Moving into the future: Nebraska stakeholders views of the future of science for the state
By Krista L. Adams
Assistant Professor, UNL
At the Fall 2012 Nebraska Association of Teachers of Science (NATS), a meeting of science education leaders gathered to discuss the future of teaching and learning science. The leaders for the NATS pre-session workshop included teachers, ESU personnel, science and science education professors, informal science educators, NDE Director of Science Education, and NATS and NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) leadership. The purpose of the meeting was to determine the direction for the future of science teaching and learning in Nebraska.
The summit began with Jon Pedersen (the then president for NATS) welcoming the audience to the session. Elizabeth Mulkerrin, Director of Education at the Henry Doorly Zoo presented the opening challenge to think about moving from the traditional classroom sitting in the classroom but to move outside of the classroom. Karen Ostlund, Past President of NSTA and Jacquiline Spearks, Director, Center of Science Education, Kansas State University both talked about the new NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards). Dr. Ostlund focused on educating the audience on the 21st century science literacy while Dr. Spears discussed opportunies for STEM faculty engagement. Finally, Jim Woodland, Past NDE Director of Science Education, discussed the history of science reform through the ages. All sessions can be viewed at the YouTube channel TLTE Science at http://www.youtube.com/user/NebraskaScience01.
The summit was designed to engage participants with discussing concerns, challenges, and interests with the topics: 1) Secondary certification (facilitated by Jim Woodland, past NDE, and Sally Harms, Wayne State College); 2) The ideal “school” for the 21st century learning (facilitated by Kathleen French, Nebraska State Museum); and 3) How can we define teaching experience? (facilitated by Elizabeth Mulkerrin, Henry Doorly Zoo, Chris Schaben, OPS, and Lyn Forester, Doane College). The majority of the audience participated in the breakout session on 21st century learning. Julie McKeon, Patriot Elementary Teacher and Dan Davidchik, Project SHINE coordinator, led the roundtable discussions.
Pre-Survey Results
Prior to the conference session began, all those in attendance were asked to fill out a survey on what they felt were concerns for the future of Nebraska science:
A. Identifying an agreed-upon agenda for the future of Nebraska Science
B. Developing a shared understanding of certification based on key features
C. Gaining an understanding of existing policies regarding certification
D. Developing a shared vision for the science classrooms for the 21st century.
E. Rethinking what constitutes as teaching experience for continued certification.
F. Gaining an understanding of current and future initiatives in science education.
Topics were chosen based on the presenters’ discussions and were coded based “Very Important” = 3pts; “Important” = 2 pts; and “Of less importance” = 1 pt. With 17 of the 23 audience members participating in the survey, Topic D (M = 2.58, SD = 0.69) and Topic F (M = 2.63, SD = 0.60) were found to be very important which focused on the 21st century classroom and learning more about the current and future initiatives in teaching science. The least important topic identified by the audience was Topic B (M = 1.89, SD = 0.76) which focused on identifying and understanding the key features of certification.
Teachers were also asked to identify any strengths or weaknesses about the current state of science education in Nebraska. Of the 17 surveys, 8 people responded to the question focusing on concerns about Nebraska’s future:
1. State standards:
a. Exposure to what is going on in the state (n = 1).
b. Nebraska not adopting the NGSS standards (n = 2).
c. The need for focus on how to integrate science with language and mathematics. (n = 1).
d. Do our standards prepare students for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) related professions (n = 1).
2. Inadequate balance of technology across the state of Nebraska (n = 2).
3. Lack of good communication about the available resources and programs for the state (n = 2).
4. Lack of training for teachers entering rural districts (n = 2).
5. State testing:
a. Purpose of testing is teacher/school accountability. Not helping students learn (n =1).
b. Too much testing results in less classroom time spent to content mastery (n = 1).
These responses provide a basis in which future gatherings of leaders in Nebraska to address.
Post-Survey
At the end of the session, the attendees were asked to fill out a post-survey to determine what should be done next. All 16 post-surveys focused on what was going to happen as a result of the session. Some offered suggestions for future meetings to continue the discussions by:
a. Encouraged regional discussions in order to have more stakeholders involved.
b. Form a task force to move issues forward.
c. Continue to offer more opportunities to network between K-12 and Higher Education.
d. More informal education and higher education presence in collaborations.
Other concerns included students limited access to technology and would anything result from this session.
Conclusion:
Science education leaders were primarily concerned about the impact of the state currently not adopting the NGSS standards as well as concern about state testing. Highlighted is the need to insure that all stakeholders are developing scientifically literate citizens. This may be done by (1) teaching K-16 students in STEM practices; (2) educating preservice and practicing teachers on current science strategies; (3) ensuring that state tests reflect the state’s current views of teaching and learning science; (4) science education faculty, scientists, and informal science educators developing programs to educate the Nebraska citizens (students, teachers, residents); and (5) governmental entities need to promote policies that support building scientifically literate community. This may involve all stakeholders coming together to rethink the future of Nebraska Science. The discussions need to account for more than just talk but there is a need for action in order to call this session a success. What that action should entail involves at the least continued improvement in communication about the programs and resources of the state. At the most, there is an interest to discuss adoption of the NGSS standards or at least begin to define how STEM education should look like in the coming years. Science education in Nebraska is in need for all the visionaries in the field to come together and plot how the state will be 5, 10 and 20 years from now. Are you ready to help move Nebraska science into the future?