Service learning and science: a successful model.

Abstract

In this paper, a university based program which places science students in local elementary schools to serve as science experts for teachers is described. Both informal and formal evaluation has shown the program to be highly successful for partner teachers and participating students. The model on which it is based should be highly transportable and robust to the individual needs of schools and universities who seek to employ it.

Introduction

Service learning, a community-based approach to teaching and learning in which students participate in community service activities as a component of their formal education, has become a much utilized strategy in education (Academic Leader, 2004; Carney, 2004; Moloney, J., Dion, S., Hickey, C., & Siccama, C., 2004; and Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 2004). Research has demonstrated that service learning creates educational conditions within which students can make meaningful connections between theory and practice. This seems to happen primarily because learning occurs in an authentic setting (National Service Learning and Assessment Study Group, 1999). Across a variety of educational levels, the recent efforts to increase service learning opportunities have led to a need for the sharing of successful models of service learning programs that have potential to be transferable to other educational settings. In this article, one such model, designed to improve science education at the elementary school level in our area school districts, will be introduced. This project, titled FOCUS (Fostering our Community's Understanding of Science), is in its third year at the University of Georgia.

FOCUS began as a collaboration between schools, parents, teachers, and University administrators. The story of its origin is important. At the urging of a scientist who was also a parent volunteer at an area elementary school, a university administrator at UGA's College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES) became an important role player. There was a need in the school where this parent/scientist volunteered. Namely, many of the teachers at the school felt ill prepared to teach science and were under pressure to emphasize reading and mathematics per the high stakes testing requirements in our state. As a result of this lack of preparation, science was on the back burner in many of the classrooms, and without help it would need to remain there. The CAES administrator responded with the only available resource, i.e., help from a graduate student. But the graduate student offered was not a scientist or agronomist, but rather a student of science education and a former science teacher. He began his assignment by initiating the recruitment of science students recognizing that these individuals had science expertise. These mostly undergraduate students also brought a strong desire to do something for the community's schools. Combined with others of like interest, ability and motivation, the first iteration of FOCUS was put in place. Soon, progress was being made and the elementary teachers began to move science to its appropriate place in the instructional plan.

With eight UGA science students in that first iteration, FOCUS began. In the two years following the inception, teachers and school communities are enthusiastically celebrating the program. But somewhat unexpectedly, the program's implementation has resulted in a tremendous positive impact on the university students' own learning and development. This impact on the university students, and thereby on the university community, has focused motivation at the university level to invest heavily in the continuation and success of the program. Acceptance into the FOCUS program requires a strong science background from its undergraduate applicants, as well as a commitment to aid in the science instruction of elementary schools. Each student registers for a 3 semester hour service learning course with CAES and commits a minimum of three hours per week to aiding science teaching in their mentor teacher's classroom. In addition, the students have weekly obligations to create reflective journal entries and attend discussion seminars. Both of these experiences are designed to maximize the student's construction of knowledge and meaning from the experience.

In the following sections, this manuscript will first examine literature related to service learning and the educational components of FOCUS. From that point, implementation is considered including a discussion of the impact of FOCUS on the community and students and current efforts at evaluating the program. Finally, an outline of future directions for both practice and research with regard to this model service learning program will be considered.

Related Literature and Scholarship

While politicians have pushed for reform in science teaching and national organizations have written standards (e.g., NRC, 1996) that describe a context for this reform, teachers, in their classrooms, are left to either make these ideals a reality or to tide out the hurricane of reform safely below the surface (Cuban, 1994). Often the teachers are asked to do without quality training, funding for supplies, or instructional resources adequate to implement the reform. For many teachers of elementary school science, their undergraduate education was spread thin among the liberal arts, child psychology and development, and pedagogical training (Tosun, 2000; Ginn & Watters, 1995; Huniker & Madison, 1997; Schoon & Boone, 1998). They are often missing significant preparation to teach science. Fulp (2002) noted that forty percent of K5 teachers have taken four or fewer courses of science coursework. Elementary teachers, aware of their lack of content knowledge in science, may develop low self efficacy regarding their ability to teach science. Koballa and Crawley (1985) found that such teachers tended to avoid science instruction altogether in their classrooms.

Another compounding factor, adding to the problems in elementary science teaching in Georgia and throughout the nation, is the high stakes testing in mathematics and reading. These tests have resulted in school administrators and teachers pouting energy, time, and available resources into the teaching of these areas at the expense of instructional time for other subjects especially science and social studies (Manzo, 2001; Wilkins, Graham, Parker, Westfall, Fraser, and Tembo, 2003). Yet, many of these teachers are aware that the marginalization and avoidance of science instruction must stop or at least be minimalized.

There is also the issue of university student learning to consider. According to the National Service-Learning Study Group (1999), "service learning is a teaching and learning strategy that combines the principles of experiential learning with service to the community. Through service learning, students develop as citizens, learn problem-solving skills, and experience a sense of social responsibility by engaging in thoughtful action to help their communities" (p. 1-2). For Project FOCUS, the recognition of just such learning and development in university students was an important factor in the support that it would eventually receive.

Objectives of Project FOCUS

In piloting this service learning program, the creators intended to not only benefit the schools of our local community, but the students and faculty within the university community as well. Specifically, FOCUS was intended to accomplish three goals. First, the project was intended to address a need in the schools of our community. As has been stated earlier, the response to goal one was to provide elementary teachers with an undergraduate student who served as content specialists in science. These students assisted in the science instructional mission of the teacher/school by assisting in the creation of instructional sessions designed to accomplish objectives of inquiry and discovery learning. This goal is highly related to the school's ability to accomplish the vision of science teaching set forth in the national standards and our state mandated curriculum (National Research Council, 1996; Georgia's Science Performance Standards, (n.d.)). It was hoped that science instruction would be improved with both new activities and new knowledge such that the effects would be felt far beyond the timeframe of that student's tenure.

The second goal was related to the participating teacher's attitudes toward science. We hoped that by providing teachers with a science content specialist to aid in science instruction, feelings of inadequacy and avoidance would be replaced by enthusiasm and feelings of competence. By improving teachers' attitudes toward science, we felt that increased enthusiasm about science learning would be modeled for their students.

And as a third goal, we hoped to provide our undergraduate FOCUS students with a real world experience in which their newly assimilated knowledge in science was turned into a valuable resource while affording them the opportunity to "experience themselves ... as competent, contributing members of the community" (National Service Learning and Assessment Study Group, 1999, p.2). Strouse (2003) noted that a

   key purpose of service learning is to involve the student in
   high-quality service that concurrently addresses a real and
   important community problem, stimulates a sense of caring for
   others and a commitment to contribute to the community, and
   results in authentic and robust learning wherein the student
   gains an experientially grounded understanding of the connections
   between concepts in the academic curriculum and real problems
   and activities in the community in which one lives (p. 77).

These goals are more easily stated in retrospect than they might have been at the project inception. However, the initial vision of FOCUS was enhanced by knowledge of a similar program that began at Emory University and worked in elementary schools in Atlanta.

The project at Emory is titled the ESEP or Elementary Science Education Partners Program. Initially it was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. But most importantly, ESEP served as an example to us that a service learning partnership between the University and local schools could be successful. The similarity of the Emory program with our ideals was such that their guidelines offered an accessible implementation plan for the design of a strong program (Rangus, 2000). However, the programs differ in one highly significant aspect. It was important that FOCUS be built as a successful program without obtaining a significant influx of grant money. The opportunity had come and the response to the school needed to happen immediately. Thus, design and implementation proceeded simultaneously and complementarily in the creation of FOCUS.

Structure of FOCUS

FOCUS currently boasts involvement in 2 school districts, 7 elementary schools, and 80 classrooms from pre-K to fifth grade. Eighty undergraduate students comprise the current cohort. Each of these undergraduates is working with a partner teacher for the duration of a semester. The FOCUS students are required to have at least 12 semester hours of successful course work in science prior to their admission to the program, and most of them are, in fact, science majors in their third or fourth year. In the semester prior to the in school experience, students complete an application. On the application, the prospective participant must supply an accurate GPA, descriptions of prior education related experiences with children, and reasons for their interest in FOCUS. The prospective participant must also authorize a criminal background check required of students working in area schools. Students are notified by email of their acceptance into the program.

Simultaneous with the application process, three graduate assistants from the College of Education, who supervise the practical and teaching aspects of the program while acting as liaisons between UGA and the schools, visit the partner schools and recruit teachers for the upcoming semester. At the program's beginning, this required a great deal of effort; it seemed that teachers were wary of involvement with University programs. As FOCUS has become established this trend has reversed, and we now have the problem of more teachers asking to be partnered with a student than we have students applying to participate. This has occurred in spite of a 10 fold increase in University student participation. This shift in teacher acceptance has occurred due to a number of factors which can be mostly accounted through anecdotal information. First, there is word of mouth communication between teachers. Second, there is a thriving partnership between the local school district and the College of Education that has created a more welcoming atmosphere for University faculty and students in the local schools. Third, the original school site for FOCUS got off to a very positive start with programs such as Agriculture Days (which included activities such as seeing milk cows up close and examining other food related science activities). Fourth there was recognition of the responsiveness of this program to the schools needs. On the first Saturday of the university semester, the participating students are required to attend an all day orientation held at one of the schools. This orientation session, led by science education graduate students, scientists, and selected guest speakers, is intended to be a crash course workshop in science education issues in local schools, as well as an introduction to the type of activities required to reach students with special needs. This session is designed to abate the FOCUS student's anxiety while providing them with tools useful for science instruction in the elementary classrooms. Students are advised about state mandated curricula, participate in sample lessons, and talk with teachers and principals. Perhaps most importantly, the new students begin networking with each other and begin to establish learning and support communities that will persist throughout the semester both in their schools and also in the weekly reflection seminars.

Students spend their first week in the classroom observing lessons, meeting with their teacher, learning about expectations, and deciding upon the structure of their partnership. Each partnership is unique. In some classrooms, the FOCUS student becomes the lead teacher for 3 hours a week and as such leads the entire class in science lessons and activities. In other classrooms, the student works with one-third of the class each day, and provides essentially the same instruction each of the three times. Still in other classrooms, students may operate a science center where they work with small groups of students at a time. But regardless of the structure, the students spend considerable time working with elementary students, amassing resources for the teacher, and designing or searching for activities to provide instruction on topics suggested by the teacher. Weekly reflection seminars are designed so that students are able to present and exchange ideas for lessons and to provide support to one another. In addition, more focused discussions are used to examine a variety of education topics. The weekly session lasts one hour and typically has between 10-15 participants. Each section of the weekly reflection seminars is led by one of several science education graduate students. These graduate students determine discussion topics in response to their students' weekly journals. Issues discussed include multicultural education, implications of tracking students, learning disabilities, conceptions of scientific literacy, paths to entering the teaching profession, and differentiation of instruction.

FOCUS students summative grades result from an accumulation of scores from graded assessments on the three evaluations performed by their partner teacher, completion of reflective journals, and attendance/participation in the weekly reflection seminars. Throughout the semester there is a great deal of dialogue between the graduate assistants and the partner teachers regarding the students' progress, professionalism, and the implementation of the program in general. The graduate assistants also visit their students in the schools to observe in the instructional setting. This presence in the school is very important as it reduces the disconnect between the program as it is perceived to exist on the University campus and as it is accomplished on the various elementary school campuses.

Evaluation of FOCUS

Evaluation of the practical effectiveness of FOCUS occurred in a variety of contexts with input from each of the stakeholders. The students and their partner elementary teachers provide very rich and valuable informal feedback on a regular basis to the supervising graduate students, who then relay that feedback to the University faculty. Evaluation by students and teachers alike has been very positive, as evidenced by the drastic increase in the numbers of students and teachers who desire to participate in the program.

Student Component. At the end of each semester, in addition to the formative feedback given by students via journals and informal conversations, they complete an end of experience evaluation. The evaluation consists of three questions: l) What has been positive about your experience with FOCUS? 2) What could have been better about your experience with FOCUS? 3) What else do we need to know? The students are given an entire reflection class period to respond; the entries are anonymous. These evaluations have been overwhelmingly positive. Yet, we have received constructive criticism from our students as well. The most recurrent criticism on these evaluations indicated that students were frustrated and surprised by the time required for their successful participation. Many confess that they were expecting an easy A, and were disappointed to learn that their work with FOCUS required extensive time for preparing lessons, writing journals, and meeting in reflection sections. Additionally, some students report feelings of anxiety and responsibility in their first classroom visits, because they are unsure of what to expect in terms of accepting the role of teacher, answering questions, and preparing successful science lessons. Despite these concerns, a significant portion of our students choose to repeat the course in a subsequent semester.

We have added another component to the student evaluation in order to keep our efforts at evaluation consistent with the magnitude of the program. We now ask the students to provide a thoughtful evaluation of their teacher in the role of a partner with FOCUS. This addition to the evaluation process was necessary because our number of participants as this manuscript was being written made it difficult for the graduate assistants to visit each classroom frequently. As one of our program goals is to provide a rich learning experience for University students, it is important that our students be in a classroom with a teacher who is willing to work collaboratively in the implementation of the program, rather than with a teacher who is not keen on interacting with UGA students. Although it has been a rare occurrence, we have had partner teachers who ask their FOCUS students to lead science lessons with a small group of students in the hall while the door to their classroom remains closed. In situations like this which limit communication with their student, the relationship we had hoped would become a partnership, or a service-with relationship, instead became a service-for relationship. This semester teachers were not aware that we asked our students to complete this evaluation of them, because it was a decision made after the students' teaching time in the schools was completed. In subsequent semesters, we will make this new portion of our evaluation process known to all the stakeholders.

Teacher Component. Evaluation of the teacher component of the project requires the collection of data, both formal and informal, from a variety of sources. For instance, the supervising graduate students attend periodic faculty meetings at their assigned schools to answer questions or address concerns. This affords the graduate student facilitators an opportunity to talk with teachers about FOCUS as a program or about specific issues pertaining to their assigned student. Additionally, time spent in the faculty meetings gives the graduate students a better understanding of the specific needs of teachers, grade levels, and administrators, which allows for more strategic placement of students in classrooms. Teachers complete three evaluations during the course of a semester. Within these evaluations, teachers provide feedback about their student's efforts within the collaboration, exhibition of professional qualities in their role as a representative of the University, instructional preparation, and teaching. These evaluations also provide space for additional undirected comments about their student and the FOCUS program in general. Teachers frequently use this space to comment on how pleased they are with the program or address particular concerns about the program or their particular student.

During more formal semi-structured interviews with teachers, several important themes have become apparent. Teachers feel strongly that they are partners in FOCUS. This feeling of partnership seems to primarily result from their perception that the university students are not supplied to them accompanied by an instruction book entailing what should be done. Rather, teachers and their university student work together to establish a partnership, which accomplishes mutually agreed upon ends. Furthermore, some teachers mention that before their participation in this program, science was not being taught in their curriculum. They reiterate that this absence was the result of time constraints and their low self efficacy with regard to teaching science. More than one half of the teachers interviewed said they viewed FOCUS as free professional development and used their student as a resource to improve their own science teaching. Most kept a resource file where they jotted notes about activities and content and left instructions for teaching the lesson themselves sans their FOCUS student.

Students report to their teachers and to the supervising graduate students that as a result of this experience, they appreciate teachers in a way they might never have; had they not worked so closely with their partner teacher in preparing science lessons. Even more intriguing is the finding that approximately one third of our students to date have professed an interest in teaching as a career and have already taken the steps to pursue that path in applications for certification programs and/or jobs. Our partner teachers are pleased because their service with FOCUS is also service to their profession, in that they are educating future parents and current voters about what it really means to be a teacher. Many also recognize their role in recruiting highly competent college students to consider teaching as a career. We should note that this recruitment of science majors to teaching was not in our initial goal statements, but came about as an unexpected result.

Implications for Practice and Research

We believe we have established a successful model of service learning for science education, which is generalizable to other disciplines in higher education. It is reasonable to assume that such programs in social studies, language arts, and mathematics would produce similar results. We are very encouraged by the variety of research questions that have arisen from our experiences. Specifically, future research related to FOCUS will aim to examine elementary students' achievement in science; elementary students' attitudes toward science; teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes toward teaching science; and college students' perceptions of teaching and learning.

One significant research initiative that is currently underway is the examination of students' views of learning regulation mechanisms and how their ideas about these processes change with participation in this service learning program. The instrument used to collect this data (Inventory of Learning Styles-ILS) was developed by Vermunt (1998) and places the report of learning regulation within a larger model of cognitive skills. It is our belief that an examination of learning regulation is an indicator of how our students view the goals of classroom instruction. Further, beliefs about learning regulation can play a significant role in classroom decision making processes the FOCUS students make whether in the partner school or the university classroom. It is our hypothesis that our research will demonstrate that this is in fact happening as a result of FOCUS, and we will be able to say with even greater confidence that our program has the capacity to influence our student's academic achievement in their university studies. The participating student makes an impact through the application of their energy and expertise in the community and then returns to the university changed with regard to their knowledge, motivation, and direction.

Conclusion

In this paper, a university based program which places science students in local elementary schools to serve as science experts for teachers has been described. Beginning with a request by a parent volunteer who is also a practicing scientist, FOCUS has grown into program serving many teachers and involving dozens of university students per semester. Both informal and formal evaluation has shown the program to be highly successful for partner teachers and participating students. The model on which it is based should be highly transportable and robust to the individual needs of schools and universities who seek to employ it. At its heart FOCUS is a true collaborative effort that allows teachers to not only receive a free resource, but to shape that resource into what they individually need to improve the science teaching of their classroom. For the student who elects this service learning opportunity, it is a chance to serve their community, to explore their beliefs and future, and to learn. Their experience thus forms a complement to our University's land grant mission of service, research, and teaching.

Acknowledgement

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.EHR-0314953, Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics.

References

Academic Leader (2004). Service Learning Engages Students, Revitalizes Faculty.Vol. 20 Issue 10, 5.

Carney, T. M. (2004), Reaching Beyond Borders Through Service Learning. Journal of Latinos & Education, Vol. 3 Issue 4, 267-270.

Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman Press.

Fulp, S.L., (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Retrieved September 27, 2003 from www.horizon-research.com

Georgia Performance Standards (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2004. Georgia Department of Education, http:\\www.georgiastandards.org/science.asp

Ginn, I. S., & Watters, J.J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 205222.

Huniker, D. (1997). Preparing efficacious elementary teachers in science and mathematics: The influence of methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 107-126.

Koballa, T.R. & Crawley, F.E. (1985). The influence of attitude on science teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics. 85,222-232.

Manzo, K. K., (2001). Citing Instructional Time, N.C. Scraps 3 Assessments. Education Week, 20(14), p. 18.

Moloney, J., Dion, S., Hickey, C., & Siccama, C. (2004). Transforming graduate students into leaders through service learning. Academic Leader, 20(11), 4-5.

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

National Service Learning and Assessment Study Group, 1999. Service-learning assessment: A field guide for teachers. Washington, D.C.: Learn and Serve America.

Rangus, E. (2000). Science ed program still going strong. Retrieved December 22, 2004 from www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2000/October

Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education. (2004). A new approach to service-learning, 18(9), 8.

Schoon, K .J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553-568.

Strouse, J. H. (2003). Reflection as a service-learning assessment strategy. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 8(2), 75-88.

Tosun, Tarik. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 374-379.

Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171.

Wilkins, J. L. M.; Graham, G.; Parker, S., Westfall, S., Fraser, R.G.; Tembo, M. (2003). Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35 (6), 721-735.

Anna K. Scott, University of Georgia

J. Steve Oliver, University of Georgia

David A. Knauft, University of Georgia

A. K. Scott, MEd is a doctoral student in Science Education, J. S. Oliver, PhD is an Associate Professor of Science Education, and D. A. Knauft, PhD is a Professor of Horticulture