[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE
FOR AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-612 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 8, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Panel 1:
Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Panel 2:
Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science
Education; Director, Center of Science and Math in Context
(COSMIC), University of Massachusetts, Boston
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 22
Ms. Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers'
Association; K-8 Science Department Chair, Weston Public
Schools, Weston, Connecticut
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 31
Dr. Jerry Mundell, Professor of Chemistry, Cleveland State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 36
Discussion....................................................... 36
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 524, To establish a laboratory science pilot program at the
National Science Foundation.................................... 54
IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:10 p.m., in
Room 2320 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Improving the Laboratory Experience
for America's High School Students
thursday, march 8, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On March 8, 2007 the Committee on Science and Technology will hold
a hearing to receive testimony on the shortcomings of the use of
laboratories in high school science education and to consider related
legislation. H.R. 524 directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
establish a pilot program of grants to partnerships of high schools and
other institutions to identify best practices for improving the
educational effectiveness of science laboratories. The bill is in
response to the findings of the National Research Council's (NRC) 2005
report, America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.
This hearing will discuss how issues like lack of coordination
between the laboratory exercises and classroom lectures, inadequately
trained teachers, languishing facilities, and current high school
organization diminish the value these exercises can have or prohibit
them all together. Most importantly, this hearing will highlight how a
strong hands-on experience can create scientifically literate students,
interested in pursuing a career in science.
Witnesses
Panel 1
The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa, the Representative from the 15th district
of Texas
Panel 2
Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science Education,
Director of the Center of Science and Math in Context, University of
Massachusetts, Boston, Graduate College of Education; co-author of
America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.
Mrs. Linda Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers
Association.
Dr. Jerry Mundell, Adjunct Professor and General Chemistry Laboratory
Manager, Department of Chemistry, Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Overarching Questions
How important is the laboratory experience in
teaching students to understand scientific concepts?
What are the common obstacles for creating and
maintaining laboratories and developing curriculum to teach
laboratory experiences?
Will H.R. 524 help address those obstacles and make
lab instruction more accessible to all students?
Summary of National Research Council's America's Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science
In 2005 the National Research Council published America's Lab
Report: Investigations in High School Science, a study which looked at
the role laboratory learning can have for the country's high school
students, the current situation of laboratory learning, and what can be
done to improve these often unproductive programs. The NSF commissioned
this study as a precursor to fulfilling the mandate Congress gave the
agency in the 2002 NSF Authorization Act (P.L. 107-368) to launch a
secondary school systemic initiative, which would ``promote scientific
literacy'' and ``meet the mathematics and science needs for students at
risk of not achieving State student academic achievement standards.''
Specifically, section 8(E) of the law required NSF to support programs
for such activities as ``laboratory improvement and provision of
instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the
quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology
instruction.'' As scientific and technical fields become an increasing
part of the global economy, it is imperative that America's students be
adequately prepared to compete for high-tech jobs and create the
innovation that drives the economy.
The NRC report found that the laboratory science programs in high
school classrooms are in disarray, and certain factors seriously hamper
efforts to improve them. The NRC report committee concluded that there
exists no commonly agreed upon definition of laboratories in high
schools amongst researchers and educators. Without agreement on a
definition of what constitutes a laboratory exercise, research and the
accumulation of knowledge on specific methods to improve the experience
for student is undirected, difficult to classify, and difficult to draw
conclusions from.
Though research on laboratory exercises may not be well delineated,
American students poor achievement in science is. Assessments of
national trends in science learning show that American students at all
levels are at roughly the same level of proficiency in science that
they were at 30 years ago. International assessments show American
students fare worse than their peers in other countries. It is clear
from studies of undergraduate science students that many are unprepared
for college-level work. A 2002 survey of first-year students planning a
major in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) showed
20 percent in need of remedial math work and 10 percent in need of
remedial science work. Those who come unprepared for college-level work
often do not succeed and will leave the STEM fields.
Through their review of the available studies, the NRC report
committee developed a list of desired outcomes for laboratory
experiences. The studies showed that laboratory experiences may help
students enhance mastery of subject matter, develop practical skills
with tools and instrumentation, develop teamwork abilities, and
cultivate an interest in science. Additionally, the NRC committee noted
that laboratory experiences expose students to the complexity and
ambiguity of real empirical work. These concepts cannot be taught in
lectures or textbooks. Students must interact directly with scientific
phenomena to appreciate this aspect of science.
Unfortunately, the typical laboratory experience for most of the
country's high school students is poor. Studying the current situation
in the classroom, the NRC report committee concluded that teachers
often implement laboratory exercises that are not synchronized to the
classroom lecture, do not have clear learning goals, neglect student
feedback and discussion, or are not designed to integrate the learning
of science material with the learning of scientific process. Teachers
are rarely provided adequate pre-service training or in-service
professional development to lead these exercises. The lack of
flexibility in high school organization can also impedes the
implementation of more effective laboratory exercises.
The NRC report committee came to the conclusion that State
standards are also to blame for the failures in the laboratory.
Teachers must cover an extensive list of standards, leaving little time
for the development and implementation of laboratory curricula. The NRC
report points to one study of California State standards showing that
students are required to carry out laboratory exercises that engage in
activities like hypothesis forming, data collection, problem solving,
but at the same time they must also master an extensive list of science
topics that puts impossible time constraints on laboratory exercises.
And, since large-scale assessments of science mastery are not designed
to measure student attainment of laboratory goals, laboratory exercises
are further neglected.
H.R. 524
H.R. 524 amends the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 to establish a
pilot program at NSF to fund grants to improve laboratory sciences. The
grants, which require a funding match, must go to partnerships between
high schools and institutions of higher learning (including community
colleges), businesses, eligible non-profit organizations, State
educational, or other public agencies, National labs, or community-
based organizations. These grants are intended to support the
development of laboratory exercises integrated with classroom
curriculum and teacher development, and to provide for the acquisition
of laboratory equipment and instrumentation. A provision is also made
in the bill for supporting these activities in schools serving minority
populations under-represented in science and engineering.
The pilot projects authorized by H.R. 524 will address some of the
needs for research and demonstration activities raised by the NRC
report. Because the NRC committee found the evidence on best practices
for high school science laboratories too inconclusive to make specific
recommendations, they delivered a series of questions in five broad
categories for policy-makers, researchers, and educators to address.
These areas are: the assessment of student learning in laboratory
exercises; the most effective pedagogy methods for laboratory
exercises; how to serve a diverse population of learners; the best
organization of schools and school systems for a well-functioning
laboratory program; and the best way to prepare educators to administer
effective laboratory programs.
Questions for Witnesses
The panelists were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony before the Subcommittee:
Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft
Please explain the background that was the impetus of
the National Research Council's report America's Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science. What were the report's
findings? Can you characterize one or two as being the most
critical in implementing a successful laboratory program?
What recommendations would the study committee make
to improve the laboratory experience for students?
Mrs. Linda Froschauer
How important is the laboratory experience for
students in understanding scientific concepts? What is current
state of laboratory facilities and instruction in the country?
What are the biggest concerns your member science
teachers have about laboratory education and implementing an
effective program?
Will H.R. 524 assist in developing and implementing
effective science laboratory programs for high school students?
Dr. Jerry Mundell
Please describe the curriculum you've developed for
students in the Cleveland Public schools. How has your position
at Cleveland State University informed your motivation and
ideas for high school laboratory curriculum?
What obstacles have you encountered in creating lab
programs for high school students? Have you assessed students'
mastery of concepts using the curriculum you've developed? What
methods have you used to measure this?
Will H.R. 524 assist in developing and implementing
effective science laboratory programs for high school students?
H.R. 524, To Establish a Laboratory Science Pilot Program at the
National Science Foundation
Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
This bill would establish a pilot program at the National Science
Foundation to award grants to partnerships to improve science
laboratories at the secondary school level. The grants may be used for
a variety of activities to improve the laboratory experience for high
school students with particular regard to minorities who are under-
represented in science and engineering.
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 524
Section 1. Findings
Section 2. Grant Program
- Amends Section 8(8) of the National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 2002 to include a section authorizing a laboratory science pilot
program for secondary schools.
- Requires the National Science Foundation Director to establish a
pilot program designated as `Partnerships for Access to Laboratory
Science' to award grants to partnerships to improve laboratories and
provide instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance
the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology
instruction at the secondary school level.
- Requires that the grants awarded be used for the following types of
activities: to purchase, rent, or lease equipment; maintain, renovate,
or improve laboratory facilities; engage in professional development
and training activities for teachers; develop instructional programs
designed to integrate the laboratory experience with classroom
instruction and be consistent with State mathematics and science
academic achievement standards; the training in laboratory safety for
school personnel; the design and implementation of hands-on laboratory
experience to encourage the interest of individuals identified in
section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act
(42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in mathematics, science, engineering, and
technology and help prepare such individuals to pursue post-secondary
studies in these fields; and assessment of the activities funded by
this pilot program.
- Requires the grants awarded under amended subparagraph A be to a
partnership that includes an institution of higher education or a
community college, a high-need local educational agency, a business or
eligible nonprofit organization, and may include a State educational
agency, or other public agency, National Laboratory, or community-based
organization.
- Requires that the federal cost share for these grants be no more
than 50 percent.
Section 3. Report
- Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to evaluate
the effectiveness of activities carried out under this grant program
and submit a report, no later than five years after the enactment of
the act, to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate. The report shall identify best practices and materials
developed and demonstrated by grant awardees.
Section 4. Authorization of Appropriations
- Authorizes the appropriation of $5,000,000 to the National Science
Foundation for fiscal year 2008 and such sums that may be necessary for
the three succeeding fiscal years to carry out this Act.
Chairman Baird. This hearing will come to order. I
appreciate the presence of our witnesses, we had recent votes,
so I apologize for the delay, but we are very glad you are all
here.
We are also waiting on a fellow Member who undoubtedly is
tied up with some other committee business. Mr. Hinojosa, we
hope, will be here shortly. If he arrives, we will insert him
into the proceedings as well.
I want to first welcome everyone, and thank you all for
coming to this afternoon's hearing on Improving the Laboratory
Experience for America's High School Students. This is
particularly exciting for me. It marks the very first hearing
of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee for this
Congress, and I want to take just a moment to express how
pleased I am to be able to chair this particular subcommittee.
I want to especially thank my good friend and colleague,
Ranking Member Dr. Ehlers, who was the leader of this very
committee until recently. He has been a true leader on the
Science Committee in general, has extensive knowledge of and
experience with the important issues that come before this
committee, and I look forward to drawing upon his knowledge and
his friendship, and also, working together in a bipartisan
manner throughout this Congress. I am pleased he will be
leading this subcommittee on the Republican side, and also, am
glad to see Mr. Hall here.
Oh, Mr. Hinojosa is here. Well, welcome. We are just
getting started. So come on up, my friend, and we will start
with you once I get through all my initial palaver.
I also want to acknowledge, though she is not with us
today, on the Democratic side, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who
preceded me as the Democratic lead on this subcommittee, in her
role as Ranking Member. I intend to continue her good work, and
especially, her commitment to math and science education,
particularly as it pertains to under-represented communities. I
am pleased that Ms. Johnson has decided to continue her service
on this committee.
As it is the first Committee hearing, I want to take just a
brief moment to offer a few observations of how I will approach
this committee, and hopefully, that will set the stage for some
of what we will do in the future. I would say at the start that
long before I was in Congress, I was a scientist. I hold a
doctorate in clinical psychology, specialized in
neuropsychology, and science is not just a committee I serve
on, as I know it is the same with Dr. Ehlers. This is something
that is in our blood. We are scientists. We are passionate
about it, and I am passionate about it not just as a scientist,
but as a Member of Congress. I believe that reason, informed by
fact, is a pretty darn good way to lead your life, and it is a
very good way to make public policy. And we are not alone in
that. Those who know the history of this great country know
that some of our greatest Founders, Franklin especially, but
also Jefferson and Washington, as well, had a passionate
commitment to science and to investigative research as a way to
guide agriculture, as well as public policy.
At the same time, because I have been in the scientific
field, I recognize that science has its share of problems, and
there is room for improvement. And I want to underscore from
the outset that ultimately, government-funded scientific
research, as important as it is, exists by taking the hard-
earned money of taxpayers, who could use that money in
countless other ways, to fund their health care, to send their
kids to school, to pay for their house, you name it, and they
take that money, we as government take that money from
hardworking taxpayers, and we give it to scientists to conduct
their studies. That seems to me to place a particular
responsibility on the scientists who receive such funds. Simply
put, if someone cannot explain why it is worthwhile to take
another person's hard-earned money to do a study, maybe that
study should not be done. And I know that is a strong
principle, and I am passionate about science, but I believe
scientists have a responsibility to recognize where the money
comes from that funds their studies.
I also believe that because we have placed such a high
premium and value on scientific research, it is especially
incumbent upon the scientific community to hold themselves to
the highest standards of integrity, objectivity, and honesty
when reporting scientific information, not only to the
Congress, but to the broad scientific community. We make
important decisions based on the work of scientists, and the
onus is on them to make sure their work merits that
credibility.
I recognize fully that many times, scientific research at
the initial stages is not always transparent, in terms of how
it might be applied down the road, but I would urge all
scientists, especially those receiving government funds, to ask
themselves at some point: ``How do I justify that to the crab
fishermen on the Pacific Coast, or the logger in the mountains,
or the farmer in Kansas, or the steelworker in Pennsylvania,
who have given their money to fund my research?'' And we will
keep that in mind as we proceed through this Congress and
through this committee.
I finally want to say this: I believe that one of the great
things about science is it should not be partisan. Information,
reason, informed discussion has no preference, necessarily, for
one party or another. I have come to learn, since I have been
in Congress, there are many good ideas on both sides of the
aisle, and we should listen to them regardless of which side
they come from. I have also come to believe there are many
stupid ideas on both sides of the aisle, and we should evaluate
them accordingly.
But on this committee, I will say to my friends, Dr.
Ehlers, Mr. Hall, I look forward to working with you. If you
folks have some things we can work on together, by all means,
let us do it. And as we are working forward on issues coming
from our side, we will approach you and see how we can make it
better for everybody concerned.
So, thank you for your leadership, and with that, I want to
say that, turning to today's testimony, I want to particularly
welcome Congressman Hinojosa, who is appearing before us. He
has introduced H.R. 524, a bill that would authorize the
National Science Foundation to make matching grants to
partnerships between high schools and institutions of higher
education, business, or other community organizations, to
explore ways to improve science labs for students. These grants
will be used for teacher training and development, equipment
and facilities, and curriculum development. The research and
demonstration projects will be focused on improving labs at
high schools serving large populations of students under-
represented in science and math careers today. Studies show it
is these kids at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder,
who are most lacking in this valuable learning experience.
How valuable is the lab experience for teaching science,
and what is wrong with the labs in high schools now? The
National Research Council brought attention to this issue in
2005 with their report, ``America's Lab Report: Investigations
in High School Science.'' The report presents an in-depth look
at the problems plaguing the effective use of what many
consider to be an integral part of learning science. To be
sure, languishing facilities and old equipment are problems.
The report, though, brings attention to the non-physical
issues, such as inadequate teacher training and preparation,
lab exercises not designed to fit with classroom curricula, and
State science standards that are too extensive to actually
allow time in the laboratory.
This subcommittee is devoted to improving science
education, so devoted that we added science education to the
name of the Subcommittee itself. We are concerned that American
students are not achieving their potential in science and math
education. It is a concern not only as we look at competing in
a knowledge-based global economy for the high paying technology
jobs, but at all levels of our economy. Folks need to have an
understanding of science and math in order for them to succeed
as individuals, and our nation to succeed as a country.
Improving K-12 science education is the ultimate key to the
future prosperity and strength of our nation, as the National
Academy pointed out in its report, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm.'' Improving K-12 education needs to be the keystone of
any innovation agenda. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today, and I want to recognize, now, Dr. Ehlers, for
an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone and thank you for coming
to this afternoon's hearing on Improving the Laboratory Experience for
America's High School Students.
This marks the very first hearing of the Research and Science
Education Subcommittee this Congress, and I want to take just a moment
to express how pleased I am to be able to chair this particular
subcommittee.
I want to thank Ranking Member Ehlers. He has been a true leader on
the Science Committee and has extensive knowledge on the important
issues that will come before this subcommittee over the next couple of
years. I am pleased that he will be leading this subcommittee with me,
and look forward to working with him closely.
I also want to acknowledge the great work of Congresswoman Eddie
Bernice Johnson, who preceded me as the Democratic lead on this
subcommittee. I intend to continue her commitment to math and science
education, particularly in under-served communities, and am pleased
that she has decided to continue her service on this subcommittee.
Long before I was a Member of Congress, I was a scientist. Long
after I complete my service in this body, I will still be a scientist.
Science is in my blood, it is part of my being. I value science not
just for the astonishing discoveries and inventions it has produced,
but as a method of making decisions and, in some ways, of leading one's
life. Reason, informed by careful, critical evaluation of evidence,
strikes me as the key not only to science, but to a successful personal
life and--perhaps more importantly for our purposes here--to a
successful republic. That view, as Members of this subcommittee will
all know, was embraced by the Founding Fathers, many of whom were
either practicing scientists in the world, or avid consumers of
scientific research, as exemplified by Jefferson and Washington.
From that background, I approach the opportunity to chair this
subcommittee with a mixture of profound excitement and some concern.
Excitement--because this committee will have the opportunity and
responsibility to address some of the core government programs that
support much of the most advanced research being conducted anywhere in
the world. To those of us who so passionately care about the scientific
endeavor, and who see that endeavor as holding the keys to some of our
most vexing national problems, this is a thrilling prospect.
At the same time, because I have spent time in the scientific
field, I recognize that we scientists are not perfect and that there is
room for improvement in the science community.
Ultimately, government funded scientific research takes the hard
earned money of taxpaying citizens, money that those citizens could
otherwise put toward paying for their own health care, for their homes,
for their retirement, for their children's education, money that was
not easily come by and is not easily parted with, and gives that money
instead to scientists to pay for their research. Government funded
scientists need to appreciate this fundamental sacrifice and, thereby,
the responsibility it carries.
Simply put, if someone cannot explain why it is worthwhile to take
another person's hard-earned money to do a study, maybe the study
should not be done. That may seem shocking to say so directly, but I
sincerely believe it is a matter of principle.
I recognize that in many instances, the government investment in
science has paid off a thousand-fold in ways not easily imagined when
the core research was being funded or conducted. At the same time,
however, there is also much government funded research that provides
very little return and yields only marginally used or applicable
information. I recognize that there are no easy answers to these
questions, but I think it is important that this subcommittee at least
consider these questions as we move forward with our work.
I also believe that scientists who receive government money have a
special responsibility to ensure that the research they perform with
that money is consistent with the highest standards methodologically.
Precisely because science and scientists are held in such high esteem
by the public and policy-makers, I believe they bear a special
responsibility for honesty, objectivity, rigor and integrity.
Finally, before turning to today's hearing, I wanted to say that I
have always believed that there are good ideas on both sides of the
aisle here in Congress. I very much want this subcommittee to operate
in a bipartisan manner. I look forward to the input of Members of both
parties as we work together to further the important work of this
subcommittee.
Today, we'll be hearing testimony on the use of the laboratory
experience in high school science classrooms. For a number of reasons,
which we'll hear about today, this part of the science curriculum is
currently in disarray across the country. I use the term ``laboratory
experience'' rather than just ``lab'' because the challenge of
effectively using a laboratory to teach students science turns out to
be more difficult than just making sure we have enough Bunsen burners
and beakers in every classroom.
I'd like to welcome Congressman Hinojosa who is appearing before us
today. He has introduced H.R. 524, a bill that would authorize the
National Science Foundation to make matching grants to partnerships
between high schools and institutions of higher educations, businesses,
or other community organizations to explore ways to improve science
labs for students. These grants can be used for teacher training and
development, equipment and facilities, and curriculum development. The
research and demonstration projects will be focused on improving labs
at high schools serving large proportions of students under-represented
in science and math careers today. Studies show that it is these kids,
at the lowest rungs on the socio-economic ladder, who are most lacking
in this valuable learning experience.
How valuable is the lab experience for teaching science, and what's
wrong with the labs in high schools now? The National Research Council
brought attention to the issue in 2005 with their report, America's Lab
Report: Investigations in High School Science. The report presents an
in depth look at the problems plaguing the effective use of what many
consider to be an integral part of learning science. To be sure,
languishing facilities and old equipment are problems. The report,
though, brings attention to the non-physical issues, such as inadequate
teacher training and preparation, lab exercises not designed to fit
with the classroom curriculum, and State science standards too
extensive to allow time in the laboratory.
This subcommittee is devoted to improving science education--so
devoted that we added science education to the name of the
Subcommittee. We are very concerned that American students are not
achieving their potential in science and math education. This is a
concern as we look at competing in a knowledge-based global economy,
and it's a concern when we look at being able to give every American an
opportunity for those high-paying technology-based jobs. Improving K-12
science education is the ultimate key to the future prosperity and
strength of our nation. As the National Academy pointed out in its
report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, improving K-12 education needs
to be the keystone of any innovation agenda.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank
you.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on
your new post. We welcome you to that. I have always admired
your honesty and your integrity in dealing with issues, and I
totally agree with you. Science is not partisan. Science policy
can be partisan, but the science itself should not be.
And I might just add an editorial comment, that I am upset
at all those people who are trying to label the current White
House as not being scientifically correct, and I recognize some
members of the Administration might be, but I have watched
Presidents over the years. Most of them are not very good at
science. Most of them are not very good at using science, and I
find it very disturbing that in spite of that record, and I
don't think President Bush is any worse than anyone else who
came along, probably somewhat better, but a pseudo-scientific
group and certain scientists are trying to make science a
partisan issue in the White House, and I don't think that is
either helpful or appropriate.
Let me also say, picking up on your comment about
justifying the use of taxpayers' money. I totally agree with
you, and I remember Chairman Sensenbrenner's frequent
questions, when he chaired the Full Committee of Science, and
scientists would come to him and ask for money for their
particular projects. His first question always was: ``Have you
talked to your Rotary Club about this?'' And this just sets
them back, ``Why should I talk to my Rotary Club?'' And his
answer was simply: ``If you can't sell it to your local Rotary
Club, how do you expect me to sell it to the Congress.'' And
that is the key point, all scientists should be out selling
their particular work to the public, so they know it is being
done, and the public will come to appreciate it.
Having said that, let me give a somewhat more formal
statement. Laboratory experiences are a significant part of the
greater issue of improving STEM education in our nation. U.S.
science literacy is weak at the K-12 levels, compared to other
countries, and our universities are burdened with a tremendous
amount of remedial work in these areas. I am constantly on a
mission to find ways that we can strengthen our system of
education at all levels to incorporate support for STEM
teachers and students, STEM of course standing for science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
I am very pleased that my colleague, Representative
Hinojosa, has introduced a bill to improve high school
laboratory science, particularly for those in the highest need.
I expect that the witnesses' reflections on laboratory science
and the proposed legislation will be an invaluable part of the
Committee process. There is clearly a need to improve upon high
school laboratory experiences. One of the conclusions of the
National Research Council's report on lab science was that
educators and researchers do not agree on how to define high
school lab science. This is a fundamental and necessary place
to start. In fact, the NRC report found that there are such
limited data on typical laboratory experiences that it is
difficult to draw any conclusions about their effect on student
learning.
The experts on the NRC panel scrutinized the strengths of
integrated lab experiences, and discovered that a lab is only
helpful when it is fully integrated into the learning process.
Additionally, the report revealed that there is a dearth of
research in this area, and students across the Nation could
benefit from a study on the best way to establish a successful
laboratory.
Let me also add a parenthetical note about why laboratory
instruction is so essential today. A hundred and fifty years
ago, over 90 percent of the people in this country lived on
farms. And I don't know how many present have lived on a farm
or worked on a farm. I grew up in a farming community, and
every child who grows up on a farm learns physics by using the
equipment on a farm. Today, only a small fraction of our
population is on the farm, approximately two percent. That
means 98 percent of our population is likely not experiencing
the use of physics and physical equipment before they get into
the schools, particularly high school, so it is essential for
us to give them that experience that used to come with ordinary
life, but no longer does.
Another aspect of this is that Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman,
who has been working in this area for years now, in fact, has
recently decided to work full-time on improving science
education. During his tenure at the University of Colorado, he
developed a physics educational technology project using
simulations for both teaching and learning physics, and has
made them freely available through a website. These simulations
emphasize the connections between real life phenomena and the
underlying science, and draw heavily on prior research
findings.
Though Dr. Wieman's project was far from a traditional or
even hands-on type of laboratory, the undergraduate physics
students who used his simulations showed an increased mastery
of concepts. In one of his research papers, Dr. Wieman
concluded that ``many physicists find it quite mysterious, and
somewhat disturbing, that carefully developed simulations are
more educationally effective than real hardware.'' In other
words, simply saying we have to have laboratory experiments may
not be the entire answer. It may not even be the correct
answer. Perhaps simulations may be more effective. Again, that
is something that should be studied.
As the National Research Council High School Lab Report
also determined, I think that more evidence is necessary to
determine what an effective laboratory looks like.
I look forward to the discussion about developing
integrated laboratories and to learn from our witnesses. All of
them have tremendous experience in the trenches, and I welcome
them here today.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Laboratory experiences are a significant part of the greater issue
of improving STEM education in our nation. U.S. science literacy is
weak at the K-12 levels, and our universities are burdened with a
tremendous amount of remedial work in these areas. I am constantly on a
mission to find ways that we can strengthen our system of education at
all levels to incorporate support for STEM teachers and students. I am
very pleased that my colleague, Representative Hinojosa, has introduced
this bill to improve high school laboratory science, particularly for
those in highest need. I expect that the witnesses' reflections on
laboratory science and the proposed legislation will be an invaluable
part of the Committee process.
There is clearly a need to improve upon high school laboratory
experiences. One of the conclusions of the National Research Council's
Report on lab science was that educators and researchers do not agree
on how to define high school lab science. This is a fundamental and
necessary place to start. In fact, the NRC Report found that there is
such limited data on typical laboratory experiences that it is
difficult to draw any conclusions about their effect on student
learning. The experts on the NRC panel scrutinized the strengths of
integrated lab experiences, and discovered that a lab is only helpful
when it is fully integrated into the learning process. Clearly, there
is a dearth of research in this area, and students across the Nation
could benefit from a study on the best way to establish a successful
laboratory.
Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman has been working in this area for years
now--in fact, he has recently decided to work full time on improving
science education. During his tenure at the University of Colorado, he
developed a Physics Education Technology project with simulations for
teaching and learning physics and has made them freely available from a
website. These simulations emphasize the connections between real-life
phenomena and the underlying science, and drew heavily on prior
research findings. Though Dr. Wieman's project is far from a
``traditional''--or even ``hands-on'' type of laboratory, the
undergraduate physics students who used his simulations showed an
increased mastery of concepts. In one of his research papers Dr. Wieman
concluded that ``Many physicists find it quite mysterious and somewhat
disturbing that carefully developed simulations are more educationally
effective than real hardware.'' \1\ As the National Research Council
High School Lab Report also determined, I think there is a lot more
work necessary to determine what an effective laboratory looks like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Physics Today, November 2005, pp. 36-40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to the discussion about developing integrated
laboratories, and to learn from our witnesses. All of them have
tremendous experience ``in the trenches,'' and I welcome them here
today.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. If there are any
other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements,
your statements will be added to the record.
At this time, I would like to introduce the witness for our
first panel, Congressman Ruben Hinojosa from Texas, the author
of H.R. 524. Ruben, we are pleased to have you appear before us
today to talk about your bill.
I now recognize my friend from Texas for his testimony.
Panel 1:
STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hinojosa. Good afternoon. Is the microphone on? I would
like to thank Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers and all
the Members of the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity
to present testimony on a pressing need: access to high quality
laboratory science in our high schools.
I would especially like to thank my fellow Texan,
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and Chairman of the Full
Committee, Congressman Bart Gordon, for their advice and
support in developing H.R. 524, the Partnerships for Laboratory
Science Act, better known as PALS, which we are here to discuss
today.
I would like to express my appreciation to the STEM
education community, particularly the chairs of the STEM
Education Coalition, James Brown of the American Chemical
Society, and Jodi Peterson of the National Science Teachers
Association, for their advocacy on behalf of opportunities for
our young people, and for their commitment to ensuring that we
do not lose future scientists and engineers because they did
not get preparation in laboratory science in high school.
We have major holes in our pipeline for preparing future
professionals in science, technology, engineering, and math,
better known as the STEM fields. None is more glaring than the
lack of preparation for college level work for the students
graduating from high schools that have high concentrations of
poor and minority students.
The National Science Foundation commissioned a study by the
National Research Council on the state of America's high school
labs. I would like to draw your attention to two glaring
findings in that report.
One, the current quality of laboratory experiences is poor
for most students, and educators and researchers do not agree
on what constitutes an adequate high school laboratory,
hampering the accumulation of research on how to improve labs.
The second finding, schools with higher concentrations of
non-Asian minorities and schools with higher concentration of
poor students are less likely to have adequate laboratory
facilities than other schools.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of my
statement be included in the record, because I would like to
speak from personal experience of what I have seen in the good
laboratories and in the poor ones.
I come from an area in South Texas that is 250 miles south
of San Antonio. The area is 80 percent Hispanic, and an area
that has for too many years been neglected. We didn't see a
sitting President in that area from 1953 to 1998, for 45
consecutive years. Shameful. Big neglect.
So, I can tell you that the area is now progressing,
because we have been investing in human capital, in education
of public schools, in colleges and universities, and other
infrastructure projects that are helping that area prosper.
But I want to share with you that we have the South Texas
Independent School District with five magnet schools, two of
which are listed in the top 1,000 high schools in the country.
The Math and Science Academy is in the top ten, and has been
for three consecutive years, and then, the Allied Health is a
magnet school that is really focusing on allied health careers,
and nursing, and we have produced a lot of practicing medical
doctors.
And the important thing is that we focused a great deal on
the science labs. Why? Because, as one of the members of the
Education Committee, here in Congress, I went to visit Thomas
Jefferson High School, and that is in Northern Virginia, and
always among the top producers of National Merit Scholars. It
is amazing that they can produce 70 semifinalists for that
designation, and that out of those 70 semifinalists, 40 got the
National Merit Scholarship, and so, that is proof that what I
am going to say makes a big difference, and that is that when I
took a delegation from the Math and Science Academy of South
Texas, there were about ten men and women who work there, the
Superintendent, several of the Professors, and several school
board members, and we noted that their laboratories was the
most exciting thing that the students had in their rigorous
educational program. You couldn't get a job at that school,
because nobody wants to quit. They had teachers with Master's
and Ph.D.s, and the students, you couldn't get them out,
because they had such exciting projects.
All this to say that we know that it works, because we now
have two schools in the top 100 in the Nation, an area that has
more migrant children than any other region in the country, and
when they featured it one of the business periodicals, it was
interesting that they selected a child from a migrant family
who scored 1500 on her SAT, and so good are the SATs and ACT
scores that they are recruited from the best Ivy League schools
in the country, East Coast to West Coast, full scholarships and
97 percent of their graduates are going on to college.
Folks, there is no doubt in my mind that we are on the
right track with this legislation. I am pleased to tell you
that in just a short while this afternoon, less than 45
minutes, I gathered 40 co-sponsorships to add to the original
30 sponsors of this legislation for a total of 70 bipartisan
Members of Congress thinking why, or asking me, what has taken
you so long?
Also, I am pleased to report to the Committee that Senator
Menendez over in the Senate side is offering the mirror
legislation that we have in the House, and so, I believe that
we just simply need to raise the level of awareness of the
condition of our science labs, and get the appropriators to
build up some courage and invest in our high school labs, and I
think that things are going to really improve.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ruben Hinojosa
Good Afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman Baird and Ranking
Member Ehlers and all of the Members of the Subcommittee for giving me
the opportunity to present testimony on a pressing need--access to high
quality laboratory science in our high schools.
I would especially like to thank my fellow Texan, Congresswoman
Eddie Bernice Johnson and the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Congressman Bart Gordon for their advice and support in developing H.R.
524, the Partnerships for Laboratory Science Act, which we are here to
discuss today.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the STEM Education
community, particularly the chairs of the STEM Education Coalition,
James Brown of the American Chemical Society, and Jodi Peterson of the
National Science Teachers Association for their advocacy on behalf of
opportunities for our young people and for their commitment to ensuring
that we do not lose future scientists and engineers because they did
not get preparation in laboratory science in high school.
We have major holes in our pipeline for preparing future
professionals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--the
STEM fields. None is more glaring than the lack of preparation for
college level work for students graduating from high schools that have
high concentrations of poor and minority students.
The National Science Foundation commissioned a study by the
National Research Council on the state of America's High School Labs. I
would like to draw your attention to two glaring findings in that
report:
1. The current quality of laboratory experiences is poor for
most students and educators and researchers do not agree on
what constitutes an adequate high school laboratory, hampering
the accumulation of research on how to improve labs.
2. Schools with higher concentrations of non-Asian minorities
and schools with higher concentrations of poor students are
less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities than other
schools.
Here are some other things that we know:
Last spring the American Council on Education issued
a report, Increasing the Success of Minority Students in
Science and Technology, which identified lack of a rigorous
high school curriculum as a major barrier to completing a
college degree in the STEM fields.
The latest science report card included an
astonishing figure--only one in four Black or Hispanic students
take the three major laboratory sciences--biology, chemistry,
and physics--that are the foundation for future STEM work in
college.
With these types of statistics, it should come as no surprise that
we are losing our competitive edge in producing experts in math,
science, and engineering. We must redouble our efforts to engage young
people in these fields early in their academic careers. As we look at a
broad based, national innovation or competitiveness agenda, we need to
bring in partners to address this part of the pipeline.
That is why I introduced the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory
Science Act. This legislation will establish a pilot program that will
partner high need school districts with colleges and universities, and
the private sector to improve high school laboratories as part of a
comprehensive plan to improve science instruction and student learning
outcomes.
This pilot is intended to develop models and test effective
practices for improving laboratory science in high need schools. It
will leverage resources from the local community and the private
sector, and it will build on our base of knowledge of what works in
teaching science. The legislation is a logical next step forward from
the National Research Council's report on high school labs.
Our next generation of scientists and engineers are waiting to be
discovered in our nation's high schools. Let's make sure that our
schools are equipped to provide them with the laboratory experiences
they need to develop their talents and foster a life-long interest in
science. This is something that we can accomplish together.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be happy to
answer any of your questions.
Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman, and unless there are
any urgent questions on any Members of the Committee, as is the
custom, we will excuse the gentleman and thank him very much
for his testimony, for his leadership on this.
You speak with great passion and experience, and we would
hope that we could, in all of our districts and across this
country, replicate the kind of successes you have described.
Thank you very much, Ruben, for your leadership on this.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you much, sir. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. At this time, I would like to introduce the
witnesses on our second panel, and if Mr. Hinojosa wishes to
stay, he is of course welcome to. If he needs to go, we
understand that as well.
First is Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, a Distinguished Professor
of Science Education and Director of the Center for Science and
Math in Context at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
He also served on the National Research Council committee that
authored ``America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School
Science.''
Next is Ms. Linda Froschauer, President of the National
Science Teachers' Association. She is also the K-8 Science
Department Chair for the Weston Public Schools of Weston,
Connecticut.
And Dr. Jerry Mundell is a chemistry Professor at Cleveland
State University in Cleveland, Ohio, where he serves as
coordinator of the Freshman Chemistry Committee.
I would remind our witnesses that spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each. You have got those little lights
there. My dear friend, Dr. Ehlers, and when he was Chair,
reminded people that at the yellow light, you should pay close
attention, because when the light turns red, a trapdoor emerges
beneath your chair, and you will disappear from view. We have
modified that. It will still apply to the witnesses. It now
also applies to the Members as well. When we exceed our time
commitment, there is a trapdoor, and we will be gone two floors
down and picked up by maintenance later in the day.
But seriously, we look forward very much to the testimony.
You have done some great work. We look forward to hearing about
it, particularly in the concept of the outstanding legislation
introduced by Mr. Hinojosa.
Dr. Eisenkraft, please.
Panel 2:
STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR EISENKRAFT, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION; DIRECTOR, CENTER OF SCIENCE AND MATH IN
CONTEXT (COSMIC), UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON
Dr. Eisenkraft. As the spring baseball and softball season
begins, I thought it would be good to take a moment to imagine
two teams getting ready for this season. Both teams have fans
and baseball players and good coaches, and one of them gets to
practice with bats and balls, and gets on the field, and the
other gets to watch videotapes and learn and read books about
baseball. And we have to wonder, which team would you rather
have your child on? Who is going to do better this season?
Well, it is a silly question to ask, because the answer is
obvious. You want the team who can practice, and yet, the same
situation, a parallel situation exists today in our high school
labs, where some students get the opportunity to investigate
the processes of science by doing science, others get to hear
about science, listen to people talk about science, and perhaps
watch videotapes.
The National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences produced this study at the request of the National
Science Foundation. Eight of my colleagues and some staff
members worked on this for a good amount of time, and we agreed
on a definition of laboratory experiences, and we looked at the
goals and effectiveness of labs in America.
The legislation considered here corresponds to two of the
conclusions reached here, related conclusions. One was that
labs on the whole are not doing what we thought they would be
doing. They are poor in most respects. And also that, in spite
of how poor those labs are, children in poor communities aren't
even getting those labs, and children who are lower in academic
ability in affluent school districts are not getting those
labs, either.
So, why do we care about lab experiences? Why are the poor
quality of labs and the unavailability of labs to segments of
our population concerns? So, no amount of watching other people
do science is an adequate substitute for doing science one's
self. For 25 years, I have watched my wife. She takes these two
sticks, and she goes like this, and then a sweater pops out
after a certain amount of time. And now, I have watched this
for 25 years with care, and what are the chances, you think, if
you gave me some yarn and some knitting needles, I could make a
sweater? Well, most people don't give me a 50/50 chance or even
a 10 percent chance. Only the kindest of people give me a one
percent chance. Most people say you have no chance, and yet, we
think, though, that students can watch somebody else do
science, and they will be able to figure out. If I can't do it
with knitting a sweater, I don't think they will be able to do
it by doing that. That is one reason we have labs, to provide
these experiences to students.
But the other reason is related to the common experience.
There was a study in the New York Times three years ago which
showed the learning, the television viewing habits of black and
white Americans. Out of the top ten television programs, only
two were in common on both lists. What that meant to me was
that every time I give a television reference in class, I was
disenfranchising students in the school who were not like me.
That same thing exists in all segments of our society, so every
textbook in science talks about waves in the harmonic
oscillators or whatever, and they all say like the waves at the
beach. Well, I will tell you there are kids in Boston and kids
in Los Angeles who have never been to the beach, and it is only
five miles from their house. So, I have no idea what kids in
Nebraska are thinking when they read in the book like the waves
at the beach.
What we do in the lab is we give people a tub of water,
they slosh it back and forth. They make observations, they make
measurements, they draw conclusions based on that, so that we
don't have to assume that the only people who have an
understanding of this are the ones who were lucky enough to
vacation at the beach in some part of their lives. We need
these kinds of experiences in order to level the playing field
of all the students.
Once we figure out that we need labs, we have to figure out
how to do them better. How do we integrate them into the
instructional units? How do we make them meaningful? How do we
give them a context? How do we use the best learning from the
cognitive psychology research in order to help them?
If Olympic teams were performing as poorly as our students
are in international competitions, there would be a national
cry for more attention, for improved coaching, for more
opportunity, for better equipment. We should have the same
sense of urgency for our students. Instead of just being
science students, they can be student scientists.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eisenkraft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Eisenkraft
As the spring baseball and softball season approaches, we can take
a moment to imagine two teams getting ready to begin their season. Both
teams have energetic players, dedicated coaches and supportive fans.
Both teams have playing manuals, novel strategies and team building
exercises. The only difference between the teams is that one practices
using bats, balls and gloves while the other team listens to lectures
and watches videotapes of professional players. If you wanted your
children to win, which team would you put them on?
While it seems silly to think that some parents would want their
children to play a sport without actually practicing, we have created a
similar scenario in our high school science classrooms. Students in
some classrooms investigate the processes of science by performing
experiments, making measurements and drawing conclusions from this
data. Students in other classrooms read about the processes of science,
listen to stories about how experiments are conducted, and watch
videotapes. If we want our children to be good scientists, which
classrooms should we put them in?
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
recently completed a study entitled, ``America's Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science'' at the request of the National
Science Foundation. I had the opportunity to serve on that committee
along with nine other colleagues and staff members of the NRC. The
committee agreed on a definition of laboratory experience, reviewed the
research on the goals and effectiveness of laboratory experiences in
our high schools and arrived at a number of conclusions that are all
relevant to this committee's deliberations.
The first conclusion of the committee focused on the need to create
a definition of laboratory experience to insure that we agree on the
instruction we are describing and in order to assist the research
community in future studies. The committee's agreed-upon definition
that ``Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to
interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the
material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models
and theories of science'' includes studies of friction on inclined
surfaces, of how metals react with acids and observations of a drop of
water with a microscope. It also recognizes that some laboratory
experiences do not permit students to record data but instead involve
analyzing data from large databases. For example, science researchers
study climatic change by reviewing data recorded over the past
centuries rather than recording this data themselves. It also does not
restrict laboratory experiences to a lab room and includes field
experiences where researchers study the ecology of deserts or rain
forests.
The committee also culled from the research a list of goals of
laboratory experiences which includes:
Enhancing mastery of subject matter;
Developing scientific reasoning;
Understanding the complexity and ambiguity of
empirical work;
Developing practical skills;
Understanding the nature of science;
Cultivating interest in science and interest in
learning science; and
Developing teamwork abilities.
The legislation being considered by the Committee includes
references to the third conclusion of the study and a related concern:
that ``[t]he quality of current lab experiences is poor for most
students,'' and ``[s]tudents in schools with higher concentrations of
non-Asian minorities spend less time in laboratory instruction than
students in other schools, and students in lower level science classes
spend less time in laboratory instruction than those enrolled in more
advanced science classes.''
Why do we care about lab experiences in high school classes? Why
are the poor quality of labs and the unavailability of labs to segments
of our population concerns?
No amount of watching other people do science is an adequate
substitute for doing science oneself. For 25 years, I have watched my
wife take two sticks and bang them back and forth and to and fro and
then a sweater pops out. I really have watched at times with interest
and fixed attention. What are the chances that you could give me
knitting needles and some yarn and I would produce a sweater? Most
people tell me that there's not a 50/50 chance, not even a 10 percent
chance. Only the kindest people give me a one percent chance while most
people give me no chance at all. If I cannot knit a sweater after
watching my wife knit for 25 years, why do we expect that our science
students will be able to conduct experiments when they have only
observed teacher demonstrations at a distance or, even worse, have only
viewed pictures of experiments in textbooks?
In addition to teaching students how to do science, laboratory work
also creates a common experience among the students that can be used to
improve discussions and increase achievement. The New York Times
published an article listing the top ten most viewed television
programs by whites and blacks in America. There were only two programs
that appeared on both lists. The important message from that study is
that every time I used a television reference in class, I
disenfranchised students who are not like me. When I mentioned a
specific popular television program in order to engage the students or
provide an analogy, some students did not understand the reference. In
most science books about waves, the author describes harmonic motion
using the example of waves at the beach. While you and I have seen the
ocean, many students in Boston and Los Angeles have never been to the
beach and it is only five miles from their home. What is a student in
Nebraska able to understand when the text reference is to the waves at
the beach? In our wonderfully diverse schools and society, we cannot
assume that everybody has seen the same TV programs or the same movies;
we do not go to the same churches or go on the same vacations; we do
not have the same experiences. The laboratory provides a place where
students can observe water waves, measure water waves and draw
conclusions about water waves. It provides a common experience for all
students and, in that way, levels the playing field and provides all
students an entry into the science lesson and does not limit that entry
to students who have been fortunate enough to have vacationed at a
beach.
Once we are convinced of the need for lab experiments in schools,
then we must also address the quality of those labs. The NRC report is
quite clear that the ``typical'' lab does not meet the goals of
laboratory experiences while the ``integrated instructional unit''
does. With respect to laboratory experiences, the ``integrated
instructional units'' should provide for exploration of what prior
knowledge students bring to the classroom. The lab should then have
them compare and contrast their prior knowledge with the results of
their laboratory investigation. The lab should not be taught in
isolation, but should relate to a larger unit of study. ``Just because
students do a laboratory activity, they may not understand what they
have done.'' Moving teachers toward this more viable approach to labs
requires teacher training--both pre-service and in-service. Teachers
and curriculum developers should apply the following ``four principles
of instructional design,'' as enumerated in the report, to make the lab
experiences ``achieve their intended goals.''
1. ``[the labs] are designed with clear learning outcomes in
mind,
2. they are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom
science instruction,
3. they are designed to integrate learning of science content
with learning about the processes of science, and
4. they incorporate ongoing student reflection and
discussion.''
The present-day ``typical'' lab doesn't produce the intended goals
of labs because the lab is often not part of a successful instructional
sequence. The ``typical'' lab is sometimes presented before the
discussion of the related concepts while other times it is presented
weeks after the concept is discussed. Many times the lab is delayed
until the lab room or equipment becomes available. The ``typical'' lab
often asks students to follow a set of `cookbook' instructions and does
not mirror the inquiry aspects that can help students learn about and
experience the processes of science.
In contrast, the ``integrated instructional unit'' follows the
design principles outlined above. The labs are used to provide
experiences to students prior to having them provide explanations of
those experiences. The teacher role is to help students make sense of
their data and their explanations and to assist the students in
coordinating their observations with accepted scientific content and
understandings.
Many science frameworks require that students understand the
concept of density. If you were to pick up a traditional textbook, you
may find the following paragraph: Density explains why rocks sink and
wood floats. Density is defined as the mass divided by the volume. D =
M/V. Let's do a problem: A piece of wood has a mass of four grams and a
volume of five cm3. Calculate the density. The text then
goes on to solve this sample problem followed by a more difficult one
where the mass and density are given and the student is required to
calculate the volume. Students may learn the definition of density and
be able to solve such problems, but have no idea why density is
important or why we study it. They may or may not then go to the lab to
actually make measurements of mass and volume and apply the definition.
And, if they do go to the lab, they often engage in a ``typical'' lab
where the steps are outlined and the purpose is to confirm what they
have been told. Student misconceptions related to density are rarely
addressed. An alternative approach to this concept is used in Active
Chemistry, an NSF-supported high school science curriculum. Students
are first asked to compare a kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of
lead. This helps teachers to gauge their students' prior understanding
of the concepts. The students then conduct an investigation where they
measure the mass and volume of different amounts of water. When they
divide the mass by the volume, they find the ratio is always 1g/
cm3. They repeat the same investigation with alcohol and
find that the new ratio is always 0.79 g/cm3. They repeat
the same investigation with clay and find the ratio is now always 2.6
g/cm3. Students are then asked the question, ``If someone
were to tell you the mass and volume of a material, could you determine
if it were water, alcohol or clay.'' Students easily respond, ``Sure.
You divide the mass by the volume. If the ratio is one, it's water; if
the ratio is 0.79, it's alcohol; and if the ratio is 2.6, it's clay.''
When the teacher asks, ``But what if I had only a small amount of the
material?'' the students respond, ``Oh the amount doesn't matter. We
know that because we tried it many different times with different
amounts and the ratio always stays the same.'' The teacher can then
explain that because of its importance, we give this ratio a name--we
call it density. Density is a characteristic property of matter. It's
one way in which we can determine if you have a diamond or glass ring
or whether something is solid gold or gold-plated. Of course, the
students then complete problems with calculations as required on exams.
In this approach, the concept emerges from the students' experiences in
the high school lab. The activity precedes the concept introduction and
the concept precedes the introduction of vocabulary. This more closely
mirrors how science evolves. Scientists do not invent words and then
hope that these words will be linked to important and meaningful
concepts. Unfortunately, too many science texts and science programs
approach science in this way. In the preferred approach to density,
students explore their prior understandings, find patterns in the data,
draw conclusions about the importance of the ratio of mass to volume
and then return to compare and contrast these findings with their prior
understandings. In the Active Chemistry unit where this concept is
introduced, students must also transfer this content knowledge to a new
domain where they have to apply the concept of density to the creation
of a special effect for a movie.
A large part of the NRC study surrounded the question of whether
labs are effective means of instruction. In other words, do high school
labs make a difference? After a careful review of the literature, the
committee attempted to respond to this question by looking at each of
the goals mentioned above. The review was complicated by the lack of a
coherent definition of laboratory experience across the studies. In
addition, many of the studies did not control for all variables nor did
they take into account how other factors may affect performance. Other
confounding factors also made the task of literature review and drawing
conclusions from this review difficult.
What the Committee was able to conclude was that the ``typical
laboratory experiences'' did not meet the goals we have for lab
investigations while the ``integrated instructional units'' showed
promise in meeting the majority of the goals.
With regard to the first goal, mastery of subject matter,
``exposure to these integrated instructional units leads to
demonstrable gains in student mastery of a number of science topics in
comparison to more traditional approaches.'' Specifically, ``In
physics, these subjects include Newtonian mechanics (Wells, Hestenes
and Swackhamer, 1995; White, 1993); thermodynamics (Songer and Linn,
1991); electricity (Shaffer and McDermott, 1992); optics (Bell and
Linn, 2000; Reiner, Pea, and Shulman, 1995); and matter (Lehrer,
Schaubl, Strom, and Pligge, 2001; Smith, Maclin, Grosslight, and Davis,
1977; Snir, Smith, and Ra, 2003). Integrated instructional units in
biology have enhanced student mastery of genetics (Hickey, Kindfield,
Horwitz, and Christie, 2003) and natural selection (Reiser et al.,
2001). A chemistry unit has led to gains in student understanding of
stoichiometry (Lynch, 2004).''
With regard to the second goal of developing scientific reasoning,
typical laboratory experiments can help students improve on some of the
aspects of scientific reasoning but fall short in assisting students in
formulating research questions or designing experiments. In contrast,
once again, integrated instructional units can assist students in
developing all aspects of scientific reasoning. ``They can learn to
design experiments (Schauble et al., 1995; White and Fredericksen,
1998), make predictions (Friedler, Nachmias, and Linn, 1990), and
interpret and explain data (Bell and Linn, 2000), and interpret and
explain data (Bell and Linn, 2000; Coleman, 1998; Hatano and Inagaki,
1991; Meyer and Woodruff, 1997; Millar, 1998; Rosebery, Warrren, and
Conant, 1992; Sandoval and Millwood, 2005). Engagement with these
instructional units has been shown to improve students' abilities to
recognize discrepancies between predicted and observed outcomes
(Friedler et al., 1990) and to design good experiments (Dunbar, 1993;
Kuhn et al., 1992; Schauble et al., 1995; Schauble, Klopfer, and
Raghavan, 1991).
With regard to goal three, developing practical skills, there has
been very little specific study in either typical lab experiences or in
integrated instructional units. One study did show that girls handle
lab equipment less frequently than boys and this is associated with
less interest and less self-confidence in science ability in girls.
The remaining goals--understanding the nature of science,
cultivating interest in science and interest in learning science, and
developing teamwork abilities--follow a similar pattern. The research
results are not uniformly consistent in whether the typical lab
experiences or the integrated instructional units help students achieve
these goals. However, it appears that the integrated instructional
units show greater promise than the typical lab experiences.
From the evidence on the effectiveness of labs, the committee
recommends that specific design principles mentioned earlier can help
laboratory experiences meet their intended learning goals. In addition,
the committee concluded that ``a serious research agenda is required to
build knowledge of how various types of laboratory experiences (within
the context of science education) may contribute to specific science
learning outcomes.''
The introduction of a lab program into a high school is an
expensive venture. Lab facilities and equipment require capital
expenditures. The replenishment of supplies requires additional annual
funds. In addition, safety requirements place limits on the number of
students that can be properly supervised in a classroom. Too often,
administrators ask teachers to accept unsafe conditions by packing too
many students in the lab space. When teachers object, the administrator
may suggest that we sacrifice the quality of teaching by not providing
lab experiences at all. This Hobson's choice forces teachers to make a
bad decision--unsafe conditions or poor instruction. In contrast, high
schools across the United States support football teams that similarly
require large expenditures for equipment and subscribe to required
safety requirements. The football coach is never asked to use sub-
standard helmets or to cancel play. High school science should not be
considered less important than high school football.
Michael Faraday is arguably the most accomplished experimental
physicist of the 19th century. Living as a poor boy in England, Faraday
was apprenticed at a young age to a bookbinder. After little schooling
and meager math skills, Faraday went on to solve the largest puzzle of
his time--how to produce electricity. He accomplished this because of
his access to laboratories and his hard work and true talent for
experimentation. What would happen to a Michael Faraday in American
schools today? As a poor student, he may attend an urban school where
there are no labs. As a student with few math skills, he may be
enrolled in a science class for underachieving students with no
laboratory period. Either way, today's Faraday is denied the
opportunity to discover his extraordinary talents in the laboratory and
our society is impoverished as a result.
We must provide labs to high school students in order to give them
experience with the processes of science in much the same way that I
have to practice on knitting needles in order to make a sweater. We
have to provide labs to students so that they have a common experience
with which to explore science content. And we must insure that all
students have equal access to labs regardless of their socio-economic
status or whether they are enrolled in an honors class or a remedial
class. These labs should reflect what we know about effective, high
quality lab instruction as well as what we know about student learning.
If Olympic teams were performing as poorly as our American students
are in international competitions, there would be a national cry for
more attention, for improved coaching, for more opportunity, and for
better equipment. We should have the same sense of urgency for our
students. Instead of just being ``science students,'' they can be
``student scientists.''
REFERENCES:
Eisenkraft, Arthur. 2006. Active Chemistry. Armonk, N.Y. It's About
Time.
National Research Council (NRC). 2006. America's Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2006. NSTA Position
Statement: The integral role of laboratory investigations in
science instruction.
Citations for all research studies quoted here can be found on pages
108-115 of America's Lab Report. The text can be accessed at
www.nap.edu
Biography for Arthur Eisenkraft
Arthur Eisenkraft is Distinguished Professor of Science Education
at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, where he also directs the
Center of Science and Math in Context (COSMIC). He previously taught
physics and served as science coordinator in New York public school
districts for 28 years. He is a Past President of the National Science
Teachers Association and has been involved in a number of its projects,
creating and chairing the Toshiba ExploraVisions competition and the
Duracell science scholarship competition. He is Project Director of
Active Physics, an NSF-supported curriculum project, which is
introducing physics instruction for the first time to all high school
students. He is also Project Director of Active Chemistry. He initiated
U.S. involvement in the International Physics Olympiad, was Academic
Director for the first eight teams and then served as the Executive
Director of the XXIV International Physics Olympiad in 1993 when the
United States hosted the competition for forty participating countries.
He holds a U.S. patent for an improved vision testing system using
Fourier optics. At the National Research Council, he was a member of
the curriculum working group that helped develop the National Science
Education Standards, the Committee on Learning Research and Educational
Practice, the Committee on Attracting Science and Mathematics Ph.D.s to
K-12 Education, and the Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy.
He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), a recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in
Science Teaching (1986) and the Disney Science Teacher of the Year
(1991). He has been recognized for his contributions to science
education by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the
American Physical Society (APS) and the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA). He has a B.S. and M.A. degrees from Stony Brook
University and a Ph.D. from New York University.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Froschauer.
STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA K. FROSCHAUER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
SCIENCE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION; K-8 SCIENCE DEPARTMENT CHAIR,
WESTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WESTON, CONNECTICUT
Ms. Froschauer. Thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony on behalf of the National Science Teachers'
Association. I am Linda Froschauer, and I am the President of
NSTA. I am also an eighth grade science teacher and Science
Department Chair in Weston, Connecticut, and I have been a
science teacher for over 32 years now.
The National Science Teachers' Association is committed to
promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and
learning for all, and we provide our members with a variety of
resources and support, including high quality professional
development, publications, networking opportunities, and
curriculum materials.
NSTA strongly supports H.R. 524 and the Partnerships for
Access to Laboratory Science grants. We applaud the Science
Committee for realizing the importance of high school
laboratory experiences, and for its leadership and dedication
to this issue. The PALS legislation would create a pilot
program at NSF to study the best ways to train teachers in lab
instruction, the best way to set up staff and manage labs, and
ensure that those labs have the best possible equipment,
materials, and supplies. The PALS bill will help fill our gaps
in knowledge in a way that will make it possible for a large
range of schools to benefit from the results of the pilot
research program.
So, why is PALS necessary? A 1995 report from the U.S.
General Accounting Office, titled ``School Facilities:
America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped for the 21st
Century,'' found that 42 percent of all schools surveyed
nationally reported they were not at all well-equipped in the
area of laboratory science. A second GAO report in 2005, titled
``Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Programs and Related Trends,'' found that approximately 40
percent of those college students who left the science fields
reported some problems related to high school science
preparation. The under-preparation was often linked to
problems, such as not understanding calculus, and the lack of
laboratory experience.
We know we have many challenges ahead in our efforts to
reform and strengthen the science education that we provide to
students. For science to be taught properly and effectively,
labs must be an integral part of the science curriculum. But in
many schools, lab science is done poorly or not at all.
Several days ago, we asked NSTA members via email to tell
us about the lab experience in their school. Hundreds of
teachers told us about the poor state of the lab facilities and
instruction in their schools, and the challenges that they face
in providing a quality lab experience for students.
This urban teacher wrote: ``In my urban, inner city school,
I teach a lab science in an old business room. There are no
tables, benches, water, or gas service, no sinks, fire
extinguisher, eyewash stations, fire blankets, or any other
equipment.'' Another teacher told us: ``I have no specific safe
area in which to conduct labs. My yearly budget is the same as
it was 12 years ago. I must purchase all of my equipment and
supplies. I have no safety equipment other than a portable
eyewash station and a fire extinguisher. My district claims
that labs are extracurricular and not mandated by my subject.
My kids are accustomed to labs using kitchenware or materials I
have purchased at Wal-Mart. They have no idea how to use
scientific equipment or even what it looks like due to lack of
funding.''
This biology teacher wrote: ``I have been teaching high
school biology for ten years. I have old microscopes that I
could actually swap out for Coke bottles and not even notice
the difference. However, the greatest problem I see is my lack
of skill in the area of lab investigations. I agree that this
is the best source of learning that my kids can get, but I
simply don't have the skill to design these labs. Safety is a
huge concern. We do not have any rooms to use as actual
laboratories. Although we have lots of equipment, we have no
place to safely use it, and few teachers who know how to use
it. Currently, the one room that had been a lab is used by
teachers to sell hot chocolate and nachos to students to raise
money for trips to Washington, D.C., for a very small group of
students. The lab cannot be used as a lab. They removed the
tables, and replaced them with desks.''
And finally, we heard this from a teacher who confesses
about his own shortcomings in the classroom: ``I have not
learned how to facilitate real thinking and essential planning
for authentic lab experiences. I don't know what students
really need in an introductory chemistry experience at the high
school level, and I cannot figure out how to teach logical
thinking and sequencing to over 20 students in a lab at the
same time.''
In conclusion, H.R. 524 partnership grants can be
instrumental in helping schools to develop and maintain a safe,
well-equipped lab space, and bring ongoing professional
development to teachers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Froschauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda K. Froschauer
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
the National Science Teachers Association. My name is Linda Froschauer,
and I am President of the NSTA. For 32 years I have been a science
teacher and I am currently an 8th grade science teacher and Department
Chair at the Weston Public Schools in Connecticut.
The National Science Teachers Association is committed to promoting
excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. We
offer members a wide variety of resources and support, including high
quality professional development, publications, networking
opportunities, and curriculum materials.
NSTA strongly supports H.R. 524 and the Partnerships for Access to
Laboratory Science grants. We applaud the Science Committee for
realizing the importance of high school laboratory experiences and for
its leadership and dedication to this issue. As you well know core
competencies in STEM are absolutely vital to our nation's future in
this global economy. American schools must cultivate the finest
scientists, engineers, and technicians--from every part of our
society--so that we can create the innovations of tomorrow that will
keep our nation strong.
The PALS legislation would create a pilot program at NSF to study
the best ways to train teachers in lab instruction; the best way to set
up, staff, and manage labs; and ensure that labs have the best possible
equipment, materials, and supplies. The PALS bill will help fill in our
gaps in knowledge in a way that will make it possible for a large range
of schools to benefit from the results of the pilot research program.
Science educators are firmly committed to the role of the
laboratory in the teaching and learning of chemistry, physics, biology,
and earth sciences. The American Chemical Society is similarly
committed to quality laboratory experiences: their Guidelines for the
Teaching of High School Chemistry states ``the laboratory experience
must be an integral part of any meaningful chemistry program. ACS
recommends that approximately thirty percent of instructional time
should be devoted to laboratory work.''
The American Association for the Advancement of Science Project
2061 Designs for Science Literacy states ``Learning science
effectively. . .requires direct involvement with phenomena and much
discussion of how to interpret observations.''
NSTA has a position paper on laboratory science which was developed
with a great deal of input from the National Research Council's report
America's Lab Report, Investigations in High School Science. Both NSTA
and the NRC believe that quality laboratory experiences provide
students with opportunities to interact directly with natural phenomena
and with data collected by others. Developmentally appropriate
laboratory experiences that integrate labs, lecture, discussion, and
reading about science are essential for students of all ages and
ability levels.
Throughout the process, students should have opportunities to
design investigations, engage in scientific reasoning, manipulate
equipment, record data, analyze results, and discuss their findings.
If done correctly quality lab experiences are an important part of
inquiry and help students to understand the natural world. NSTA
recommends that all pre-K-16 teachers of science provide instruction
with a priority on making observations and gathering evidence, much of
which students experience in the lab or the field, to help students
develop a deep understanding of the science content, as well as an
understanding of the nature of science, the attitudes of science, and
the skills of scientific reasoning (NRC America's Lab Report, 2006, p.
127).
Lab investigations should not be a rote exercise where students
simply follow directions, as though they were reading a cookbook.
Properly designed laboratory investigations should:
have a definite purpose that is communicated clearly
to students;
focus on the processes of science as a way to convey
content;
incorporate ongoing student reflection and
discussion; and
enable students to develop safe and conscientious lab
habits and procedures (NRC America Lab Report, 2006, p. 101-
102).
Unfortunately, we know that laboratory science is a high-priced
luxury beyond the reach of far too many public high schools. A 1995
report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, titled School
Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped for the 21st
Century, found that 42 percent of all schools surveyed nationally
reported that they were not at all well-equipped in the area of
laboratory science. In addition the report found that:
43 states reported that one-third or more of their
schools met functional requirements for laboratory science not
well at all.
49 percent of schools with a minority student
population greater than 50 percent reported meeting functional
requirements for laboratory science not well at all.
Over 48 percent of schools where 40 percent of the
student population qualified for free or reduced lunch reported
meeting functional requirements for laboratory science not at
all.
A second GAO report in 2005 titled Federal Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends found that
``In addition to teacher quality, students' high school preparation in
mathematics and science was cited by university officials and others as
affecting students' success in college-level. . .. Researchers found
that ``approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the
science fields reported some problems related to high school science
preparation. The under preparation was often linked to problems such as
not understanding calculus; lack of laboratory experience or exposure
to computers; and no introduction to theoretical or to analytical modes
of thought.''
NSTA is also very concerned about the equity issue involved with
the high school laboratory experience. It is imperative that all
students--including students with academic, remedial, or physical
needs; gifted and talented students; and English language learners--
have the opportunity to participate in laboratory investigations in a
safe environment.
We know we have many challenges ahead in our efforts to reform and
strengthen the science education we provide to students. We agree with
Representative Hinojosa that ``Our next generation of scientists and
engineers are waiting to be discovered in our nation's high schools.
Let's make sure that our schools are equipped to provide them with the
laboratory experiences they need to develop their talents and foster a
life-long interest in science.'' To quote American Chemical Society
President Dr. Katie Hunt, ``Simply put, when science is taught well
with adequate resources, it can capture imaginations.''
For science to be taught properly and effectively, labs must be an
integral part of the science curriculum. H.R.524 is a positive step
forward in developing quality lab experiences for all students.
Many schools would benefit from this pilot program and the research
that it will bring. To get a sense of the current situation with high
school labs, on March 5 we asked NSTA members via e-mail, ``What are
the problems with the lab experience in your school?''
Hundreds of teachers told us about the current state of the lab
facilities and instruction in their schools and the challenges they
face in providing a quality lab experience for students:
In my urban, inner city school, I teach a lab science
in an old business room. There are no tables, benches, water or
gas service, sinks, fire extinguisher, eye-wash stations, fire
blankets, or other equipment. In addition, while there is a
high rate of attrition towards the end of the year, each
September starts with 50 students in each class.
I have no specific, safe area in which to conduct
labs. My yearly budget is the same as it was 12 years ago. I
must purchase all my own equipment and supplies. I have no
safety equipment other than a portable eye-wash station and a
fire extinguisher. My district claims labs are
``extracurricular'' and not mandated by my subject. My kids are
used to labs using kitchenware or materials purchased at Wal-
Mart. They have no idea how to use scientific equipment or even
what it looks like due to a lack of funding.
I have been teaching high school biology for ten
years. I have old microscopes that I could swap for coke
bottles and not notice a difference. However, the greatest
problem I see is my lack of skill in the area of lab
investigations. I agree that this is the best source of
learning that my kids can get, I just simply do not have the
skill to design these labs. IF the NSTA wants to make a change
in science education, THIS is where it should be done. .
.TRAINING.
My high school building was built in 1970. The budget
for yearly supplies has not changed in the six years I have
been here. I have a supply budget of $750 per year. I teach
between three and four science subjects per year seven classes
per day, two of them being chemistry and physics. I have
absolutely no supplies to teach electricity and magnetism or
optics. My chemistry supplies are even worse. My lab facilities
are set up for physics, but I am expected to teach chemistry in
low benches. I don't know a chemist who will use a Bunsen
burner sitting down. Hence, I do not teach the labs that
require Bunsen burners because I feel it is unsafe to use the
burners in my room. I also do not have a ventilation hood in my
room.
We do not have any rooms to use as actual
laboratories. Although we have lots of equipment, we have no
place to safely use it and few teachers who know how to use it.
Currently the one room that had been a lab is used by teachers
to sell hot chocolate and nachos to students to raise money for
trips to Washington, DC, for a very small group of students. .
.the lab cannot be used as a lab. . .they removed the lab
tables and installed desks for all the students.
I have not learned how to facilitate real thinking
and essential planning for authentic lab experiences. I don't
know what students really need in an introductory chemistry
experience at the high school level, and I cannot figure out
how to teach logical thinking and sequencing to 20+ students in
lab at the same time. My time management skills are lacking.
There's much more, too.
I teach chemistry and Earth science in a room with
six lab tables; it was originally designed to be a physics lab
room. There is electricity to the tables, but it doesn't work.
There are not sinks, therefore no eye-washes; there are no gas
outlets. The sink at my instructors table has the water turned
off and the gas turned off. We were given a budget of $5000 for
each department last year, but the orders were not filled
because. . .who knows? I have not received the supplies I
ordered for eight out of the last 10 years. When I first took
over this class-lab room and associated storeroom, there was a
great amount of equipment and glassware and old kits and a
little of everything. It is not possible to do any other than
the most elementary labs at this school. It would be unsafe and
probably criminally liable to attempt most chemistry labs. The
fire extinguisher doesn't work.
While I do not teach high school science currently
but do teach in a two-year community college, I see many
students entering with virtually no lab experience. While some
students come quite prepared, it's very frustrating for me to
have students coming into a college biology class with no
knowledge of basic lab equipment and techniques, such as using
beakers, graduated cylinders, pipettes, or even basic
microscopy skills.
Our school does not provide enough funding for lab
experiments. In addition, senior members of the department do
not believe that other than AP students and some honors
classes--should have access to lab experiments. Therefore the
classes I teach--college bound and special education--have
little to no money that goes towards lab science in the Biology
classroom. Furthermore, the set up of the classroom also is a
problem when it comes time to do lab experiments.
I teach biology in a portable without any sinks, no
storage, and only four outlets. It's such a challenge to put
together a real lab. My portable is far away from the real
science labs so it's hard to even get materials over here.
There's no prep area out here so I have to go to one of the
main buildings to prep. Yet those prep rooms are not easily
accessed if you don't have an attached classroom. My room has
carpet so I am reluctant to use many chemicals because they are
difficult to clean up if spilled.
Our school has minimal funding for improving the
quality of lab sciences. Individual teachers are encouraged to
write for grants using their own time without pay. Three of our
four science rooms do not have eye-wash stations or proper
venting equipment. There is no interest in funding the purchase
of electronic data collection equipment/computer based labs by
the administration. Little effort is made in our district to
train teachers to improve the quality of lab experiments and
the necessary follow-up assessment.
Several things need to be addressed. (1.) The large
amount of time to get a lab ready, carried out and cleaned up.
Teachers need more time or a paid lab assistant. (2.) The
equipment and supplies are lacking due to inadequate budgets.
(3.) I was not trained or shown how to conduct labs. I had to
learn it on my own. (4.) Students have never been taught how to
behave in a lab. They think it's playtime not learning time.
(5.) Six teachers share one lab. Scheduling is a major problem.
We do not have adequate materials for labs at our
school. We have one set of materials for each discipline (Earth
science, biology, chemistry and physics) and five or six
teachers trying to use the materials for their class. The
budget for our science department (high school of about 1,900
students and growing) is $6,000/year.
Besides funding for lab science, my own school has
1964 construction, which means, the science rooms were built in
a time when the accepted teaching method was direct instruction
and not inquiry based learning. There is no space for ongoing
projects.
If this country is serious about educating our
children in science, then we need to provide designated
laboratory teachers and updated equipment to these 50-year-old
facilities. Administrators need to be adequately trained or
have someone who is, to give advice and support. Each school
needs a lab budget, and not be dependent on the pockets of the
struggling teacher.
I am our district's K-12 science coordinator and have
taught high school for many years in our district and in other
districts. The two biggest problems I see (and hear from other
teachers) too many students in classes and not being supported
financially. Some principals feel science is too expensive.
Currently due to the lack of support our AP Chemistry labs are
taught by the classroom teachers at the local university.
I teacher upper middle school Science. We have NO
equipment to do Science labs. Our school is five years old and
no equipment was bought when the school was built. There is no
way I can I do labs without the basic equipment. The students
beg for lab work but I have to say no because lack of funding.
In our school district, the quality of lab
experiences are hindered by the large class sizes (36 in a
class). Along with the large class sizes comes unsafe
conditions, including lack of space. A number of teachers also
lack lab experience and are not qualified to lead labs
correctly. Our district would benefit from teacher trainings on
lab experience and labs that meet State standards.
The major problems are lack of storage space for
equipment and lack of funds to repair equipment or replace
equipment with more modern and student accessible equipment.
When our building was redesigned, a dedicated room
for chemical storage was left off of the plans. We have had to
divide our chemical stockroom among three prep rooms, which
after two years are still not equipped with the storage and
safety features needed. The rooms designated for Chemistry do
not have fume-hoods installed, making it hard to do many of
experiments safely. In addition, a majority of our science
classes have at least 30 students in a classroom, with some lab
classes having between 40 and 50 students in one classroom.
With poor organization of resources, a large student-to-teacher
ratio, chemistry teachers not highly qualified to teach the
subject, and numerous safety issues, labs become exceptionally
difficult to do.
My district has newly refurbished laboratories. I am
qualified to supervise labs as I have both industry and
academic experience in chemistry. However, even though the lab
is set up to safely accommodate 24 students, the school
administration insists this is just a guideline and insists of
overcrowding the labs with up to 28 students. This makes it
hazardous for the students, as they are crowded together. It
also makes it hard for me to supervise the students, especially
in classes where there are students with IEP's or other
learning issues. One teacher cannot safely supervise that many
students in a lab involving chemicals, hot plates, burners, and
glassware. In fact, in a class with multiple IEP's, twenty four
students is too many for one teacher to supervise. There needs
to be a maximum of students per teacher (allowing for weighting
of students with IEP's) in a lab environment, or schools should
hire lab aides to help teachers if that number is exceeded.
Many teachers in my district, which is well-funded
and well equipped, lack the confidence to conduct lab
experiences. They most often have poor classroom management and
therefore believe that the students would not practice safety
and that someone could be injured. Another factor is several
science teachers are also coaches and therefore will not
conduct lab experiences with their students because coaching
takes priority over instruction. They say that they don't have
time to set up the labs.
I believe lab science should play a key role in
science education. Our main problem is lack of funding. We are
not allowed to charge lab fees and our budget is $3,000 for
1,500 students (seven teachers). Over half of our budget is
used for paper (copies) so less than $1,500 is available for
science. That doesn't buy much. It limits not only what we do
but also limits the use of technology in science. We have
highly qualified teachers to teach labs but not the funds to
support them. We just recently cleaned closest to literally get
rid of the old equipment from the 1950's and 1960's which was
the last time we had large amounts of funding.
We are assigned 37+ students per class making it
difficult if not impossible to provide worthwhile safe
laboratory experiences. Additionally, the lack of preparation
time and no lab technician support means if a science teacher
wants to provide his/her students with a laboratory experience
he/she must work late into the evening to properly prepare.
Most of the problems center around getting the
individual teacher to accept that labs are integral to the
understanding of science. Most of our freshmen science teachers
do not want to bother with setting up the lab equipment or
monitoring students while they do the lab. It's much easier to
maintain control while the students are in their seats taking
notes.
I teach Chemistry and Physics at a Catholic High
School. We are hampered by a lack of resources. I have lots of
glassware and other materials that do not wear out, but when I
came here last year we had no chemicals. I have ordered a bare
minimum of chemicals, but our budget is small. Physics is in a
little better shape, but most of the equipment is circa 1970's.
We currently have three chemistry labs for seven
teachers, one physics lab for three teachers, and five biology
labs for eight teachers. Class sizes frequently are 30+
students for biology, 26+ for chemistry, and 24+ for physics.
The main problem we face is lack of space and time to do labs.
Our classes are overcrowded to the extent that the chemistry
teachers have cut back on labs due to safety concerns. Our
class time for labs has been cut from 74 minutes to 48 minutes
in all general and honors classes, and this also impacts
ability to do labs, especially as we share lab space with other
teachers. To compound these issues, in 2008 we are bringing the
9th grade into the high school (we are currently 10-12), and
this will add about 700 students into the building who will all
be required to take lab science classes. We as a staff have no
idea how we are going to manage this. Many of us are doing
paper ``labs'' and computerized lab activities because of our
safety concerns.
I love labs, but I am not given very much money to
spend. Last year I was able to purchase several LAB-Aids kits.
This year I was not allowed to purchase refill kits for them.
The schools should be forced to allow a set amount of money for
the purchase of equipment and supplies. I can't afford to pay
out-of-pocket. I took over physics this year. It has been
taught as a math class for several years. I asked for lab
equipment and was turned down.
Maybe I am in the minority but we have a fantastic
situation. Our district just remodeled our science labs. We
have a great space and good equipment. Our district not only
supports but encourages science.
We do not have the funds needed to do labs as we
should. I am lucky if I get to do one or two actual labs for
each of our seven units. We do lots of hands-on activities, but
they just aren't the same as experimentation.
In the past we have had funding for the equipment but
recent budget cuts have prevented us from buying the annual
consumables, so the equipment just sits there.
I am currently an 8th grade Science Teacher and
attempting to be as much help to High School Science Teachers
as I can. I have taught for 30 years and have watched as
funding, lab facilities and equipment have declined. As a
Middle School teacher we could assist the high school with
preparation for the science experience of all students, however
our funding has been drastically cut along with the liability
issues of labs. Simple science is difficult when we cannot even
use pond water and are now required to purchase expensive
purchased samples or pre-prepared slides. If science suppliers
would assist with some financial breaks for the middle schools
it would help our cause. I am sitting with microscopes which we
cannot use, aquariums that remain empty as districts take a
close look at liability of mold, mildew and ventilation.
As a private school, we have all the necessary
equipment and materials to run excellent labs. All our teachers
are trained as lab instructors, and we make sure even the
general students perform labs at least three times a month.
That being said, teenagers do tend to push the limits at every
chance. I have at least five ``firebugs'' who look for
opportunities to do something dangerous. Consequently, constant
vigilance is required. It is exhausting to set up, and most
set-ups need to be refreshed between classes. However, the
nature of science requires lab experiences for a true inquiry
approach. I can see why school systems would get rid of labs
altogether, relying on on-line simulations, but it is certainly
worth the effort. Perhaps having a specific lab instructor who
would run and maintain the labs, similar to a college
environment, would work.
Current situation: one biology lab, 22 bio classes;
one chemistry lab, 19 chemistry classes; no physics lab; bio
and chem labs are unsafe, run-down, ill-equipped. Future
(2007): new science wing to be built, 15 lab/classroom combos,
fully equipped and technologically up-to-date; science
educators expect science education here to go from mediocre at
best to hands-on, interactive, interesting, creative, . . .a
very positive experience. There is a definite need for
professional development in science labs. Today's teachers have
so little experience because of the conditions offered at most
public high schools.
One of the biggest problems I have faced in my
teaching is that I have too many students in my room to safely
do lab activities. I have one room with the lab area around the
perimeter of the room and desks in the middle of the room. I
have so many students in my room that the desks are pushed
right up next to the lab counters on all sides. To do any
activity where the students need to stand at the lab benches,
the desks need to be pushed to the center and then there is not
enough room for all students to stand at the counters together.
In teaching the physics portion of 9th grade physical science I
am fortunate that I have not had a lab that uses the gas, I
would be quite hesitant to do so in this room because I do not
believe it could be done safely. There is no recourse in my
district for the number of students in my class; in fact I have
heard that next year they are going to try to put more in my
room. Due to this space constraint, I have done fewer lab
activities.
Our primary hurdles are lack of funds and equipment.
Since we are a small, rural district with limited industry and
local income, our budget for the entire science program is
$1200. This is barely enough to replace consumables in chem,
phys sci, and biology, much less order the more expensive
equipment. In addition, emphasis is more readily placed on math
and English as these are the primary areas of standardized
testing. Additionally, our class size is sometimes such that
labs must be limited due to space and safety issues. For the
most part, our science teachers do a good job of implementing
labs to the best of our ability.
As a suburban district in an affluent community, we
have very frequent lab opportunities--we have lab activities
two to four times per week in biology. We recognize the
importance of laboratory experience and are limited primarily
by time available.
Actually--we have a wonderful lab experience for our
middle school. One day a week we have students for 80 minutes
to do lab--this is balanced against their history class--so on
the alternate day they have history for 80 minutes. Works well
and our kids leave having a good grasp of good laboratory
practices.
My middle school does not have a lab. I have to use
two desks side by side to get a large enough flat area so
students can do what I call desk-top labs. Money of course is
also a problem so to get around that I sometimes ask students
to bring in items from home such as different liquids so we can
use them to test for pH. I sometimes have students work in
groups of four to cut back on expenses when the ideal would be
to work in groups of two. Due to lack of space in the
classroom, labs requiring extended observation time can't be
done. So students complete these as at-home experiments. I
require them to bring in the evidence to prove the task was
actually done along with a completed lab guide. I avoid
dangerous chemicals and use votive candles if flames are
necessary.
We have a wonderful lab science program for our 7-12
grade students. It is set-up as a college model with a full-
time lab instructor who preps, runs, and grades the lab work.
Lab procedures are consistently followed, and students know
what to expect. Labs are scheduled on a regular basis since
classroom teachers do not have to make time to set-up/take-down
labs.
The biggest obstacle to providing quality lab
experiences for science students in my high school is funding.
The budget simply does not allow for in depth or multiple labs.
We must pick and choose which labs to do, which is often
determined by which labs are the cheapest. I feel that we are
doing a disservice to our kids in this area.
Science labs used to meet for a double lab period
once a week. That got cut in the 90's at many schools due to
mandated testing for education reform. It is very difficult to
run a lab investigation in a 45-minute or one hour format. You
end up carrying it into the next class and losing the point.
Also many science or lab aid position have been cut requiring
teachers to do all prepping, make solutions, order supplies,
etc. This is very time consuming never mind grading, planning
and of course teaching.
As a chemistry teacher I am, as expected, adamantly
in favor of integrating laboratory experience into my
curricula. I am fortunate in that I work in a high school with
a once spectacular laboratory facility that was for over 20
years maintained by a trained laboratory technician. Four years
ago that technician's position was cut, and since then the
state of our lab has declined. Routine maintenance of equipment
as well as preparation for every experiment is left to the
instructors; in effect, doubling or tripling our work,
depending on the experiment performed. Given these conditions,
many teachers have opted to eliminate many of the more
challenging experiments their students once performed. Wouldn't
it be great if we science teachers received a check in the mail
to spend on equipment rather than a half nod and a heap of
rhetoric from our elected officials?
No money for lab supplies. . .I buy almost all my lab
supplies out of my own pocket. . .and there is very little
equipment. . .I improvise all the time, using recycled bottles
and jars from home, and plastic cups from the supermarket.
My chemistry lab is very outdated and worn out. The
space provided is nowhere near the suggestions for science lab
classrooms today. There is only one exit which has 22 desks
between it and the lab area. I have to constantly fight to keep
my eye-wash and shower working ``just in case!'' The drains
leak and are wrapped with towels, which is someone's idea of
preventing slow leaks. It is very much inadequate, but that
doesn't keep me from doing a lot of lab work. I just try to
keep it very benign as much as possible. It would be GREAT to
have a renovated lab. I have done research and put in the
request, but funding is tight and it is just not in the
school's budget.
I know the materials I want/need to teach my content,
but I am inhibited by unnecessary (way stricter than State
standards) safety requirements for chemicals by my district,
lack of funding for equipment, disinterest by district
administrators in providing resources for ``regular'' (not
honors) classes. And it was only last year that safety
equipment (proper eye-washes, showers. . .) were installed in
the classrooms. I didn't have those in my prep room. The fume
hoods don't all work. The lab benches aren't bolted to the
floor and get bumped around easily. THERE ARE TOO MANY KIDS IN
MY CLASSES.
I agree that lab science is a much-needed partner
with other science deliveries. In my school, I try to do at
least one lab a week (either myself or as a class). Our school
was built in 1954; there are many experiments that simply
aren't safe in our laboratory. We have no fume hoods and
ventilation is poor at best. Also, I am given a $1,000 budget
per year to spend on all classroom consumables including
chemicals. I can only order (restock) certain chemicals every
year as ordering just 30 items would put me over budget.
Though we are lacking some supplies, for the most
part we have the bulk of items that we need to do basic
experiments. However, many teachers do not do them for lack of
understanding the science and fear of labs with ``tough,''
hard-to-teach kids. Labs take a lot of teacher effort,
especially labs that work (like inquiry). Many of my colleagues
are not held accountable for the lab component; therefore, they
do not do the lab component.
In conclusion, H.R. 524 partnership grants can be instrumental in
helping schools to develop and maintain a safe, well-equipped lab space
and bring ongoing professional development to teachers. Research-based
pilot programs will help fill in the gaps in our knowledge about how
best to employ labs. The best practices and materials developed in this
pilot program can be used as a model by stakeholders who want to
strengthen high school lab science in their communities. We call on
Congress to support this innovative legislation to improve science
education.
Biography for Linda K. Froschauer
National Science Teachers Association President, 2006-2007
Linda K. Froschauer, K-8 Science Department Chair at the Weston
Public Schools, in Weston Connecticut, is President of the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA). She began her one-year term on
June 1, 2006.
Froschauer has been a devoted teacher and dedicated leader in
science education. She began her teaching career as an elementary
school teacher in Matteson, Illinois; moved on to middle level teaching
at the Greenwich Public Schools, in Greenwich, Connecticut; and has
been with the Weston Public Schools since 1985. She combines her work
in the classroom with a leadership role in her school, serving as
grades K-8 Science Department Chair/mentor teacher. Outside the
classroom she has worked as an instructor for Chicago's Museum of
Science and Industry; as a writer/consultant for many publications; and
as a field editor, reviewer, and consultant for numerous organizations.
For more than 30 years, Froschauer has been a leader and active
member of NSTA. In 1976, she was named the first Preschool/Elementary
Division Director to serve on the NSTA Board of Directors. She later
worked on many NSTA committees, including the International Convention
Planning Committee, the Preschool/Elementary Committee, and the
Informal Education Committee, and she has chaired both the Awards and
Recognition Committee and the Committee on Nominations. She also has
served as Middle Level Division Director, worked on the Committee and
Board Operations Task Force, and led the development of NSTA's first
Family Science Day, which was held in conjunction with the NSTA
National Convention in Boston.
Froschauer's devotion to science education is evidenced by her
involvement in numerous other professional organizations. She has
served as President of the Connecticut Science Supervisors Association
(CSSA), the National Middle Level Science Teachers Association
(NMLSTA), and the Council for Elementary Science International (CESI).
She is also a member of the Connecticut Academy for Education in
Mathematics, Science, and Technology; the Association of Presidential
Awardees in Science Teaching; and the Society of Elementary
Presidential Awardees. She has been actively involved in Project 2061,
a national effort to improve science education sponsored by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Froschauer was chosen as a Connecticut Science Educators Fellow and
named Weston Teacher of the Year in 1999. Her other awards and
accomplishments include receiving the NSTA Distinguished Teaching
Award, Middle Level, in 2001; National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards certification, also in 2001; the CSSA Charles Simone Award
for Outstanding Leadership in Science Education in 1998; a Presidential
Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching in 1993; and
the Educational Press Association of America's Distinguished
Achievement Award in 1991.
Froschauer earned a BS degree in education from Northern Illinois
University, an MA in science teaching from Governors State University,
and a sixth-year degree in curriculum and supervision from Southern
Connecticut State University.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Mundell.
STATEMENT OF DR. JERRY MUNDELL, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY,
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Mundell. While preparing my testimony for the
Subcommittee, I decided to confront my general chemistry class
with some background questions concerning their high school
laboratory experiences. My survey consisted of several
questions, to which the 66 students responded with their
clickers. Here are some samples of the questions and their
responses.
``Did the lab portion of your high school course help you
to better understand chemical concepts?'' 44 percent agreed.
``Did the lab portion of your high school chemistry course
stimulate your interest in chemistry?'' Now, only 33 percent
agreed. And finally, ``Did the lab portion of your high school
chemistry course help to prepare you for your college chemistry
course?'' Only 21 percent agreed.
Early in my career, first as an industrial research chemist
with the Lubrizol Corporation, and later, while working on my
doctorate degree at Case Western, I found laboratory routine
and research the most vibrant part of my work. Whether it was a
problem involving chemical synthesis or the employment of
investigative techniques to characterize substances, the
physical pursuit of the science was always pulling me back into
the laboratory. It is the nature of this physical pursuit which
can inform and sometimes enlighten, and within the proper
setting, such as a high school laboratory, even provide
opportunities of growth and inspiration.
Traditionally, these opportunities do not occur in the
normal experiences found in high school science labs, which are
highly structured around classical laboratory techniques and
chemical syntheses. It should be our chief concern to replace
these traditional high school lab exercises with experiences of
exploration and discovery. With the participation of local
colleges and universities, such laboratory experiences may be
developed and readily accessible to area high school students.
An example of such a program is now ongoing at Cleveland
State University. CSU is participating in a five year, NSF-
funded program which provides such opportunities for its
undergraduate students. The Research Experience to Enhance
Learning Program, which is REEL, addresses the issue of student
experiencing the discipline of chemistry through participation
in actual research situations. Instead of performing a series
of lab experiments listed on a syllabus, the students learn to
design and execute green chemistry experiments performed on
local environmental samples.
During the course of the semester, students utilize many of
the topics covered in the corresponding general chemistry
lecture, in addition to advanced laboratory instrumentation and
techniques unavailable to students enrolled in traditional
general chemistry lab courses.
The assessment at the end of the course is based on
individual PowerPoint presentations of each student's research,
accompanied by their written write-ups. Students also are
encouraged to publish in research journals such as Journal of
Undergraduate Research, as well as making presentations at the
real chemistry symposiums and local ACS meetings-in-miniature.
Although this particular program is set up on the
university campus, with additional funding and proper training
of school teachers, this type of program could be offered at a
secondary school level. Within this type of laboratory
experience, students are soon to acquire a sense of ownership
of the subject. Participating in actual research situations
instills maturity in students. They are no longer just learning
for the grade, but instead, applying their knowledge to real
life problem solving, but this depth of experience, for
students would only come, with a similar depth of commitment
from the teachers.
In conclusion, I strongly support House Bill H.R. 524,
especially subparagraph (B), article 5, which identifies a need
of funding for professional development and training for
teachers.
As important as supplies, equipment, and well-constructed
laboratories are in the implementation of a valuable teaching
program, I strongly believe that the failure of our high school
students to successfully participate in college level science
curriculum is, in part, due to our failure to inspire them.
This inspiration can only come from well-informed teachers with
strong attachments to their subjects. Good science teachers
need to be well-grounded in their turf. They need opportunities
outside of the normal coursework to continually develop not
only as teachers, but also, as scientists, and this can evolve
by building closer associations between the secondary school
teachers and the college and university research faculty.
By implementing programs which enable school teachers to
actively participate in summer research opportunities within
their research, area universities and high school teachers
would better be able to appreciate and understand the nature of
science.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mundell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry Mundell
My position with the Chemistry Department at Cleveland State
University (CSU) has provided me the opportunities to assess the status
and effect of high school science laboratory instruction from two
perspectives: 1) the performances of the students, both prior to and as
they enter into post secondary science education; and 2) the
information I have received either directly from public school teachers
whom I have taught as part of the Ohio Teaching licensure program or
those teachers I have interacted with in several CSU/Cleveland School
programs. Although most of my teaching at Cleveland State University
has been involved with students enrolled in freshman chemistry courses,
I have had many occasions to instruct high school students (CSU Upward
Bound Summer Program), Middle School Teachers (Mathematics and Science
Partnership) and High School Teachers (Cleveland Teaching Leadership
Program). Through these interactions with both students and teachers,
including my participation in programs such as the regional
Northeastern Ohio Center for Excellence, NEOCEx, and the CSU funded 9-
16 Committee, I believe myself to be adequately prepared to both
comment and recommend on the subject of the importance of science
laboratory experience in the education of high school students.
While preparing my testimony for this subcommittee, I decided to
put the numbers and studies aside for a moment and indulge the thoughts
of those primarily affected by this situation. Instead of starting the
8:30 lecture with a graded quiz question projected on the two screens
at the front of the lecture hall, I confronted my general chemistry
class with some background questions concerning their high school
laboratory experiences. My survey consisted of several questions, to
which the students would respond with their ``clickers'' (i.e.,
electronic personal response transmitters).
Of the 66 students who participated in the survey 85 percent took a
high school chemistry course which contained a laboratory component.
Although 79 percent of those students felt that their lab instructors
were well informed, only 62 percent believed the lab instructions were
clear and comprehensive, and only 56 percent thought the labs were well
equipped. Having addressed the instruction and equipment aspects of the
courses, I used the final three questions of the survey to summarize
their high school lab experiences:
1) Did the lab portion of the course help you to better
understand chemical concepts? (44 percent agreed);
2) Did the lab portion of your high school chemistry course
stimulate your interest in chemistry? (33 percent agreed);
3) and finally, Did the lab portion of your high school
chemistry course help to prepare you for your college chemistry
course? (21 percent agreed).
Although this survey only represented a minor population of all
those CSU students enrolled in the College of Science, the results
parallel the current national trend of students receiving substandard
or insufficient high school science laboratory experience. Although I
presently do not have the tools to accurately quantify the success or
failure on individual high school chemistry lab courses, I do have
first hand experience with incoming freshmen who generally lack the
sufficient interest or skills to properly engage in a college chemistry
course.
Each fall semester, the final grades of my General Chemistry course
reflect approximately 25 percent of the class receiving letter grades
of D, F, or W (a withdrawal from the course). The 2006 Book of Trends,
published by Cleveland State University, indicates similar final grades
in other freshman science courses: College Chemistry courses (Chemistry
for non-science majors) with 33-36 percent of the class receiving
letter grades of D, F, or W; and entry level Biology courses with
similar results. Results which indicate that 25-36 percent lack the
sufficient foundation in science to successfully compete in post
secondary science courses.
Similar trends are occurring at the university level at CSU. As an
urban university, consisting of 18 percent Black and two percent
Hispanic student enrollments, retention rates of 41 percent and 36
percent respectively are of much concern.
In a response, to better prepare high school students for the
academic challenges of post-secondary education, CSU has aligned itself
to the teachers in primary and secondary institutions by participation
in grant programs designed to better prepare the public school students
for post-secondary education:
1) Teaching by Inquiry: Nature of Science, Academic Standards,
and Supervising of Instruction. PI: Dr. Frank Johns, Professor
Emeritus, College of Education, Cleveland State University.
Teaching secondary school principals to observe and
evaluate science lab teaching.
2) Partners for Success. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell, Associate
Professor, College of Education, Cleveland State University,
and Facilitator: Dr. Robert Ferguson, Assistant Professor,
College of Education, Cleveland State University.
Augmentation of content knowledge and including
laboratory experience. The program consists of four
meeting sessions over the academic year and a one week
session during the summer, with a two commitment by
each cohort.
3) Urban Stream Scholars. PI: Dr. Robert Ferguson, Assistant
Professor, College of Education, Cleveland State University,
and Dr. Michael Walton, Associate Professor, College of
Science, Cleveland State University.
This program trains secondary school teachers to
perform science labs and incorporate research methods
and hands-on activities into the classroom (start-up
date: summer 2007).
4) Mathematics and Science Partnership. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell,
Associate Professor, Cleveland State University.
CSU is working in collaboration with Youngstown
University, John Carroll University, and the University
of Akron to educate both Middle School and High School
Teachers in the content of laboratory training in the
sciences.
5) NEOCEx. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell, Associate Professor, College
of Education, Cleveland State University; CoPI: Dr. Roland
Pourdavood, Associate Professor, College of Education,
Cleveland State University.
Northeastern Ohio Research Center for Excellence
consists of four universities: Kent State University,
University of Akron, Youngstown State University, and
Cleveland State University. The focus of the research
is to understand and interpret how the Learning of
Science and Mathematics effects high school students'
attitudes and disposition toward science.
Throughout my years as a teacher of freshman chemistry, I had tried
various ways of engaging the interest and commitment of my students
enrolled in one of the traditional lab courses with varying degrees of
success.
An instructive laboratory exercise doesn't need to be costly,
dangerous, or steeped in convoluted instructions and incomprehensible
scientific concepts. With a laboratory balance, a package of toy
balloons, and a three dollar package of dry ice, I have conducted the
following exercise in an ordinary classroom and illuminated a couple
dozen students about the nature of gas behavior, the function of
proportionality constants, the implication of significant figures, and
the importance of group work.
Before conducting the exercise, the students break into groups of
three and each group receives a balloon. The groups are instructed to
record the mass of the balloons before the instructor places
approximately one gram of dry ice into the balloons. The groups then
tie off the end of their balloons before recording the mass of the
balloons containing the dry ice. After the dry ice has completely
sublimed and the balloons are completely inflated the groups are
instructed to measure and record the circumferences of the balloons.
With the mass of the dry ice and the circumference measurements,
students are instructed to 1) calculate the volume of the balloons
using the proper numbers of significant figures, and 2) determine the
value of the proportionality constant in the equation relating the
volume to the mass of dry ice. Another sample of dry ice in a weighed
balloon is given to each group. Using the derived equations, each group
is instructed to calculate the expected volume their balloon should
produce. Finally, the calculated volumes are compared to the resultant
volumes.
I have presided over this exercise in classrooms of high school
students, classrooms of college students, and classrooms of school
teachers with similar positive results in all.
The high school laboratory experience can also be set up with real
research situations in which the students learn to function and think
as scientists. Early in my career, first as an industrial research
chemist with the Lubrizol Corporation and later while working on my
doctorate degree at Case Western Reserve University, I found laboratory
routine and research the most vibrant part of my work. Whether it was a
problem involving chemical synthesis or the employment of investigative
techniques to characterize substances, the physical pursuit of the
science was always pulling me back into the laboratory. It is the
nature of this physical pursuit which can inform, and sometimes
enlighten, and within the proper setting, such as a high school
laboratory, even provide opportunities of growth and inspiration.
Traditionally these opportunities cannot be found in the normal
experiences found in high school science labs, which are highly
structured around classical laboratory techniques and chemical
synthesis. These exercises although instructive, don't motivate or
inspire. It should be our chief concern to replace the traditional high
school lab exercises with experiences of exploration and discovery.
With the participation of local colleges and universities, such
laboratory experiences maybe developed and readily accessible to area
high school students.
An example of such a program is now ongoing at CSU: The Chemistry
Department of Cleveland State University is participating in a five-
year NSF funded program, which provides such opportunities for its
undergraduate students. The Research Experience to Enhance Learning
program addresses the issue of students experiencing the discipline of
Chemistry through participation in actual research situations. Instead
of performing a series of lab ``experiments'' listed on a syllabus, the
students learn to design and execute green chemistry experiments
performed on local environmental samples. At this time, the focus of
the work is on the presence of PAH, polyaromatic hydrocarbons--
pollutants that exist in the Cleveland community. During the course of
the semester, students utilize many of the topics covered in the
corresponding General Chemistry lecture in addition to advanced
laboratory instrumentation and techniques unavailable to students
enrolled in traditional general chemistry lab courses. The assessment
at the end of the course is based on individual Power Point
presentations of each student's research accompanied by their written
reports. Students are also encouraged to publish their research in the
Journal of Undergraduate Research as well as making presentations at
the REEL Chemistry symposiums and local ACS Meetings in Miniature.
Although this particular program is set up on a university campus,
with additional funding and proper training of school teachers, this
type of program could be offered at a secondary school level. Within
this type of laboratory experience, students are soon to acquire a
sense of ownership of the subject. Participating in actual research
situations instills maturity in students. They are no longer just
learning for the grade, but instead applying their knowledge to real
life problem-solving. But this depth of experience for the students
would only come with a similar depth of commitment from the teachers.
In conclusion, I strongly support House Bill H.R. 524 goals of
enhancing the teaching of laboratory teaching in the high schools. Of
the articles under subparagraph B, article v, which identifies the need
of funding for professional development and training for teachers. As
important as supplies, equipment, and well constructed laboratories are
in the implementation of a viable teaching program, I strongly believe
that the failure of our high school students to successfully
participate in college level science curriculum is, in part, due to our
failure to inspire them. This inspiration will only come from well
informed teachers with strong attachments to their subjects. But I
further recommend that a continuous series of science courses will not
remedy this situation. Good science teachers need to be well grounded
in their turf. They need opportunities outside of the normal course
work to continually develop not only as teachers, but also as
scientists. And this can evolve by building closer associations between
the secondary school teachers and the college and university research
faculty. By implementing programs which enable school teachers to
actively participate in summer research opportunities within their area
universities, high school teachers would be better able to appreciate
and understand the nature of science.
Biography for Jerry Mundell
Dr. Jerry Mundell is the Coordinator of the Freshman Chemistry
Committee in the Chemistry Department at Cleveland State University in
Cleveland, Ohio. Within his work experience at CSU, he has written a
Peer-Led lecture notebook for the students of general chemistry,
produced two laboratory course preparation CDs, and introduced new
teaching technologies into the Chemistry Department. Dr. Mundell
graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst with a B.S. in
Chemistry in 1980 and received his Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry from
Case Western Reserve University in 1990.
During his teaching career, Dr. Mundell also won several awards for
his commentaries on Cleveland Public Radio where he was a weekly
commentator for three and a half years. Dr. Mundell currently lives in
Cleveland Heights, Ohio with his wife, Deborah and his two step-
children, Christina and Sean.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. I thank our witnesses. We will now begin a
round of questioning, and I will begin by yielding myself five
minutes, and then, we will yield to Mr. Hall after that.
I find this very troubling, as I am sure you do. Ms.
Froschauer, your description of the teachers who had no labs,
no rooms to conduct the labs, what did they do? You know, in
absence of this, what did they do to try to help young people
learn science?
Ms. Froschauer. Well, obviously, if they have no lab
facilities, it certainly isn't lab-oriented. However, I do
believe that most teachers know the value of the experiences of
working with data, and if they are not able to have the
students experience collection of data and analysis on their
own, then they probably provide them with datasets, and they
provide them with experiences that can be as closely matched to
those that they would have in a laboratory experience, without
actually having the manipulatives and being able to participate
in that kind of experience.
Of course, all of that has to be connected, really, to the
strong content, and be an integral part of what they are
teaching, and not in isolation of what they are teaching, and
so, even constructing that can be a challenge for some
teachers.
Chairman Baird. So, to some extent, it is comparable to Dr.
Eisenkraft's opening analogy of which they watch baseball, but
they don't get to play it.
Ms. Froschauer. Exactly. Yes.
Chairman Baird. If any of you could address this. You know,
I was fortunate. I ended up with a doctorate in science, and
was fortunate to have good science classes along the way, with
pretty good labs, and can remember my basic physics and
chemistry and biology classes, and we had good equipment, even
though it was a rural, small, not super wealthy district.
But one of my questions is, it seems like we spend money,
and NSF has, in the past, funded the development of curricula,
we come up with models, and you folks do good research, and I
appreciate the work you do. I have read much of that report.
How do we disseminate it, A, so that actually, it has an impact
not just in the schools, but in the teaching institutions, the
colleges of education, so that when we understand what works to
teach science, it is actually disseminated in some meaningful
way, and then, how do we sustain it?
And I open that up to any of the three.
Dr. Eisenkraft. Well, I think that certainly, the NRC
report, on America's Lab Report, brings it to people's
attention. I think that studies which show that we are not
doing as well in science brings it to people's attention.
I think the issue you are speaking of, on one part, is just
the lack of a sense of urgency to improve education in America,
and this is as much our responsibility as it is your
responsibility in Congress, and the Nation's responsibility,
that somehow, we can't seem to capture the sense of urgency
that I know we all share, that we have to turn this around or
it is going to be too late to make the changes.
The National Science Foundation does a wonderful job of
funding good research curriculum projects, and what happens is
it does get disseminated. People do end up utilizing that
research in their teaching, and they look for better direction.
The other direction which is very positive is that, in fact,
the research projects do get incorporated into all forms of
curriculum, and the question is how do we find the best way to
communicate this?
I think there are meetings--the National Science Teachers'
Association has conferences. I think professional development
through teachers, all of these opportunities to get the word
out, through journals and things like that, to teachers and
communities. But I think the larger issue is really the sense
of urgency.
Chairman Baird. A societal and cultural issue; the point
being you could do your work and identify the problem, we could
pass Mr. Hinojosa's bill, come up with some model programs, but
unless the society embraces the mission, it will ultimately not
be as successful as it could be.
Dr. Eisenkraft. We all have to make choices, as you said in
your opening testimony, about where we are going to spend our
limited dollars, and often, that decision is very interesting.
Do we fund a science lab, in fact, where we say well, we can't
have the safety equipment? When we fund a football team, those
helmets are $250. Nobody says well, let us do it without
helmets this year, or we will buy the cheap helmets. They don't
skimp there, but somehow, in the science lab, we skimp. So, it
is really a question of priorities, urgency, what are the long
range benefits.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Mundell, you looked like you might have
a comment.
Dr. Mundell. I was suggesting this. As far as dissemination
of the information, there is work that is being done now
throughout Cleveland, at least, of establishing websites where
a curriculum is basically tested, and put out there for the
other school teachers in the Cleveland School District. I did
some work with NEOSEC a couple of years ago, where we had
actually come up with short, safe experiments that could be
done in most classroom, also inexpensive experiments, and then,
they would be posted at the website for teachers to basically
access.
So, that is one way to get some of this information out.
Chairman Baird. I appreciate that. I have many more
questions, but I will yield now as a courtesy to my good friend
and colleague, Mr. Hall, for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
very kind and thoughtful offers of cooperation. It is not
unusual for you to do that, and Bart Gordon has also extended
the same thing. We have a good committee, and a good thing
going. Honored to have men as leaders with your outlook and
attitude. I look forward to working with you.
I have a question for Ms. Froschauer. Your testimony
indicates that a lot of teachers are paying out of pocket for
lab equipment, and I want to congratulate Mr. Hinojosa on his
bill, and his usual support in pushing for science and math,
and every one of us ought to have our shoulder to the wheel to
try to set aside the bad statistics we have of an even number
of engineers with China, India, and many other countries; just
unbelievable distortion there of--and I don't know who has been
negligent in pushing that, or pressing for it, but I know we
are on that avenue now, and I am wondering just how we are
going to catch up, and it will be through testimony like yours
here, and leaders like our Chairman and Dr. Ehlers.
I want to go into this a minute. I know we are focusing on
high schools today, but in my own district, in Texarkana,
Texas, they have built a science-focused elementary school. I
dedicated it a week ago, I believe. And it is very unusual. All
the classrooms are labs, and students are exposed to scientific
ideas and concepts early in their educational life, and it is a
joint venture between Texas A&M Texarkana and the Texarkana
School District.
Teachers at the elementary school and A&M graduate students
and professors work together to develop curricula, mentor
students, and create an innovative lab experience, and I thank
the committee and the chairman for bringing these witnesses
here today to tell us why they think lab science is important,
and how they believe a true partnership between NSF,
educational institutions, and industry can work together to
create the same type of innovative lab science experience in
high school.
But it is kind of hard for me to understand why teachers
are paying out of their own pockets, and why aren't states and
school districts providing funds for lab equipment? Is there
some state law? Do certain states have certain laws that they
can't invade that province, or are they using it all for the
athletic thrust, which is kind of suggested there by some of
your testimony? Are there federal programs already available to
help the purchase of lab equipment for schools?
Ms. Froschauer.
Ms. Froschauer. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Hall.
Actually, teachers have been paying from their own pockets
for many years, not just in science, but some teachers are even
buying pencils for their students. It is exacerbated by the
topics that we cover in science, and by the costs of hands-on
manipulatives, as well as consumables that makes it an
unusually large amount of money, particularly for science
teachers.
There is no law against giving teachers money to buy
equipment, but it seems that right now, in particular, there is
a great deal of emphasis on other subject areas, and not as
much emphasis on science. And you probably realize that English
and math have more emphasis currently than does science, and
so, there are more resources that are going into those subject
areas, especially at the elementary level, than is going into
science.
What PALS is going to do for us is it is going to provide
us with research, much needed research, on how labs are
utilized, and what is needed for quality laboratory experiences
for students in high school. However, that research can also
impact and influence what is happening in middle schools, and
then, of course, elementary schools as well. And if we are
going to expand this resolution, we could expand it, and add a
lot more money to it, and perhaps consider researching into
middle schools as well. But high school is a great place to
start, and it will provide us with the kind of research that we
need. We have many questions, and they can be addressed through
PALS.
Mr. Hall. Are there federal programs already available to
help with the purchase of lab equipment for schools, and how
does Congressman Hinojosa's bill work in with that? Is there
already a program that he is adding to?
Ms. Froschauer. I have no knowledge of any program that he
is adding to.
Mr. Hall. If other federal programs already exist, I just
wonder how this legislation we are considering today is going
to be an extension of those programs, or how it works in with
it. Do any of the three of you have that answer?
Ms. Froschauer. This is independent of anything else that
is happening.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Well, I think it is a great thrust, and I
guess I will ask all of the witnesses, is a lack of laboratory
equipment a bigger problem than adequate teacher training in
how to use these labs?
Ms. Froschauer. It is hard to say which one you would put
first. Absolutely, teachers need a great deal more training,
but even with training, what do you do if you don't have the
equipment, and if you are given the equipment and you don't
have the training, you don't know what to do with it, either.
So, it is--both of them go very much hand in hand. They both
are vitally important.
Mr. Hall. Well, I think it is a good time, and I think the
Congressman has a great time to introduce this bill because I
feel an urge and a move to support teachers, rather than to
suppress them, and put them first on an agenda because we are
seeking math and science and trying to catch up.
Even on the Social Security thrust, I have been voting for
extra Social Security for teachers, to pay them for what we
didn't pay them for the last 50 years. I am not sure that I am
on sound ground, dipping into the Social Security fund, because
it is supposed to go broke some time in the next 10 or 15
years, but there is a move toward teachers and appreciation of
teachers, just like 9/11 brought us to really appreciate
firemen and policemen, you know, it brought us a new look at
them. I think there is a new look at education, a new look at
science, and a new look at those of you who delve a little bit
further than the normal, ordinary school teacher.
I am of a school teaching family. My only wife, my only
sister, my only mother were all teachers. I was a school
superintendent at one time, and I just know that we are at a
time when the timing is right on his bill, and I sure support
it, and am going to be a co-sponsor on it, if I am not already,
but I just wonder if there is already a Federal Government
program, are we already putting some money in there? If we are,
is this more, is this going to support it, will this add to it?
I think those are things we will probably have some testimony
on later, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. We will indeed.
Mr. Hall. I think my time is up. I yield back. And I thank
you very much for the time. Dr. Ehlers, thank you for letting
me go. I have a teacher I have to meet up in my office in a few
minutes. She is my sister.
Chairman Baird. I thank Superintendent Hall for his
testimony. We learn something new about Ralph every day, and it
is always a delight.
And Mr. Carnahan will return in a moment. In his absence, I
will yield five minutes to Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Dr.
Eisenkraft, I was interested in your Olympics analogy, and yes,
obviously, if our failings were that publicly known, we would
take action.
But they are certainly well-known. I think people are
catching on. But the problem is deeper than that, because a
recent poll of parents asked them whether they thought it was
more important for kids to learn more math and science, and
almost universally, they said yes, yes we definitely need to.
Then, they were asked if they thought their kids were learning
enough. Oh, yeah, they are learning enough. In other words,
they know it in a theoretical sense, but not in a practical,
absolute sense.
Dr. Eisenkraft, one of your conclusions was that due to a
lack of a standardized definition of a lab, it is very hard to
measure the impact of lab experiences on learning. In view of
that statement, and that is why in particular, I wanted to
refer to Carl Wieman's work, which is about simulation rather
than labs. What do you think of that? What kind of work would
be necessary to implement successful lab experiences? What kind
of research do you think has to be done, and would you see that
being done under the auspices of this bill or not?
Dr. Eisenkraft. Well, thank you Congressman Ehlers. The
question about the definition of labs, we required a definition
because it was very difficult for us to interpret all of the
research which has been done. People were defining labs in all
sorts of ways, or not defining them, and so, you are trying to
say these are research reports telling us the same thing, and
it wasn't obvious, because they weren't defining labs the same
way.
So, the definition, which seems to have hit some resonance
with the community, that is in the NRC report, speaks to a way
of defining labs, so that we can then begin a research agenda,
and answer some of the questions that are noted there.
We certainly want to know, because of the expense and the
time, and all sorts of concerns having to do with labs, is that
money being well-spent? How does it result in student
achievement, student interest in science, student motivations,
understanding the processes of science, how does it help us in
terms of people moving into STEM careers?
And we have to look at different elements of that, but the
lab itself, as the report says, cannot be an isolated portion
of the environment. So, what happens too often is a teacher in
a school which does have labs, they end up going to the lab
when it is available. So I will go two weeks ahead, before I
teach the topic, or I will go three weeks after I taught the
topic, or I will go when somebody else isn't using the
equipment, instead of saying no, no, no, we have learning
models, instructional models, which help people to understand
better, that we know help with student achievement. The idea is
that you go to the lab so that you can have experiences, take
data, and then, draw conclusions on data you have taken, and
then, see ``How did I interpret it?'' ``How did the scientists
interpret it?'' Is it the same way? How do I get over
misconception?
So, the question is when you do a lab experiment, there are
a number of different factors you can research on. Certainly,
there is the content question. There is the affective domain,
interest in science, do you want to take more science? I think
the questions that Dr. Mundell asked his students, was the lab
an integral part of your program? What did it mean to do a lab?
Was the lab actually you doing it, or was it you watching
somebody else do it? So, there are a host of questions.
Carl Wieman served on the committee with us, and it was a
wonderful privilege, and I have known him for a number of
years, and he is extremely dedicated to education, and his
generosity of his time and, actually, his Nobel money to help
create those simulations, is quite an inspiration, I think, to
all scientists.
The question is, when you provide simulations, this report
did not speak to that. Could simulations replace laboratory
experiments? It is not part of the research. It was not part of
our charge. There is a question, though, of that simulation, in
helping people understand that it is part of a larger,
integrated program. But we could do simulations of all sorts of
experiments on computers, but the scientists don't do that now.
They still say no, I have to go into the lab. I have to get
dirty to make sure I understand what nature is telling me, not
what some programmer is telling me.
So, there is probably not one tool for one job, but this
idea of the integrated instructional unit, the good
instructional model which uses direct instruction, labs,
computer simulations, but in a way that we know enhanced
education is what it is all about, and we have to do research
on that to show it can be done.
It has been shown in small studies. What I think this bill
allows us to do is to scale it up to a larger program, to show
it can be effective, and then we hope people will take notice
and say, I want to do that. And then, people come onboard with
the schools of education and the high schools.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, thank you, and I have a follow-up, but my
time has expired, so----
Chairman Baird. Go ahead.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh. My followup is just based on what you just
said, and this, I would like to address to all witnesses. Is
the lack of laboratory equipment a bigger problem, well, I am
sorry, not--let me restate it.
We have been fighting very hard to maintain an educational
mission at the National Science Foundation, and it has been a
very tough go, because that portion of the budget has been
decreasing year by year. I think we have finally reversed it,
through exercising every bit of political clout that we have.
But now, the question in this bill comes along. This is
going to be a pilot program, and probably the best place for it
is NSF, in terms of doing a pilot program, doing the
evaluation, which NSF is very good at, and so forth. Where do
you think it is most appropriately housed at NSF, and secondly,
if it proves to be a good program, should it still be housed at
NSF, or should it be moved over to the Department of Education,
or handled in some other way?
So, we will go backwards. This time, Dr. Mundell, do you
want to start first?
Dr. Eisenkraft. If they are passing to me, I can certainly
speak to it.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh, okay. I will let you.
Dr. Eisenkraft. NSF is certainly the right place to kick
off this study. Well, the Directorate of--well, the research
and K-12 now, the new Director of Research, K-12, but the
Department of Educational Curriculum Development, or the
Instructional Materials Development. They changed their names,
but you know, instructional materials development, DR K-12 is
the new proposal. They have put together the $43 million that
way.
No, they certainly have the expertise. They have the peer
review. They can find the quality studies that have to be done
because of that expertise from all the possibilities that are
out there.
The question is, what happens when the bill gets passed, so
we will be optimistic here, and we will have some followup
studies over the next few years, and we will get money, and we
will show that this can be effective, and we recognize the
importance of this for all students, so we have to make sure
that students in impoverished areas, minority students, get
this opportunity to do labs, and we find out that in the
affluent schools, that the students who didn't perform well
academically, they should also get an opportunity to have labs.
Then, labs are expensive. You know, this kickoff $5 million
is very nice for a small section of Boston, much less the
United States, when you are talking about the kind of magnitude
that different reports brought before this committee, the
Gathering Storm or whatever, have talked about in terms of the
money needed, I don't know who should handle that kind of
money, or how it is best allocated. But to turn around science
labs in America is an expensive venture.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, and that is where I wanted to look at the
next step. Should it stay at NSF with its limited funds, in
which case, we could try to increase funding, or move it to the
Department of Education, and have them handle it, or maybe the
Defense Department, since they have all the money?
Dr. Eisenkraft. I think that the peer review process is a
very important component of having quality research done, and I
think that NSF is best situated to do that quality research at
this point.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Mr. Carnahan is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
here for this inaugural hearing, and congratulations again to
you, and to the Ranking Member. I think you are going to bring
some very much needed bipartisan leadership in this research
area.
I guess I just want to also say it is great to see the
emphasis on the committee adding the science education into the
title. I think it really deserves that, and again, makes a
strong statement that it is going to be an important focus of
the Subcommittee and the Full Committee.
I don't have the science background, like these other
gentlemen have, trained as a lawyer, don't hold that against
me. But my area in St. Louis has some of the top public and
private research institutions in the country. This is very
important to them. You don't have to convince me. I mean, we
have seen all the studies that talk about how we are lagging
behind. We have seen how important it is to capture the
students early and get that interest perked.
I have heard from the business community how they are
worried about the workforce of the future. I guess my question,
and one of the things that has been frustrating to me is while
all these things seem so obvious and necessary, there tends to
be this kind of general hesitancy of people in the science
community to get involved in politics. And I don't know if that
is just a characteristic of people that are in science or
engineering, but you know, how can we do a better job? I have
talked to many different science and engineering groups about
how important it is for them to speak up, in terms of this
public policy debate.
And I guess my question is how can we best really mobilize
and make the case to the scientists and the engineers and the
teachers to get involved in this debate, so they can do a
better job?
Ms. Froschauer. Well, this is one way to do it, isn't it?
Mr. Carnahan. It is. It is.
Ms. Froschauer. It is. And actually, I believe that you
will see that teachers are becoming more involved politically,
that we do realize the importance of legislation that can
support the efforts and the things that we are doing in the
classroom every day. And without the strong legislation, that
we probably cannot accomplish our goals to really teach all
children well. And so, and I think that NCLB actually has
helped some of that, by the way, because it has really put it
out front. It puts something in front of us that was
legislative, that now we are focusing on, and so we realize the
power of legislation. Certainly, teachers are not the most
vocal people when it comes to individuals and pronouncing what
their needs are. Obviously, we would have more in education, I
believe, if they were, but I do believe that we are moving
forward.
NSTA actually just started our legislative efforts within
the last couple of decades. We were not that legislatively
alert, and we were not paying attention to what was going on on
the Hill the way we should have been, but our members really
had an outcry, and said we need to get involved. We need to
find out about the bills that are being passed on the Hill, and
what kinds of things are happening to us legislatively. And
that is why we now have a very strong legislative component.
Mr. Carnahan. Well, thank you for getting your group
involved. I really appreciate that.
Dr. Eisenkraft. Just to mention the National Science
Teachers' Association will have about 15,000 science teachers
coming to St. Louis in a few weeks to learn about science, and
to advocate for better instruction. I think that Members, your
colleagues, Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Baird, Rush Holt,
Congressman Holt, I mean, these are scientists who have made
this transition, and recognize the importance of politics. Most
scientists don't understand how it works. They are very good at
doing their bench science, but it just makes sense, school
teachers, it just makes sense you should support education. I
don't understand what we are supposed to do out there to--how
do you convince people when it makes sense to everybody? And
so, we don't know how to do that.
And I think teachers, in general, are very shy about
getting involved in politics, because they play this very
sensitive role with children, and they have to keep their
personal views to themselves as they explain scientific
concepts to their students. And for them to take on an advocacy
role, often they find that in conflict with their primary
responsibility of teaching, and they think that if they get
caught up in politics, that that might detract from what they
are supposed to be doing.
It is not true. I mean, we all have to be involved in our
communities, involved in the Nation--but the question of how do
you become an advocate, and how do you do that, and how do you
make that step. I think for most scientists, most teachers, we
don't know how. We just say everybody agrees with us, we need
better schools, we need better teaching. We need more
equipment. We need labs. If everybody understands it, how do we
get them to do it? That is the part that I think you are
asking, why don't teachers move to the next step, scientists
move to the next step? I don't think they know how.
Mr. Carnahan. Doctor.
Dr. Mundell. Yes, thank you, sir.
Well, part of what I am doing here is kind of representing
the university community and how we are affected by this. And
one of the questions that was directed, and the information I
got was how do I assess this problem.
The assessment is in our decline of enrollment, retention
of our students, okay. Our minorities are down to about a 44
percent retention rate at CSU, and a lot of this goes to the
lack of preparation and foundation they have, when they come
into our university. And I have a feeling this is probably a
widespread phenomenon. But anyway, I think where part of this
can come out--where part of the support for this can come out
is out of the university community.
We are taking an interest in Cleveland, and I imagine
elsewhere, they are, too, trying to smooth transitions from
high school into college, and also, working more with secondary
school teachers, as well as primary and middle school teachers.
As a matter of fact, every summer for the last several years, I
have been teaching chemistry to middle school teachers for
their licensure.
What I would just like to say about this is, I feel like
this is part of the movement to get things more into the
public's consciousness, that coming out of the community
universities and community colleges, they are concerned for
where their students are coming from, and why they are so
poorly equipped to start the rigors of college academia.
Anything you want to add to that, or--okay. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Well, I just want to close by saying thank
you all for being here, and working with your networks and your
organizations to really encourage that, because I think to the
extent we can encourage more scientists and engineers to speak
out as part of this public discussion, and to make the case, it
really helps the public policy-makers in pushing that, and
making it a priority here in Washington, and in State and local
governments around the country.
So, thank you all very much.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan, and I thank the
witnesses. I want to ask a series of followup questions, if I
may, and I know Dr. Ehlers has a couple more as well.
I want to do a little housekeeping first of all. Dr. Ehlers
mentioned that by using all the political clout we have, we
have been able to reverse some of the decline in funding, and
some of the redirection. I want to give Dr. Ehlers credit for
some of that, along with the Chair of this committee, Mr.
Gordon. Together, it is the two of them who have really led the
fight in that, and they deserve the credit, and frankly, the
thanks of the scientific community for their leadership in
that. They certainly have my gratitude.
I also want to mention that a resource for the science
teachers is the website of this very committee. Last year, this
committee made a big push to try to provide science research,
or science teaching and experiential tools on its website. I
don't know if we have a link to the physics program Dr. Ehlers
referenced, but we should try to add at least a link to that.
So, I would encourage you to perhaps let your fellow teachers
know, especially at this upcoming convention.
I was hoping, Dr. Eisenkraft, that you were going to say
that 15,000 teachers were descending not on St. Louis, but--was
it St. Louis you said? But on Washington, D.C. You are in the
wrong town. St. Louis is a lovely place, but----
Dr. Eisenkraft. As I said, we don't quite know how to do
it.
Chairman Baird. Yes. Well, we need some geography teachers.
Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Chairman, they are coming to my hometown.
Chairman Baird. Sorry. I see why that was--well, it is a
fine place, St. Louis, and they have got some great
representatives, as you know. But I mean it actually fairly
seriously, Ms. Froschauer. If every Member of Congress who had
teachers in the kind of straits that you have described from
the testimonials you reported to us knew that, I think we would
be appalled, and I think many Members may not know the
condition of those schools. I make it a personal point to visit
every high school in my district every two years, if I can. It
is some 40 plus, almost 50 schools, and I think they are
relatively well-equipped.
I confess I haven't been to the science labs of all of
them, but I have been to the schools, but if your teachers are
in those straits, please encourage them to let their Member of
Congress know that, because from my perspective, and you know,
as we reference a lot in this committee, we will reference it
many more times, the Beyond the Gathering Storm report, one of
the fairly soft, but I found intriguing proposals alluded to in
there is the notion of a voluntary national science curriculum,
where you take best practices, and it becomes a voluntary
national curriculum, and part of why I feel so interested in
that is that you heard, I thought, compelling testimony by Mr.
Hinojosa, about how a relatively disadvantaged area can just
fall off the radar screen.
In an ideal world, in an ideal country, let us not say
world necessarily, but in an ideal country, at least, your
access to a quality science education should not depend on the
accident of where your parents happen to live or work. Every
kid should have access to equal quality education, and one of
the things that intrigues me about a voluntary national
curriculum would be that possibly, we could use research like
that defined in Mr. Hinojosa's experience, some of the work Dr.
Eisenkraft has done, come up with a national curriculum, pair
the teaching pedagogy with the equipment, and those schools
that participate would have access to that.
I would welcome your thoughts on whether that is a dumb
idea or a good idea, or what the problems might be, and then
open that up to anybody.
Ms. Froschauer. One of the problems right now with what is
happening with science curriculum is that, as you probably
realize, we have a couple of documents that really do provide
us with the structure of the content, and those two documents
are the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for
Science Literacy, out of Project 2061 with AAAS. Those two
documents really are the documents that have been used by the
states, as now, they have addressed content issues and
curriculum issues for NCLB. And so, now, we have states who
have also developed their own set of standards, benchmarks,
frameworks, they are calling them a variety of different
things.
And so, we have a lot of people who have come up with a
variety of solutions to what they believe is good science, and
they--I believe they will fight for their beliefs in what is
good science. And so, as you can probably imagine, it would be
very difficult to come up with a national curriculum, per se.
However, there is a problem that we think can be addressed.
Right now, through Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the
National Science Education Standards, we have many, many points
that need to be addressed within the science curriculum,
content-specific. Too much, no one can possibly teach
everything that is in those documents, because they are so
hefty, there is so much there. And so, what we believe can be
done that might help teach us a great deal is to narrow those
points down into a more manageable number, something that we
really consider the essential anchors of science education, and
that that might help teachers.
So, not quite the national curriculum that you are thinking
about, but if there were a manageable number of content points
or anchors that teachers were looking at, then they could
develop around them a richer curriculum, rather than trying to
spread out the curriculum over many points.
Chairman Baird. Especially as we talk about lab experience,
and Dr. Ehlers and I have probably got lots of firsthand
experience with this. When you look at these bullet points, it
seems like the notion behind teaching science is to make sure
we have covered certain key topic areas. To be perfectly
honest, in my own experience, it would be far less important to
cover all the topic areas than to give me a hands-on experience
with the process, and a way of solving and approaching
problems, that involves hypothesis generation, well data
review, hypothesis generation, study design, hypothesis test,
data analysis, report, et cetera. If I do that a few times, I
can apply that to all the other realms, that general structure,
and that will be far more useful to me conceptually throughout
my lifespan than would memorizing a particular set of answers
to a broad array.
Is that the kind of point you are making?
Ms. Froschauer. Yes, and I appreciate your point of saying
cover all of the points, the bullet points that are identified.
The specificity makes it to a point where you can't even cover
them, even close to being well-covered. And covering is not
what this is about. This is conceptual understanding. You
cannot develop conceptual understanding on all of those points,
and we want conceptual understanding, and so, that is why we
need these very specific anchors that are the essentials of the
science curriculum.
Chairman Baird. But if all those points are now set out as
the 477 commandments now, or whatever they are tantamount to.
Ms. Froschauer. Yeah.
Chairman Baird. And if they are going to be incorporated in
the NCLB testing, the fear of God is now on the school boards
and the science teachers, I would assume, in the feeling they
have to gear up to cover that stuff, possibly at the expense of
laboratory experience?
Ms. Froschauer. Very possibly. Very possibly.
Dr. Eisenkraft. I would hope not, though. I would hope
that, you know----
Chairman Baird. My fear is are we having unintended
consequences?
Dr. Eisenkraft. Well, I think that there are unintended
consequences, and the question is when the states produce exams
in order to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, or
the Federal Government produces a voluntary exam that you might
want to do, the quality of that exam will drive the curriculum.
So, if that exam only asks questions about what does this
mean, fact, fact, fact, fact, and doesn't talk about the
processes of science, how do we know, then of course, teachers
are going to move, and say forget these ways of teaching which
talk about process, which talk about experiments, let us just
give a lot of worksheets and get the facts, because that is all
that is really required, and we want to protect ourselves. So,
the formation of the exams, and the quality of questions there
drives the curriculum. And so, we have to ensure that when the
states do give exams, that we make sure that those exams
reflect what we want students to know in science as you
enumerated.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much.
Just, first of all, a comment on some of the discussion you
just had. And it always struck me, when I taught laboratories,
that very often, students would do the laboratory experiment,
then come to me and show me the result, and say is this the
right answer? And I would always tell them, no matter what you
got, it is the right answer, because that is what you got from
doing the experiment and making the measurements.
They felt extremely uncomfortable with that. Sometimes, I
would tell them about the experience I had in my first physics
lab at the college level, when we were supposed to measure the
coefficient of heat expansion of rods. You were given a rod,
the thermometers, all that. And I measured it, and the rod, as
I heated it, contracted. And somehow, that didn't seem good, so
I repeated the measurement and got the same answer. So, I went
to the instructor and said, I have observed a very interesting
phenomenon. And he said that can't be. So, he did the
experiment, and got the same result. Apparently, a maverick
instructor at one point had ordered a special material rod just
to confuse the students and test them, and this particular
instructor didn't even know about it.
But the point is simply the answer you get is the right
answer. Now, you may have to worry about uncertainties, et
cetera, but it is very hard to convey that to students.
One of the first things we will face, if we report this
bill out, and it goes to the floor, colleagues will say oh, new
program, we don't have any money for new programs. That could
stop it in its track.
The question I have for you, based on your vast knowledge,
do you know of any similar program that we could somehow
integrate this into, so that it does not appear to be a new
program? Would you consider this just out of the blue, totally
new, or is there something else we could tie it into?
Dr. Eisenkraft. I am unclear on what--you mean the bill?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes. Yeah, the----
Dr. Eisenkraft. No, I think that most of the legislation
and funding for improved laboratories often goes to
universities and colleges. I don't think it often goes to high
schools. I think that is usually left to the district or the
city or whatever. But we have inroads into this. I mean, people
recognize the need. The Los Angeles Unified School District,
with 700,000 students, decided three years ago to provide lab
experiences to all of their ninth graders, at great expense,
recognizing this, and then, to begin a program of professional
development for all of their 360 ninth grade science teachers,
in order to help them to do this effectively.
Whether Los Angeles can then, after providing this quality
experience in ninth grade, can you find the money, then, for
tenth grade, eleventh grade, and twelfth grade? That is the
question. But I don't think I know of programs which
specifically give, target money for investigation of labs and
equipment, and to test these instructional models.
Certainly, there are parts of other NSF programs where this
is a small part of it, but not the major directive, not saying
no, labs are important enough for us to get behind and figure
out what works and what doesn't.
Mr. Ehlers. That raises the next point relating to this
question. I asked that for a reason. Because perhaps the best
approach is to modify the bill, so that all programs are tied
to universities, grants are given to universities to work with
local schools. In other words, combined grant requests. Do you
think that would be an appropriate approach to use on this,
particularly in view of the evaluation requirements, which most
university faculty, who are used to getting grants, would know
how to do the evaluation properly. Maybe high schools would
not. Any comments on that?
Ms. Froschauer. Well, part of the partnership within the
bill is for university involvement.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah.
Ms. Froschauer. And you are suggesting that perhaps the
funding would go to the university to conduct the research? I
think----
Mr. Ehlers. I am suggesting perhaps we broaden it with the
principal investigator being at a college or a university,
and----
Ms. Froschauer. But not taking it out of NSF.
Mr. Ehlers. Not taking it out of NSF, no.
Ms. Froschauer. Because I--sorry.
Mr. Ehlers. It would continue to be an NSF program.
Ms. Froschauer. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. Because there are similar programs in the NSF
for that, but not specifically related to laboratory work.
Dr. Eisenkraft. I am not sure how to micromanage that. You
know, I think the legislation right now speaks to some kind of
partnership between----
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah.
Dr. Eisenkraft.--university, high school, and industry. I
think that is a wonderful concept, and I would really leave it
to the National Science Foundation to write up a request for
proposals, which could take into account all of these different
possibilities, so they can weigh the merits of well, if the
university is the PI, how much money is going to the high
schools, what will be the most effective, how is the research
done? So, I don't know if it is a simple answer.
Mr. Ehlers. There are no simple answers in Washington, but
this may be a simpler approach to take finally, so--thanks.
Dr. Mundell. Yes, sir. Can I add something to that?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, Dr. Mundell.
Dr. Mundell. I always felt that what we need to have is
more of a presence of the urban university or urban college in
the school systems, and I think by this kind of partnership
that we are discussing right now, that would kind of lend
itself to that sort of a presence, of having not only--develop
a curriculum, but also have, excuse me, university faculty
being more of a presence physically within the public schools.
So, I would be very much in favor of that type of thing.
How the funding actually works, I have no idea about that
aspect of it, what would be the best way to do it.
Mr. Ehlers. Another option might be, perhaps, that we make
the partners, or have the industrial partners, whoever they
might be, responsible for handling the equipment purchases, and
the university or the school be responsible for paying for the
training for the teachers.
I am just looking for handle to restructure so that it fits
better within NSF, but also, makes it easier to get it passed
into law.
Dr. Eisenkraft. It is very possible that the research
coming out of the Math Science Partnerships over the past few
years, with the National Science Foundation, could better
inform us about what happens when you create a partnership, so
we know how to use the money most effectively in the future.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I have one last
question, and then, perhaps, we will conclude the hearing for
the day.
I was trained in clinical psychology at the University of
Utah and in addition learned how to be a ski instructor, and it
strikes me, actually, that maybe the instruction I got as a ski
instructor may be better, in some ways, than what people get as
science teachers. And the reason I say this is that any ski
instructor in America who is certified has a certain core
curriculum that they know, a certain sequence of skill
development and exercises designed to achieve those skills, and
the equipment is fairly standard, because everybody has got
their skis and boots and poles, and they go through that, and
you are taught that. So, you don't just say well, you can ski
pretty good, go teach people how to do what you do. That is not
how it works. You first teach this technique, then this.
So, my question is does that happen in our colleges of
education? In other words, if I am in a college of education,
and I am training to be an eighth grade science teacher, and my
specialty area is physics, let us say, or biology, pick it,
doesn't matter, do I get trained in a series of activities and
accompanying materials and exercises, that have in some way
been tested and demonstrated effectively, and I will then
convey that knowledge through those exercises to the students?
Is that what happens, or what--that is how it seems like it
ought to happen to me? I don't know if it does.
Dr. Eisenkraft. I think Lee Schulman and Linda Darling-
Hammond working on this will tell you that happens in the best
colleges and universities training teachers, and it doesn't
happen in many of them. And that is another question that I
think, you know, how much is devoted to labs? Do we know how to
teach effectively?
So, that is a whole different area that again, the Carnegie
Foundation is looking at very closely, how do we make teaching
a profession in the same way that engineers get trained, or
lawyers get trained.
Chairman Baird. Or ski instructors.
Dr. Eisenkraft. Or ski instructors get trained. And I am
sure we can all learn from one another. But anyway, it is
another issue, and yes, the best schools do. We do know that
research has shown that when you work with teachers, if you tie
that professional development to the curriculum they are doing
in their class, it is more effective than when you have
generic, and I think that that is speaking toward--something or
saying so--if they are teaching curriculum A in their class,
and you gear the professional development toward curriculum A,
there is less of a jump for that teacher to be able to transfer
that knowledge to their classroom, and it is more effective.
Chairman Baird. I have talked to a number of teachers and
faculty in the discipline-based majors in academia, and the
difference for me would be it is one thing if you teach me
about neutrinos, let us say, and maybe that is not the best--
let us take something more simple, Newton's laws, basic laws of
mechanics. So, you are teaching about those conceptually. If
you want to make a good teacher of that, you then say okay, so
here is the concept. How do you convey that concept, and why it
matters to the kids? So, you link the content-specific area
from the discipline-based portions of a university directly
with the teaching curriculum.
Is that being done in places? Because that seems, to me, to
be the best way to do it.
Dr. Eisenkraft. That is an interesting instructional model,
and it is part of good instructional models, but it is not all.
Congressman Ehlers said nothing is simple in Washington, and
you know, in education, either, so----
Chairman Baird. I have been in academia. We both have. So,
I think----
Dr. Eisenkraft. I think my colleague and mentor Cliff
Schwartz used to say, you know, elementary education is no
simpler than elementary particles, for your neutrino example.
It is a complex world. The question about whether activities
precede concepts, you know, concepts preceding vocabulary, all
of those elements, when do you, how do you engage students
intellectually? What does that research say? All of these come
together for strong instructional programs.
Chairman Baird. When I referred to academia as being
dismal, I didn't necessarily mean it is all dismal, but trying
to get a logic to why curricula are what they are can be a very
astonishing process.
Dr. Ehlers, any other questions?
Mr. Ehlers. No, thank you.
Chairman Baird. With that, before I bring the hearing to a
close, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the
Committee today, and for your work beyond today. You have all
worked in distinguished careers, and contributed in so many
ways. We are grateful for you sharing your expertise.
And if there is no objection, the record will remain open
for additional statements from the Members, and for answers to
any followup questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered, and this brings the hearing
to a close. The hearing is now adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]