|
Mercury,
July/August 2000 Table of Contents
It
was during "sharing" time in my first week as a teacher's aide at
Sunset View Elementary School in San Diego. Mike, a second-grader,
shared a newspaper article about black holes. The teacher, Anne
Earlywine, is one of the best I have ever seen, and I learned much
of what I know about teaching from her. But she did not know much
about black holes. The little astronomy I knew at the time (I was
a college freshman) allowed me to engage the class in Mike's report
and give him some guidance on how to take his interest further.
For
me, the lesson was this: While a deep understanding of science may
not be necessary for school teachers, it sure can't hurt.
So
how can we get our school teachers to know more about science? One
approach is to provide science enrichment programs for current and
prospective teachers, and many such programs have had success. But
there's a second approach that deserves far more attention than
it has received: providing opportunities for scientists to become
classroom teachers.
The
idea of putting scientists in the classroom tends to raise eyebrows,
but it makes sense on many levels. For example, the United States
is facing a dire shortage of teachers of any kind, let alone those
with science expertise. At the same time, graduate programs are
creating many more new scientists than can be accommodated on the
traditional pathway to becoming a college professor. Surely these
practical considerations call for making elementary and secondary
teaching respectable alternative careers for scientists.
On
the level of teaching excellence, most scientists are wildly enthusiastic
about their subjects, so with proper training many of them could
make outstanding teachers. (Yes, I know that many scientists don't
make good teachers - but I would bet that the proportion of people
who can make great teachers is higher among scientists than in the
public at large.) Moreover, because the traditional graduate pathway
leads to a college faculty position, most people who enter science
have at least some intention of teaching. In fact, many scientists
have experience as instructors or teaching assistants - often more
total hours of teaching experience than are required to obtain a
teaching credential.
The
only questions are whether scientists would be attracted to classroom
careers and, if so, how to help them follow this route. From discussions
with graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, I've learned
that teaching careers would be very attractive to many scientists
if just two conditions could be met:
1.
making sure that these individuals can remain respected scientists
at the same time that they are teachers by, for example, providing
them opportunities to stay involved in research; and
2. providing an alternative path to teacher certification that
gives all the necessary training but also recognizes the experience
and advanced education that these individuals already possess.
Both
conditions are more difficult to satisfy than you might guess. With
respect to the first, a teaching career leaves research time only
in summers and perhaps occasional hours during the academic year.
In open competition for research grants, scientist-teachers would,
therefore, be at a disadvantage against full-time scientific researchers.
Yet there's no shortage of research work: scientists are already
overwhelmed by the enormous amount of data coming from current projects,
and the situation will become more daunting in the future. A natural
solution to this dilemma would be to create funding opportunities
that support scientist-teachers in research and scientific development.
But creating such opportunities requires widespread support from
the scientific community and federal funding agencies - support
that does not yet exist.
Meeting
the second condition is even more challenging. A few years back,
I worked on a project to create an alternative certification pathway
with Catharine Garmany (University of Colorado, and a member of
the ASP Board of Directors) and Richard McCray (University of Colorado,
and a member of the National Academy of Sciences). Everyone we spoke
to was supportive of the idea, including people at the Colorado
Department of Education, the University of Colorado School of Education,
and Superintendents of regional school districts. But no one had
the time or energy required to push through all the bureaucratic
steps involved in making the program happen (and a proposal for
funding to continue our efforts was rejected).
Despite
this setback, I am more convinced than ever that the time has come
for efforts to make teachers out of interested scientists. I know
of researchers who have already chosen this route. But if we can
find a way to meet the two conditions above, I believe we'll open
floodgates through which thousands of bright students will enter
teaching via graduate programs in science. These individuals will
personally benefit from careers that enable them to pursue their
passions for both science and teaching. Science will benefit from
their work as part-time researchers and the encouragement they will
provide to the next generation of scientists. The nation will benefit
from a large pool of scientifically trained teachers. There's no
downside - so when do we start?
JEFF
BENNETT's first popular book, On the Cosmic Horizon,
will be published by Addison Wesley in September. He is also the
lead author for Addison Wesley textbooks in astronomy (The Cosmic
Perspective, full and Brief editions), mathematics (Using
and Understanding Mathematics), and statistics (Statistical
Reasoning for Everyday Life; forthcoming). He welcomes email
correspondence about these columns and other issues at jbennett@casa.colorado.edu.
|