HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit Reader Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Reader Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Sign up for eTOCs Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Moreno, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Moreno, N.

Points of View: Effective Partnerships Between K-12 and Higher Education

Science Education Partnerships: Being Realistic About Meeting Expectations

Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX 77030

Much of our science education professional literature is filled with detailed prescriptions of how to implement successful partnerships to enhance K-12 school science. These resources provide well-grounded recommendations about earning the support of administrators, teachers, and parents before beginning a new science program in schools. Quality curricula, adequate materials, and other physical resources, as well as professional development for teachers and appropriate evaluation strategies, are also identified as important elements in K-12 science education programs. Most science organizations and their representatives incorporate these elements to greater or lesser degrees into the school partnership they undertake. Certainly, in our work at the Center for Educational Outreach at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), we apply the recommendations of the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) and other similar resources to every extent possible in our partnerships with teachers, schools, and districts. We work closely with our colleagues in K-12 schools and strive to address mutual concerns and needs. In numerous cases, our partnerships have achieved measurable successes in developing teacher content knowledge, facilitating student achievement, promoting changes in teachers' science teaching practices, or fostering the emergence of local science education leaders (Moreno, 1999; Moreno and Tharp, 1999; Moreno, et al., 2001, 2004). I suspect, however, that our experiences are not unlike those of many others who work as school partners within their local communities. In most situations, our partnership efforts yield sustainable outcomes. In a few cases, however, despite our best, well-informed and skilled efforts, we do not achieve the predicted changes in science teaching and learning. Which leaves us asking, "Why do partnerships sometimes fall short of expectations?"

The answer to this question is different in each instance. In some cases, intrinsic factors in schools work against innovations in science teaching and learning. In others, elements of the partnership itself prove to be inadequate for the challenges that arise during implementation. Based on our experiences, partnerships that do not meet expectations may have experienced one or more of the following pitfalls.

1. The partnership is one-sided. Even experienced science partners will sometimes fall into the trap of trying to be Superman. Unidirectional partnerships, in which one partner (Superman) single-handedly tries to rescue the other, rarely achieve their goals. Much more desirable is the Batman and Robin model, in which a more-experienced partner mentors a newer, or less-experienced partner; or the Superfriends model, in which each partner makes equivalent, but different contributions, based on needs and individual resources of the partners. These models are valid at all partnership levels, from individual scientist/teacher partnerships to institutional partnerships. The Baylor Science Leadership Program summer institute, which we conduct with HULINC, the Urban Systemic Initiative of the Houston Independent School District, is an example of a Superfriends-type partnership. This model evolved from a typical higher education summer institute offered to local elementary teachers to a true collaboration. The school district identifies critical content areas to be included in the institute curriculum, recruits and enrolls participants, pays stipends, conducts the technology training portion of the program, and holds school-year follow-up sessions. BCM plans the curriculum, manages purchases and logistics, provides all instruction using master teachers and scientists, and designs and conducts short-term and long-term evaluations. This combined program, provided to more than 800 teachers, has been much more effective in terms of increasing teacher content knowledge and science teaching efficacy beliefs than professional development delivered primarily by one or the other partner.
   
2. Science education is not given equal priority by all partners. Science research institutions sometimes assume that science teaching and learning should be of the highest priority in all K-12 schools at all times. Unfortunately, teachers and administrators are challenged daily by issues related to student test scores; inadequate facilities; parent concerns; drop-out rates; student mobility; needs of at-risk and disadvantaged students; students who speak English as a second language; and vast socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity. It is not surprising that 29.5 percent of public school teachers surveyed by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2003) indicated that students come to school unprepared to learn. Thus, even when schools genuinely want to participate fully in a given science education initiative, administrators and teachers may have to divert their attention to other more immediate and pressing concerns. We have learned not to be disappointed when a scheduled meeting or teacher workshop has low attendance because, in many cases, teachers are unable to attend due to last-minute meetings or schedule changes at schools. For important in-service sessions, we schedule make-up days or work one-to-one with teachers.
   
3. Partnership activities are viewed as an add-on in schools. Within the current climate of accountability and high stakes assessments, schools feel pressured to focus on topics within the curriculum that will appear on student assessments. The challenge to science partners is to identify science themes that will engage students in real issues, but also build skills and basic understandings of content areas that will appear on standardized tests.
   
4. Minimum physical resources for science instruction are not in place. Many elementary schools, in particular, do not have adequate classroom or laboratory facilities for conducting hands-on science activities. A standard joke among elementary science teachers is, "Oh yes, I have running water in my classroom... I run down the hall to bring back a bucketful." Middle and high schools usually have laboratory-style classrooms, but may have outdated equipment or lack funds to buy needed consumable materials and supplies. Thus, a science education partnership that provides hands-on, inquiry modules or kits to teachers, for example, also should develop mechanisms for the refurbishment of consumable supplies, so that the kits may be used for instruction year after year.
   
5. Professional development does not match the needs of teachers. Recent studies have shown that, nationally, 24 percent of secondary school classes in core subjects are taught by teachers lacking even a college minor in those subjects. In the nation's high-poverty schools (more than 50 percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunch), the percentage of teachers teaching out-of-field increases to 34 percent (Jerald, 2002). As a result, science partners who provide professional development need to be prepared to address differing levels of knowledge and preparation among participating teachers. Over time, we have found that preassessments can help identify areas needing special attention during workshops or teacher institutes. Feedback from teachers about what works in classrooms also can be very helpful.
   
6. Mismatch between professional practices of scientists and K-12 teachers. As noted by Tanner et al. (2003), scientists and teachers work in environments that encourage different kinds of behaviors and require different kinds of knowledge. Scientists are highly specialized, with access to abundant scientific and academic resources, and are accustomed to providing critical or skeptical feedback to colleagues. Teachers, on the other hand, have broad knowledge, work in environments with limited or scarce resources, and typically provide encouragement or constructive feedback in their interactions with learners or colleagues. As a result, partnerships in which scientists and teachers are expected to work together can be diminished by clashes between these two cultures unless the differences are appropriately anticipated and addressed. Otherwise, scientists may be disappointed in the lack of appropriate equipment in schools, or teachers may find scientists' probing style of asking questions intimidating or offensive. At BCM, we conduct two programs that partner local teachers and scientists. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute-funded Science Education Leadership Fellows program teams elementary teachers and BCM graduate students or postdoctoral fellows. Our GK-12 program, which is funded by the National Science Foundation, partners high school biology teachers with BCM graduate students. In both programs, members of the most productive teams have learned to appreciate each other's expertise and learn to build on each other's strengths. Strategies that we have found to be effective in promoting productive teams include 1) having scientists co-teach under the guidance of teachers in K-12 schools, 2) allowing teachers to experience the world of science through short research projects at BCM, and 3) requiring scientists and teachers to work together to develop a specific product, such as a curriculum unit or an instructional video.
   
7. No time to develop a culture of professional learning and improvement in schools. Many K-12 teachers feel overwhelmed by the demands placed on their time by students, parents, and increased accountability and paperwork requirements in schools. This leaves no time for professional and collegial activities such as co-planning or mentoring. Further, in many cases, teachers must use their personal time after school or on weekends to complete professional development requirements. In order to collaborate effectively, science partners need to be sensitive to existing demands on teachers' time and energies.
   
8. Partnership is not sustained long enough to achieve results. Educational reforms take time. Some partnerships require 10 or more years to achieve desired outcomes in teaching and student learning. Unfortunately, most grants for science education partnerships provide support for only three to five years. Finding ways to nurture and sustain partnership activities beyond the initial grant period is one of the greatest challenges and obstacles to the success of partnerships.
   

Being aware of some of the pitfalls is the first step in building productive partnerships. Some of the following approaches can be useful.

1. Value all partners. Superman saves the day only in Hollywood. Real partnerships are much more productive when the contributions of all participants are valued and recognized. Effective partners jointly identify needs, and plan and work together to solve issues such as those related to resources in schools or to find appropriate times for teacher professional development.
   
2. Involve only those who want to participate. Unwilling partners are not effective. In projects involving individual teachers, enroll only those who are willing to participate. Often, more reluctant teachers will join in once other teachers begin to experience success. At the levels of schools or districts, administrative cooperation and buy-in is essential if partnership goals are to be achieved.
   
3. Pitch your teacher professional development to the appropriate level. Many teachers, particularly in elementary schools, have been trained to teach reading or language arts. As a result, teachers may feel nervous about teaching science because they have had few opportunities to experiences science inquiry for themselves. Being aware of the current teaching practices and knowledge levels of partner teachers is an important part of providing appropriate teacher professional development.
   
4. Deliver what you promise. If you promise kits, make sure they arrive on time. If you provide a workshop, make sure it meets the needs that teachers and students identified.
   
5. Stick around. K-12 education is plagued by programs and instructional strategies that last a couple of years and disappear. In order to be taken seriously, partners from science institutions need to collaborate consistently over time.
   
6. Focus your efforts where you can make a difference and do not be afraid to go elsewhere. Every so often, partnerships come up against intrinsic or extrinsic factors that will make achieving project goals almost impossible. When this happens, do not be afraid to acknowledge the situation and reallocate your limited resources to where they will be more effective.
   
7. Create a winning environment. Teachers, scientists, and their institutions have a lot in common. They have chosen a service profession and focus on making things better for society. It's hard work and little recognition ever comes their way. Open and frequent communication, in addition to shared credit for accomplishments, works to build trust and friendships.
   

Finally, and most important, sometimes it is necessary to adjust the definition of "success." Thus, while partnerships sometimes may fail to meet original expectations, they may generate successes in ways that were unanticipated. For example, not all teachers may become enthusiastic science instructors after one professional development program— but that one teacher who did get excited may some day become a science specialist and influence curriculum decisions for an entire school district. We have learned that it is not realistic to expect immediate changes in teaching and learning as a result of science education partnership activities. Change can happen, but it takes time.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The support of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) (grant number 51004102), Science Education Partnership Award program of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (grant number R25 RR13454), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH (grant number R25 ES10698), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) (NASA cooperative agreement NCC9-58) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) (grant number 0086397) for the above mentioned programs is gratefully acknowledged. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) or the funding agencies. Partnerships conducted through the Center for Educational Outreach would not be possible without the numerous contributions of BCM faculty members, Educational Outreach faculty and staff, and K-12 teachers and administrators.

	REFERENCES

TOP REFERENCES

 
Jerald, C.D. (2002). All talk, no action: putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Based on data analysis by Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Education Trust of the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey. Education Trust, August. http://www.edtrust.org/main (accessed 18 November 2004).

Moreno, N., Griffin, R., Denk, J., and Jones, W. (2001). Real-world science: achieving better returns in student learning. School Business Affairs 67(8),17 -19.

Moreno, N. (1999). K-12 Science education reform: a primer for scientists. Bioscience 49(7),569 -576.[CrossRef]

Moreno, N., Tharp, B. (1999). A national interdisciplinary project developed at Baylor to make science exciting for all K-5 students. Acad. Med. 74(4),345 -347.[Medline]

Moreno, N., Denk, J., Roberts, J., Tharp, B., Bost, M., and Thomson, W. (2004). An approach to improving science knowledge about energy balance and nutrition among elementary- and middle-school students. Cell Biol. Educ. 3,1 -9.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003. Teacher perceptions about serious problems in their schools, by control and by level of school: 1993-1994 and 1999-2000. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt072.asp (accessed 15 November 2004).

Tanner, K.D., Chatman, L., and Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: science teaching and learning across the school-university divide: cultivating conversations through scientist-teacher partnerships. Cell Biol. Educ.2 , 195-201.[Medline]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit Reader Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Reader Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Sign up for eTOCs Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Moreno, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Moreno, N.