to the realities of the elementary classroom. For the college professors in these two partnerships, the experience gained in elementary classrooms had a direct impact on their college-level teaching. Some institutions value K-12 outreach endeavors as part of a professor’s professional development, particularly if the level of college faculty involvement includes activities such as seeking outside funding and outreach-related publications. Even so, perhaps the biggest challenge towards perpetuation of elementary-college linkages is lack of recognition by the education and science community of their importance. College faculty at some institutions may be reluctant to participate in outreach partnerships if their institutions take a traditional approach to evaluation for tenure. The fact that some institutions are beginning to recognize the value of K-12 -college partnerships facilitates the involvement of faculty at other institutions. Teachers in both areas need incentives, not excluding reductions in teaching loads and class sizes, as compensation for outreach programs. Financial rewards are also important as recognition for time spent in participating in such programs.

Administrative support, while of course important in the perpetuation of these programs, is also crucial in encouraging reluctant teachers at both elementary and college levels to participate in linkage programs. Recruitment of participants from certain local school districts was very difficult at the SYEFEST site. The North Carolina site experienced difficulties in expanding the program because some teachers there failed to see the value of integrated science education. A possible solution to teacher recruitment might be administrator education, including efforts at the district level.

Final thoughts

The goal of these LINKS is to teach children scientific concepts and principles that are reinforced throughout their school years so that stories and interconnections of science are learned along the way by repeated exposure. As evidenced by these two partnerships, there are many approaches to teaching basic science principles to younger students. However, both seek to produce a scientifically literate citizenry. The scientific community would benefit greatly from a growing population of students being introduced to experimental design, data gathering, and data interpretation from a young age. Through partnerships like the ones mentioned, students would feel empowered and be eager to take more challenging science courses as they advance. A widening effort to target elementary schools may help diminish the racial and gender gaps which keep minorities out of science at the professional level.

A possibility for the final thoughts section for the ENTIRE group paper

Meaningful exploration of science concepts through integration into the core curriculum most effectively takes place in the fertile elementary classroom where departmentalization does not exist. Yet the national priority to assess basic skills at the early grade levels creates a situation in which eager college faculty may experience reluctance from some elementary teachers to put a new emphasis on science. It should therefore be a priority among the scientific community to make its purpose and usefulness to all aspects of civilization known so that it is not viewed as an obscure group existing outside of society. Encouraging the general public to understand the basis for what scientists do would increase public willingness to fund endeavors previously misunderstood, including the funding of high quality science education in our schools. Both ends of the educational continuum, the K-12 educators of our future consumers, and the college scientist community, must work together in order to secure this country’s continued appreciation for, and exploration of, the wonders of learning and science.

Writing Committees. There will be 11 writing committees. Look on the outline above at Sections III. A – H. Those are the writing committees for particular types of partnership. Taken together you will be writing parts of III and IV A few of you will be removed from those committees to form committees for some overall issues. You’ll work in your particular committees at first and then get switched to a Committees for Putting it Together

For these sections you should produced a description of the classification that stands alone – do this during the assessment time. Then you will also be asked to integrate what you write into the overall manuscript. That will take little effort if you make a good stand-alone description.

Synthesis Committee – Jewel Reuter and Donald Cronkite will oversee the sewing together of a seamless manuscript from what you write. We will produce (indeed nearly have finished producing) Sections I and II. We will also give you information on how to write so as to make the synthesis job easier.

Marginality Committee – One issue that frequently comes up is the matter of "marginality." Some of our institutions don’t see partnerships as in the mainstream of the institution’s life. That makes it hard to participate if you worry about tenure or good evaluations. We need to write about this. I would like Bev Clendenning, Paul Boyer, and Don Bockler to work on this part. It is section V.

Resources Committee (bibliography)– we need to know what important material has been written on school – college partnerships. This committee will spend time searching in the library while the rest of us write. They will provide us with (I hope) a sizeable bibliography. I’d like Judy Brown, Joyce Tamashiro and Terri Mitton to do this.

Note: This information is not for the paper, but these people who attended at least one Links Conference reported no partnership. How can we use them as a resource? Their experience should be included somehow. Think on this. There is no colleague without great value.

John Durant of Tufts University
Harry Wolf
Ted Bremner
Fe Dumapias
Arthur Koch
Janna Rynders McClean
Wayne Cowell and the other U of Colorado person
Jan Snyder and the other Arizona State person

back to forging a link

Teaching As a Form of Learning

Abstract: What was done

Goals

How do we know when the goals are met?

Successes

Disappointments

How to Perpetuate The Model

Other Considerations

Partnerships in Teacher Training

Goals

Promoting Science Education as a Profession

Integrating Educational Goals and Objectives of Teacher Education Programs, Biology Departments, and School Systems

Increasing Pre-service Access to Science Classrooms

Increase Familiarity and Comfort in Classroom Environment and with Educational Issues

Exchanging Innovations

Challenges and Recommendations

Time

Communication Barriers

Limits to Understanding Certification-related Issues

Funding and Assessing the Partnership