Pre-Service Educator Working Group

1. Pre-Service Educator Working Group Status and Plans 2006 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/score/pre_service.shtml

2. Overarching Goal • Help facilitate preparation of teachers in Earth and space science content / pedagogy by: • developing a deeper understanding of pre-service programs and needs; and • identifying diverse ways to meet those needs in ways that leverage expertise of SMD community

3. How? • Establish partnerships with individuals and organizations involved in pre-service educator preparation (ongoing) • Participate in appropriate conferences (ASTE, ATE, NASA/Langley Pre-Service Conference) (ongoing) • Survey faculty and educator to determine needs (ongoing; regional and national; online form recommended by ASTE)

4. How? • Survey SMD community involvement in pre-service (ongoing: moving to online form and request for feedback) • Establish on-line resources and research database for SMD community (ongoing)

5. Next Steps • Working Group “Advance” – May • Analyze survey data • Determine intersections and gaps between SMD community activities / resources and identified pre-service needs • Identify concrete, meaningful “menu of opportunities” in which SMD community can be involved in pre-service preparation • Reflect on strategic plan for next 5 years

6. Next Steps • Create professional development opportunities for the community to: • build an understanding of what is needed • model effective practices • Identify strategic partners with whom we can become involved to prepare future teachers • Develop “snapshots” of programs that represent a diversity of opportunities for involvement • Articulate to SMD community and beyond in presentations, online, and through publications

7. Surveying Audience Needs • AAS, ASP, ASTE, NASA/Langley Pre-Service Conference, ATE • Broker Regions (ongoing)

8. What We Are Learning: Challenges • Faculty and organizations are interested in partnering with the SMD community in a variety of relationships. • Some state educators report that they are having more trouble meeting their state’s earth and space science standards than any other science standards. • Education faculty (and teachers!) have limited time to teach science content and most believe they could benefit from professional development training in science content. Other limitations: funding, access to professional development. • Challenges faculty face: students have limited training in science, lack confidence in teaching science content, and have misconceptions about basic science concepts; faculty focus is on addressing the standards.

9. What We Are Learning: Resources • Materials faculty will use must be: • Current, relevant, connected to standards. • Integrated curriculum that build knowledge - not piece-meal or “show and tell.” • Infused with math and literacy as appropriate to grade level. • In-depth investigations of particular subjects, geared for specific grade levels, with strong activities. • Integrated with technology. • Space science materials often are too mission-focused for use with pre-service teachers or are not classroom-ready. • Faculty and teachers are asking for an easier way to locate resources, with detailed descriptions of what they are, what they do, and grade-level appropriateness. • Tools are needed (e.g., spectrometers, telescopes); must be accompanied by guides and activities.

10. What We Are Learning: Emerging Themes • Strong interest in understanding typical misconceptions of student teachers. What questions can illuminate misconceptions and what tools are available for unveiling and re-constructing student conceptions? • Some of the greatest challenges to faculty and pre-service educators are controlled by school cultural climate (socio-economic backgrounds of students, available technology and resource infrastructure, professional development emphasis and opportunities, and the desired master set of teaching skills, knowledge, and proficiencies.)

11. Regional Examples • Multiple models and learning  feed into National understanding and Working Group’s strategic planning.

12. Note to PSEWG • The following slides are intended to highlight some of our individual efforts • Please add a few words about your programs if you wish. • If we run out of time during the presentation, we can mention that these programs are included and that this presentation will be posted as part of the Ed Council “record” as well as on the PSEWG Web for those who are interested in learning more.

13. Regional Efforts : Examples • Collaborating with local Advisory Boards to identify needs and design/implement responses • Establishing local network of pre-service faculty and SMD EPO specialists (and scientists) to design and test professional development models (no small children will be hurt) for faculty and pre-service teachers. • Offering faculty professional development through ASTE and Southwest ASTE

14. Regional Efforts: Examples Initial stages of collaboration with the University of Maryland Education Department to include more science content into elementary pre-service educator training (NSF proposal)

15. Regional Efforts: Examples • Facilitating collaboration between Education and Science departments in undergraduate instruction at Tufts. • Collaborating with the NASA/Langley Pre-Service Teacher Program • Collaborating with Wheelock College to help re-orient the science curriculum toward teacher preparation. Efforts include initiating active partnerships with K-12 schools (teachers and administrators), teaching colleges, and education researchers.

16. WG Members Laurie Ruberg, MARSSB Stephanie Shipp, SCORE Denise Smith, Origins Bernice Alston, HQ Ilan Chabay, Frameworks Larry Cooper, SMD Susana E. Deustua, AAS Jennifer Grier, SEU Forum Art Hammond, SSE Forum Anita Krishnamurthi, GSFC Elaine Lewis, SECEF Doug Lombardi, Phoenix Mission Julie Lutz, S2N2 Rudy Matai, President, ATE Lynn Narasimhan, DePaul Cass Runyon, SERCH Gregg Schultz, SECEF Christine Shupla, SCORE Tim Slater, Univ. of Arizona Stephanie Stockman, GSFC Bill Waller, NESSIE