Paper Presented at the SALT/HET meeting in Cape Town, South Africa on 5 March 1998

Building Public Support for Astronomy through School-Based Education

Mary Kay Hemenway

University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

Strong science instruction in elementary/secondary schools nurtures the general public's interest in science as well as prepares students to make technological decisions in the future as adult citizens. Simultaneous efforts providing professional development for teachers and interacting with professional societies and government agencies work together to support the goal of science literacy for all.

Keywords: education, professional development, teachers, standards

Introduction

Besides being intrinsically interesting to school children, there are other reasons for teaching astronomy in the elementary/secondary schools. Astronomy lends itself well to interdisciplinary studies; it can be used to incorporate mathematics, language arts, social studies, as well as other sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, and biology). In doing astronomy activities in the classroom, many skills that are useful in other areas of school, and life, are required. Astronomy can become the focus of a high-interest curriculum where learning occurs in a classroom community that values scientific habits of mind and attitudes, and promotes social values conducive to learning. These values and habits are important for the scientific literacy of all people. Two strategies have been employed to bring more astronomy into schools: professional development of teachers and working within societal structures to influence standards and frameworks of instruction.

The Current Situation in the United States

For the almost 50 million school children in the US, there are tens of thousands of mostly independent decision-making entities that affect the structure and curriculum of their science education. In addition to a diversity of views and structures, there are other problems facing the teaching of science. Although 8% of the gross national product is spent on education, often teachers lack the resources to provide a good education for their students.

Some current statistics (Weiss, 1994) reflect these problems. In grades 1-6, the average time per day spent on science instruction is only 27 minutes. 26% of this time is hands-on instruction. Statistics for science in-service instruction of fifteen or more hours over the past three years (that is, an average of five hours per year) show that only 23% of teachers in grades 1-4 had this much, only 34% of grade 5-8, and 56% of grade 9-12 (where most science teachers are science specialists). Even more revealing is the amount of funds teachers had available for consumable supplies for their science classrooms each year: In elementary grades it is $0.51 per student; in middle school, $0.88 per student; and in high school, $2.22 per student. With such a low level of support for both in-service and supplies, the scope of the problem is even more apparent.

Professional Development for Teachers

I began to work in the area of professional development in 1980, and was influenced by three factors:

1. seeing the effects of guided discovery instruction in lab classes on potential and practicing teachers,

2. conducting field trip experiences for children as part of the University of Texas Astronomy Department's outreach program, and

3. serving as a consultant in the Science Education Center of the University's College of Education where professional educators provided new instructional techniques and introduced me to research on learning that was not commonly disseminated to professional astronomers.

Interactions with teachers at state science teachers meetings and presentations to them at one-day workshops scheduled throughout Texas allowed me to refine activities I was using in the undergraduate classroom for distribution to teachers at other levels. With support from my department and dean, I offered three-week summer institutes for teachers from 1984 to 1990 -- funded mostly by the University and the teachers themselves -- which included a trip to McDonald Observatory for an observing run. Initially, photography and later, photography plus a small (512X384) CCD camera were used. (Hemenway, 1988)

Funding from the National Science Foundation allowed these efforts to be expanded to three different groups of 20 teachers (elementary and middle school) during 1990-1993 -- each for an entire one year program: 45 contact hours in the Fall on astronomy labs, 45 contact hours in the Spring on Teaching Methods, and three weeks in the summer on topics related to research including their observing trip to McDonald Observatory. The teachers' efforts were evaluated and by the end of the program they were prepared for presenting workshops for other teachers. (Hemenway, 1994)

This Texas-only program was expanded in 1994 to a nation-wide program with sites at Loyola University in Chicago, Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, and University of Maryland at College Park, with about 25 teachers each for four weeks. Extensive instruction on classroom methods, professional development activities, leadership training, and astronomy were packaged together in the American Astronomical Society Teacher Resource Agent Program (AASTRA) for a total of 215 teachers (from 45 states, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico). AASTRA (Trasco et al, 1996) has primary support from National Science Foundation and the American Astronomical Society (AAS).

As Agents, teachers have become leaders in their local communities in the advancement of astronomy education. Their professional development experience included opportunities to perform hands-on astronomy activities and engage in astronomy-related experiences unique to each site. Each site had a professional astronomer and two master teachers who worked with the program director to provide an exciting, rewarding learning experience. The teachers later presented workshops to other teachers, have written articles or developed new courses, provided advice to their local school districts on astronomy education, and performed a variety of other on-going leadership activities. By February 1998, 8,127 second-tier teachers had been served in the workshops presented by these Agents. 21% of these second-tier teachers teach grades K-2; 34% teach grades 3-5; 28% teach grades 6-8; 9% teach grades 9-12; and 7% are otherwise involved in a school-setting. The average workshop was 2.9 hours in length with an average of 15 teachers attending. 19% of the second-tier teachers are underrepresented minorities.

In July, 1997 an AASTRA-Leadership Workshop was held at the University of Texas at Austin for sixteen Agents. Following two weeks of skills enhancement and leadership activities, the Agents participated in a six-night observing run at McDonald Observatory near Fort Davis, TX. The Agents used a 30-inch telescope with a prime focus CCD camera for imaging celestial objects. A second Leadership Workshop is planned for July 1998. The Leadership Workshop incorporates several activities that allow the teacher-leaders to reflect on "best practices" within their classroom and outreach activities. (Regional Educational Laboratories, 1995)

As part of their participation, the 215 Agents became Associate Members of the AAS, the principal professional organization for astronomers in North America. Through this membership, the program provided an opportunity for professional recognition as well as funding for Agents to attend a professional meeting the summer following their initial summer institute. The Agents met their peers from other sites. They increased their concept of the field of astronomy through their interactions with astronomers at the meeting. The meeting also provided an opportunity for program evaluation.

Among the problems confronted in organizing the AASTRA program have been the diverse educational background of the teachers themselves, the challenge of coordinating a program for teachers of a widely varying grades, recruiting participants from a representative wide geographic region into the program, and maintaining a sense of community among them. Newsletters, a website, individual letters, and meetings have helped provide a sense of community. The AASTRA program benefited from an extensive evaluation program conducted by an outside evaluator. (Hemenway and Barufaldi, 1997) (Barufaldi and Hemenway, 1996).

Examples of Education Techniques

The teachers and professional science educators with whom I've worked taught me several techniques in science education -- techniques that help form a "Minds-On, Hands-On" classroom. Among the characteristics are that

1. Activities must be interesting to the student -- the subject must be fascinating or relevant to students' lives
2. Delivery of content must be in a manner that makes the student stop and reflect
3. Teachers must be aware of where the students are at -- that is, their prior knowledge and misconceptions
4. "Wait Time" while questioning students is essential, as shown in the research of Mary Budd Rowe (1978).
5. There must be time for both students and teachers to reflect on what they've learned.

One technique that helps teachers become aware of students' prior knowledge and provides an opportunity for student reflection is the KWL approach. Before beginning a new topic, the teacher requests students to fold a small piece of paper in thirds. On one third, they write their individual answers to the question: What do you KNOW? On the next third, they write their answers to What do you WANT to know? The teacher uses these answers to assess the students prior learning and interests. Upon conclusion of the instructional activities, the papers are returned to the students for them to complete: What did you LEARN?

Another technique in designing lessons is the 5E approach, which encourages inquiry in the classroom. These instructional units begin with a challenge, story, poem, discrepant event, demonstration, or something that engages the students. The students are then given an opportunity to explore the associated phenomena, often working in small cooperative groups. Only after this exploration activity does the teachers explain the concept they have observed or introduce the scientific definitions. Another activity provides an opportunity to extend their knowledge of the concept. At the formal conclusion of the instructional unit, either a test or another activity with a grading rubric is used to evaluate the students' grasp of the concept.

Both of these methods, KWL and 5E, allow the student to confront and correct any misconceptions (Nussbaum, 1985) and expand their current understanding of concepts.

Working within the Education System

Simultaneous to the teacher enhancement programs, activity proceeded on other fronts: local, state, and national. These systems sometimes work separately from each other, and occasionally even contradict each other. Although each is working for better education for the students, they often disagree on how best to effect that end. There is no national curriculum, national test, nor national funding.

One major effort at the national level is the National Science Education Standards (1996) which provides a vision of science education for the US.

The National Science Education Standards have the following Guiding Principles:

• Science is for ALL students
  
• Learning science is an active process
  
• School science reflects traditions of contemporary science.
  
• Improving science is part of systemic education reform.
  

The National Science Education Standards cover many areas:

• Teaching Standards describe what teachers of science should understand and be able to do. Teachers must have knowledge and abilities that are both theoretical and practical concerning science, learning, and science teaching.

   

• Professional Development Standards provide guidelines that recognize that learning is a life-long activity for teachers.

   

• Assessment Standards identify essential characteristics of fair and accurate assessments and program evaluations. Assessment is an effective tool for communicating the expectations of the system.
  

• Content Standards define what students should know, understand, and be able to do in natural science. Content Standards are not a curriculum.
  

• Program Standards describe how content, teaching, and assessment are coordinated in school practice over a full range of school experience to provide all students the opportunity to learn. They are based on the belief that comprehensive science instruction which is coordinated across grade levels results in more learning.

   

• System Standards provide criteria for judging components of the system that is responsible for providing schools with financial and intellectual resources, including the contributions of scientists to the educational enterprise. They describe how policies, programs, and actions outside the learning environment support good science programs.
  

The American Astronomical Society Focus Group on the Standards, which I chaired during the three year period while the Standards were being developed, provided input concerning several of the Standards, but especially focused on the content concerning Astronomy. I also worked with the Coalition for Earth Science Education and the American Institute of Physics on their input to the Standards. Sometimes, disciplinary boundaries took a second place to the needed cooperation among these groups.

Precursors to the National Science Education Standards provide slightly different viewpoints on science education, but both agree that the education literature offers much information on how students learn and the best ways to teach them. (AAAS, 1993) (Pearsall, 1992).

Implementing the Standards is a long-range goal. Each state and or school district is "doing their own thing." In summer 1997, I testified before the Texas State Board of Education, arranged for Frank Bash, Director of McDonald Observatory, to submit an official letter supporting astronomy, worked with members of the McDonald Board of Visitors on their testimony, and arranged for another astronomer to testify at the last minute on a critical topic. The result is that Astronomy is listed in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skillsdocuments throughout grade levels (1-8) plus a high school course in astronomy was approved. These rules take effect in September 1998. The Texas framework is an attempt to articulate within a local setting the goals of the National Science Education Standards.

That the National Science Education Standards are meant to be a vision rather than a mandate can be seen in the following phrases that their supporters propagate:

Vision without action is merely a dream.

Action without vision just passes time.

Vision with action can change the world.

Conclusion

One satisfying outcome of the Professional Development activities is that some of the teachers have risen to positions of leadership within the science education community. They were the ones who told the focus groups what they needed to teach in schools -- and made sure Astronomy was included. They were the ones who were aware that one not need expensive equipment and computers, or even access to dark skies at night, in order to make the universe meaningful and interesting to their students.

In summary, these efforts in professional development and influencing educational infrastructure must parallel each other to be successful. My current initiatives include: providing further opportunities for the Agents in AASTRA to become influential in astronomy education in their communities and/or nationwide, to provide education/public outreach components to research proposals that my fellow astronomers submit for funding, and working with our college to influence the guidelines for degree plans for future science teachers. The latter is necessary because eventually it is time to stop "enhancing" teachers and start preparing them as students for the challenges of the classroom of the next millennium.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, (New York: Oxford University Press)

Barufaldi, J. P.& Hemenway, M. K. 1996, "Formative Evaluation of the American Astronomical Society Teacher Resource Agent Program" BAAS 28, 845

Hemenway, M. K. 1988, "Tactics for Upgrading Secondary School Science Teachers in Astronomy" BAAS 20, 1079

Hemenway, M. K. 1994, "Astronomy Institutes for School Teachers" IAU Astronomy Poster Abstracts, (Netherlands: Twin Press), p. 187

Hemenway, M. K.& Barufaldi, J. P. 1997, "Moving Towards an Exemplary Professional Development Program for Teachers" BAAS 29, 795

National Research Council 1996, National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Research Council)

Nussbaum, J. 1985, Children's Ideas in Science, (ed: R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien), (Philadelphia: Open University Press), p. 170

Pearsall, M. (ed.) 1992, Relevant Research, (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association)

Regional Educational Laboratories 1995, Facilitating Systemic Change in Science and Mathematics Education: A Toolkit for Professional Developers, (Andover, MA: US Dept. of Education)

Rowe, M.B. 1978, Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry, (New York: McGraw Hill)

Trasco, J., Eastwood, K., Slavsky, D.& Hemenway, M. K. 1996, Astronomy Education: Current Developments, Future Directions, (ed: J. R. Percy) (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific) p.283.

Weiss, I. R. 1993, A Profile of Science and Mathematics Education in the United States, (Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.)

Return to: Mary Kay Hemenway's Selected Publications