April 7, 2006
Dr Linda S. Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Central Washington University
400 East University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7503
Dear Dr. Beath:
Thank you for the opportunity to act as an external reviewer for the self-study of the
Science Education program at Central Washington University. I provide the following
insights based on my reading of the documents provided to me, and experiences deriving
from my brief visit.
The Faculty. Many people spoke positively about the science education faculty and
programs. The evidence was plain to see. These faculty members in science education are
wonderful citizens who have high moral standards and high-energy commitments to work
and the geographic region. They get along well together and with others in their
department and the university. They are dependable, innovative, and have a history of
volunteering. Furthermore, they share a strong commitment to science as well as science
education. Around this coherence has grown solidarity that has propelled the university
and its programs to the current situation. In the self-study the science education faculty
has produced a profile of productivity that is commendable and at the same time they
have projected a vision for development that requires a serious review of resources.
Workloads. Each of the existing faculty has a high teaching load and is committed to the
supervision of fieldwork for prospective teachers and the provision of services via a
plethora of professional development programs. The result is that faculty members
participate in numerous teaching and service activities, raising concerns about whether or
not there is sufficient time for scholarship and high quality performance. The slogan of
less is more springs to mind as a referent for the volume and quality of present plans and
practices.
I note two potential problems with the current situation. 1) the faculty may not have
sufficient time to stay abreast with the literature and engage in high quality research. If
this becomes a problem the courses offered by science education faculty may not reflect
the latest scholarship in the field. 2) the practices of any of the faculty, but especially
those with tenure, serve as models for what should and can be done by others. The
presence of role models can produce major contradictions in that what is perceived as
necessary (by virtue of what others do) may not earn tenure (or promotion) and the
excessive volume of work and expectations can lead to burnout and disillusionment with
the university. Both of these scenarios seem probable and there are signs that some
faculty members are already encountering contradictions that are central to their career
advancement.
Affiliation. The decision to place faculty in science departments produces interesting
patterns. In regard to hiring, there is a concern that all hires have a strong allegiance to
science. Obviously this is a good expectation, provided that it is not correlated with lack
of knowledge about education and lack of relevant experience. Unless science educators
have recent and extensive experience with schools, education theory and research,
students may not perceive the science education courses they teach as relevant.
Furthermore, the practice of science educators teaching science and science education
limits the human resources available to support science education (maintenance,
improvement and expansion) and increases the number of preparations for each science
educator. The policy decision and historically constituted practice of teaching science and
science education may be a deterrent to offering additional courses in science education.
Simply put, the science education faculty resources are diluted by this practice. This
problem seems most pronounced in the secondary and middle school programs where
there may be insufficient science education offerings, and new (graduate) programs for
the continuing professional development needs of teachers.
Placing science educators in subject area departments, while highly desirable on the one
hand, has potentially deleterious consequences. 1) the amount of administration being
undertaken by science educators seems excessive—official and unofficial. 2) the number
of meetings needed because of dual affiliations and responsibilities seems excessive. 3)
faculty are separated from one another and colleagues in the College of Education. The
responsibilities for administration, coordination and collaboration severely diminish the
time available to build cutting edge science education programs.
From my perspective there is no doubt that the science education program would be
significantly enhanced if it were consolidated into a center. The formation of such a
center would only make sense to me if: 1) faculty members are relieved of present
administrative assignments in science departments; 2) full responsibility for the
curriculum is delegated to the Center; 3) faculty members earn tenure in the center.
The idea of combining mathematics education with science education has the advantage
of scale and, in the international sphere; there are numerous examples of this being done
successfully. The math educators I met with were enthusiastic about the prospects of a
merger and it seems sensible to share human and material resources. Yet there are issues.
A larger group may not cohere as well as two smaller units. Is consolidated space
available? Is there sufficient common ground to promise additional collaboration leading
to an increase in productivity—scholarship, external funding, new programs etc?
Curriculum. The separation of science education “methods” courses from field
experiences seems indefensible on academic grounds. If field experiences are central to
learning to teach science—the methods courses need to be closely aligned with the
practices of ‘new teachers’ in the field. The present separation should be redressed as
soon as possible.
The amount of coursework in the certification programs seems excessive and there were
many questions about the relevance of the core raised by those with whom I spoke. My
belief is that there should be fewer core courses in general education and theory—there is
no reason to have a full course for each State mandate! I favor 2-3 solid education
foundations courses and three science education methods courses in which issues about
curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment are explored. Applications of technology
also are best addressed within science education.
There is ample evidence that calls for thorough review of the core education courses and
requirements. Questions were raised about relevance, failure to have tracks for science
education students or even for prospective high school teachers. The courses seem too
generic and the student clientele too diverse in terms of their career goals. Furthermore,
courses that might reasonably be scheduled early in a program of study were not taken
until near the end of the program with the result that students did not get the full benefit
from core courses taken early in the program.
It seems as if there is resistance from the Department of Education to work
collaboratively to resolve ongoing and obvious problems of relevance, scheduling, and
appropriate staffing. I’d recommend that the university explore whether or not there are
roadblocks to curriculum improvement and take steps to remove those that are identified.
There seems to be unanimity on the need for graduate programs oriented toward
continuing certification and recertification of science teachers. This is a state and national
priority. The question that must be addressed is whether the university can commit the
resources to do the job well. My thought is that doing the job well will necessitate
additional full time science education faculty.
Assignments. Faculty assignments should be examined very carefully to ensure that all
faculty members are given the support they need to succeed. The present situation that
allows an assistant professor to teach an elementary methods course in her first semester
at a university—when she has little or no experience of teaching in elementary schools
seems ill-advised. Not only is elementary science education one of the more difficult
courses to teach in the university, in this instance the complaints of students are easy to
understand. Having said that, the faculty person concerned is wonderful, tried hard, and is
no doubt on a steep learning curve. But what are the responsibilities of the university?
When a professor is so clearly out of field there is a responsibility to provide for faculty
support and development. I presume it would be unthinkable to ask the same professor to
teach a course in physics or biology—yet she was required to teach elementary science
education. Is the assumption that any scientist with an interest in education is qualified to
teach elementary methods?
Promotion and Tenure. The requirements for the promotion and tenure of faculty
members in science education vary across the departments. This contradiction could be
addressed if a Center for Science Education had responsibility for the tenure of science
educators. Failing that, the university might be well advised to review the present
requirements in relation to faculty assignments and responsibilities. It seems reasonable
that some science educators would participate in the promotion and tenure reviews of
science educators.
Resources. There are insufficient non-faculty human resources to order and maintain
equipment and supplies for science education and manage the science education program.
At the present time science education faculty are required to do too many tasks that could
be done by managerial and technical assistants. Since these tasks do not count for
promotion and tenure, having faculty heavily involved in them is not a good investment
of resources. Perhaps graduate students can provide some of the necessary support. The
present half time office manager might be expanded to full time.
I think it important to note that these resources should not come from soft money. The
technology and curriculum resources needed to support the science education program
should be supported by recurrent budget for new/updated resources and
maintenance/repair. The present situation seems dire with many of the current resources
deriving from grants.
External Support. In science education there has for many decades been ample external
funding to support programs with science teachers and students from pre-K through
College. Many of these programs require active collaboration between university and
school district personnel—and in some cases multi-institutional collaborations extend
across state boundaries. The science education faculty is very coherent in many respects
and it makes sense to free them up and provide university support to obtain significant
external funding from Federal, State and private sources. A budget might be established
and release time given for faculty to commit the necessary time for writing, collaboration
and travel. Also, faculty should be encouraged to refine proposals through several
submission cycles if necessary, for university support with editing and polishing.
Questions to Consider. The self-study highlights strengths and makes recommendations
based on shared assumptions that are core to the identities of the science education
faculty. In so doing there is a gloss—a lack of critique that might, if it existed, raise
different questions and windows into the future. As an external reviewer I can see the
current situation as a less than ideal foundation on which to build. In fact, I see serious
organizational problems that might be addressed in a reconstruction of science education.
Here are some questions that might be useful to ask:
1. Is the level of research productivity in science education sufficient to sustain
viable programs (for degree and professional development)?
2. To what extent does the lack of full time science educators truncate scholarship in
science education?
3. Is there a critical mass in science education to produce and sustain high quality
science education?
4. What are the costs of maintaining joint appointments for all science educators?
5. It is clear that new faculty members are effectively mentored to reproduce the
status quo. What conditions will be optimal to allow for the growth of scholarship
and professional identities of faculty members?
6. What are the present human resources needed to produce the formal science
education program in terms of person hours per week (not counting
administration and management)? How many of the people involved are well
qualified to teach elementary middle and high school teachers?
Conclusions. The university is doing a better than satisfactory job in science education—
yet there are issues that should be addressed to provide an even higher quality program.
Some of these are identified in the self-study and some are not. There should not be an
expansion of activity without a careful review of what is being done and how well it is
being done. In some instances a university should not only ask how well an activity is
being done, but also whether the activity is worth doing in the first place. I invite the
science education faculty and their university colleagues to consider this issue carefully.
Of the current activities and those proposed in the self-study, which are worth doing? In a
world of limited resources it seems prudent to be selective in terms of what is done—
assuring high levels of productivity and fulfillment among the science education faculty.
Kenneth Tobin
Presidential Professor of Urban Education
NSF, Distinguished Teaching Scholar
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
April 11, 2006