James McDonald

ENVISIONING A CURRICULUM OF INQUIRY IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Most authors agree that science is both a collection of knowledge products (i.e., laws and theories), and a set of practices (i.e., observation, experimentation, argument). It would follow that classroom science inquiry should emphasize both science as knowledge products and science as practices. However, our elementary science classrooms have been characterized typically by one of two orientations to science teaching, each of which has emphasized one facet of science to the exclusion of the other. In the didactic orientation (Anderson and Smith, 1987), science instruction emphasizes the products of science, and textbooks dominate. In the 1981 Project Synthesis report, Pratt summarized how elementary teachers depended on textbooks as the authority for science teaching. Recent TIMSS findings (Schmidt, McKnight, and Raizen, 1997) demonstrate that the trend of relying on textbooks and low level facts in elementary science continues. Science is not alone when it comes to an overemphasis on knowledge reproduction in the elementary school. Published curricula such as Saxon mathematics (1992) and the Shurley method of teaching language arts (1992) are being purchased by school districts eager to raise test scores and garner state dollars, without regard for long term learning. Where the didactic orientation has left off, often activitymania (Moscovici and Nelson, 1998) has taken its place. An activity-driven orientation (Anderson and Smith, 1987) results in students spending much time “doing science,” but little time thinking, talking, posing questions, or constructing explanations. In this orientation, science as a practice is emphasized, but developing an understanding of science concepts is neglected. Our preservice elementary teachers often hold this orientation, believing that science should be “active” and “hands-on” (Abell, Bryan, and Anderson, 1998). Their goal is limited to making science fun; the goal of achieving understanding, if it surfaces at all, is only an afterthought. In our experience as elementary teachers, as student teacher supervisors, and as elementary science methods course instructors, we have witnessed these two orientations reproduced in classroom after classroom. State science education standards often reinforce the product/process dichotomy by placing content standards and inquiry standards in separate sections. Teachers who teach content without process or process without content may deem that standards are being met. We believe this is a limited view of inquiry in elementary science. The two facets of science, the products and the practices, are not separated from each other when scientists do science; they should not be separated in our science classrooms. What we call for is an integrated approach to inquiry (Abell, 1999), where both the

Professional Preparation for Science Teachers in Environmental Education

Environmental Education (EE) is intended to be interdisciplinary and supplemental throughout the K-12 curriculum. However, because EE is not confined to one subject area the professional preparation in EE for preservice teachers becomes complex. The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Guidelines for the Initial Preparation of Environmental Educators (NAAEE, 2000) guide how preservice teachers should be prepared to implement EE. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is as important in EE methods as it is with any other subject area. The complexity of environmental issues introduced throughout the K-12 curriculum demands a strong science-content base. Consequently, teacher preparation in EE involves a dual pedagogical challenge that requires addressing social change and the ability of teachers to become reflective practitioners. A mentoring program at Central Michigan University for preservice teacher preparation in EE is presented within this chapter. Recommendations for professional preparation of preservice teachers in EE are included.