Science education at the precollege and post-secondary levels in the United States is in the throes of reform (AAAS, 1993; National Research Council, 1996a; National Science Foundation, 1996). Reform efforts at each level are interdependent, and changes realized in K-12 science education have profound implications for undergraduate science instruction: "[S]tudents will come to undergraduate education with new expectations. . . .[T]o sustain the kind of reform occurring in our nation's elementary and secondary schools, changes in undergraduate education. . .will be essential" (National Science Foundation, 1996, p. ii). Science education reform at the postsecondary level concerns the instruction associated with both general studies science requirements and science courses that comprise a science major. While acknowledging progress made towards such reform over the past decade, the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources (National Science Foundation, 1996) makes clear that "much more remains to be done" and "there is now a broader and even more urgent agenda" (p. iii). In addition, the NSF supports programs in the Division of Undergraduate Education "to promote the development of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses that will better prepare students for the science- and technology-based environment of the future" (National Science Foundation, 1997, p. v).

     Undergraduate science instruction has been criticized for lacking a meaningful context and not "connecting" the facts (Lipson & Tobias, 1991), and for paying insufficient attention to the applications of science in society (Ellis & Ellis, 1991). There is a perception that many undergraduates at both small and large institutions of higher education graduate with serious deficiencies in "the science they need to participate in society" (Folz & Roy, 1991, p. 210). The AAAS Study Group Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences (AAAS Study Group, 1990) has called for "radical reform" of the natural science component of the undergraduate curriculum that satisfies general education requirements, and sets forth related recommendations "addressed primarily to college-based natural scientists" (p. 10). The AAAS Study Group believes that a liberal education should afford all college students, including science majors, with scientific knowledge about the concepts that unify the sciences with other disciplines and the interactions of science with society and technology. The National Science Foundation (1996) reinforces this notion by (a) recommending that Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (SME&T) departments "foster interdisciplinary education" (p. 24) and (b) acknowledging that reform efforts over the past decade that introduced "fundamental science in the context of major public problems [issues], stressing their multi-disciplinary nature" (p. 24 ) were innovative and met with high interest amongst students.

     Designing science courses that meet these characteristics can be challenging as most of the scientific enterprise at the university is rooted in discipline-specific research and education (Bush, 1945; Spring, 1994). "Only one of the current reform movements, the science-technology-society (STS) effort, offers the potential for meeting the challenge of science for a general education," states Ramsey (1993, p. 235). The recognition that there are deficiencies in many aspects of current curriculum and instruction in undergraduate science education "is yet another plea for the teaching of science and technology in the context of society" (Hurd, 1992, p. 133). Furthermore, there appears to be growing support for undergraduate science courses that promote understanding of key science concepts that unify the sciences with other disciplines and the interactions of science with society and technology. Bybee (1993) found in a survey of college students, science teachers, science educators, and scientists strong support for incorporating the STS theme into undergraduate science instruction.

     One of the more noticeable aspects of reform of undergraduate science education in the literature is the collection of papers that suggest that pedagogy must be different in the college classroom than it has been in the past. The National Science Foundation (1996), for example, has recommended that science faculty adopt a host of innovative teaching practices, such as starting a cycle of learning with the student's prior knowledge and experiences and encouraging problem-based learning (PBL). While the implementation of such practices is acknowledged as "the prerogative of faculty members" (AAAS Study Group, 1990, p. viii), it is clear that policy and support at the institutional level can impact greatly the achievement of science education reform. For example, the tenure and promotion process at major post-secondary institutions is criticized for measuring success too heavily in proposal writing and publication and minimizing attention to quality teaching and teaching improvement. Arden (1997) observes: "[T]eaching is rewarded internally or externally only rarely. . . .Faculty members, therefore, routinely undervalue undergraduate teaching" (National Research Council, 1996b, p. 50). Although the American Association for Higher Education has provided considerable impetus for incorporating a greater emphasis on teaching excellence in tenure and promotion, "examples of such effort are few in number" (National Science Foundation, 1996, p. 31). The National Research Council (1996b) conveys that "The hope is that university administrators. . .will support and reward these scientists [faculty] in tenure and promotion decisions" (p. 51).

     Efforts to support faculty change toward newer forms of pedagogy are sometime supported through other institutional mechanisms. The Shreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning at Penn State University is one example of an institutional support mechanism designed "to promote a partnership between students and faculty to design, conduct and engage in problem-focused, problem-framing learning experiences that foster inquiry, initiative and team work" (http://www.inov8.engr.psu.edu/about/missionvision.htm). While not an adjustment to tenure and promotion practices, institutional mechanisms such as the Shreyer Institute can provide support for faculty wishing to pursue innovative approaches to teaching undergraduate science courses. Yet, as concern continues to be raised about undergraduate science education and calls for reform are heard, questions must be raised as to factors that will influence the kinds of changes envisioned in the reform literature and associated initiatives. Research conducted on science education reform in elementary and secondary school settings suggest that the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of college science faculty, as well as the culture of their university classrooms, require serious attention as they have strong implications for the reform of post-secondary science education (Aikenhead, 1994; Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).

     The study reported in this paper emerged as a result of efforts to reform undergraduate science education. This case study of the beliefs about learning and teaching science of a college science faculty member grew out of the first author's involvement in a National Science Foundation funded project at a large research oriented university in the northeastern United States. The project sought to make a contribution towards improving general studies science instruction by developing and pilot-testing a new STS course, which could satisfy a portion of the university's general studies requirements in the natural sciences. The principal foci of the course were three STS critical issues, which took the form of course modules: global warming, energy options for the future, and biodiversity conservation. Relative to these critical issues, the course was to place emphasis on the underlying science, interrelationships, societal impacts, and public policy. An interdisciplinary team of instructors, one of whom became the participant in this study, comprised the faculty for the course. The course and evaluation of the pilot offering are described in detail elsewhere (Rye, Rubba, & Waks, 1995).

     This new course embodied several of the curricular and pedagogical improvements in undergraduate science education cited most frequently by leaders in the SME&T community, amongst these being to organize courses into modules that address real-world problems and target issues "for which most students have a personal context"(National Science Foundation, 1996, p. 17). Additionally, the course nurtured collaboration amongst faculty across science departments, thereby responding to a key organizational barrier to improving SME&T education: "very high autonomy of individual faculty" (National Science Foundation, 1996, p. 49). Further, the issues approach of the course followed the AAAS Study Group's (1990) recommendations on organizing course subject matter to "contribute optimally to the perception of science as a liberal art" (p. 42). The course focus on energy as a concept central to instruction on contemporary issues also was supported by the AAAS Study Group.

     The first author of this paper was one of two project evaluators of the new general studies STS course. The project evaluators attended meetings that guided course development and were asked to provide workshops and construct a resource manual for course faculty that reflected current reform thrusts in science teaching (e.g., constructivism). These project evaluators were from the university's College of Education, and their involvement was consistent with the National Science Foundation's (1996) recommendation to "make use of resources available in colleges and departments of education to strengthen the pedagogical foundations of SME&T undergraduate education" (p. 65).

     Upon completion of the first workshop, one of the faculty--a research scientist in the physical sciences area--approached the first author about "the references on concept mapping." The instructor elaborated on his interest in the concept map tool and requested to meet with the first author for related discussion, and specifically to examine a concept map he had prepared as an organizer for his course module. The concept map is a graphic metacognitive tool (Wandersee, 1990) suited especially to representing the interrelationships between concepts and has considerable utility in the design, delivery, and assessment of instruction (Jonassen, 1996; Novak, 1990; Willerman & Mac Harg, 1991). Its adoption as a study strategy by students facilitates achievement of a vital liberal education and science education reform goal: the ability to pursue lifelong learning (AAAS, 1990; National Science Foundation, 1996). Additionally, the concept map is especially noted to facilitate critical thinking--a skill emphasized in science education reform.

     This instructor's interest in concept mapping and his related conversations with the first author, taken together with his commitment to STS instruction, suggested the following: (a) he was insightful and genuinely concerned about the quality of undergraduate science instruction; and (b) a perspective on what constitutes "good" college science teaching, as revealed by a case study of this instructor, would be informative to university faculty in STS, science education, and the natural sciences. Such a study would provide the perspective of a research scientist who was endeavoring to "make a difference" in the quality of undergraduate science instruction. Accordingly, with this instructor's permission and human research subjects clearance, a case study was undertaken to examine his teaching beliefs and practices. Data collection took place over a six-week time period during which the participant was engaged in the development of the new STS course and teaching an existing STS course that also targeted energy issues. The entire study spanned several months, as the participant had an active role in verifying the researcher's assertions emanating from data analysis and reviewing draft manuscripts of the study.

Gaining Entry and Participant

     The events that surrounded gaining entry (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993) and participant selection, which allowed for the building of rapport with the participant, were described above. The participant, henceforth known as Mike, holds a doctorate in a physical sciences area. He has considerable expertise in and major responsibility for conducting energy research, which includes supervising several doctoral students. During his five years of employment as a faculty member in a science department at the university, Mike also has taught a general studies natural science course and been involved in the development and/or instruction of three different STS departmental course offerings. These courses have engaged his expertise in the area of energy sources for society and related supply and demand issues. Mike's involvement with the STS courses generally has been in addition to his full-time research and teaching load in his own academic department.

Data Collection and Analysis

     The study employed ethnographic research tools: the interview guide (Patton, 1990); and the researcher as interviewer, observer-participant (Merriam, 1988), and analyst of qualitative data (Erlandson et al., 1993). Field notes from two 75-minute observations of an STS course that Mike currently was teaching and three private interviews (each about 1 hour in length) were the primary data sources. Three written documents prepared by Mike were supporting data sources: the concept map organizer for his critical issues module in the new STS course, a draft of that course module, and a syllabus of another STS course Mike currently was teaching.

     To honor Mike's preference, the interviews were not tape recorded. Notes taken by the researcher were used to construct transcripts, which were reviewed by Mike in an effort to verify that all of his responses had been represented accurately. These member checks were completed as a means to add credibility to the data as well as build trust and rapport with Mike. The broad topics set forth to investigate through the three interviews sequentially were as follows: (a) Background and events influencing Mike's decision to become a college science teacher and get involved in STS instruction; (b) What constitutes exemplary college science teaching and what is necessary for large research oriented universities to realize the latter on a wider scale; and (c) Mike's reflections on his involvement in developing the new STS course. The interview guides for the second and third interviews were sent in advance to Mike for his review and reflection. These interviews commenced with a discussion of any changes needed in the draft transcripts, and accordingly, revisited topics addressed in these transcripts. This process facilitated transition and continuity from one interview to the next. The second and third interviews also included discussion of the researcher's observations made during class sessions of the STS course Mike currently was teaching, as explained below.

     Between the first and second and second and third interviews, the researcher recorded open-ended narratives (Glickman, 1991) during two class sessions of the STS course that Mike currently was teaching. This course was not the new STS course, which was still in the developmental stage during this study. Observations of the classroom visits, and tentative assertions based on these observations, informed the content of the interview guides for the second and third interviews. This was an attempt to verify the researcher's interpretations of his observations of Mike's STS class, and more broadly, to triangulate data sources (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The written documents (concept map, course module, and course syllabus) referred to above also were examined in attempting to validate assertions that emerged from inductive and logical analysis (Patton, 1990) of the interview transcripts and class observations.

     Final member checks were provided through Mike's reviews of two draft manuscripts of this case study, which prolonged engagement with the participant. These reviews helped to assure both parties that Mike's responses were not used out of context and that assertions set forth were valid. Additionally, the researcher as co-evaluator of the new STS course continued to have contact with Mike (one of the instructors) during the offering of this new course, which began after the completion of data collection for this study.

First Interview

     Mike conveyed that employment in higher education was of interest to him because it offered both research and teaching components, and that he was not aware of the STS discipline until after obtaining his Ph.D. He became reflective about societal relationships with science and technology through an undergraduate science course he teaches, offered though his department, which deals extensively with energy supply and demand. Mike's current involvement in the development and instruction of three different undergraduate STS courses came through invitation by other university faculty.

     Mike broached the topic of college science teaching without a prompting question from the researcher, and made reference to a general studies science course that he taught:

One thing about the college science teaching--maybe you are going to get into this in the interview--it is the common assumption that once a person has received a Ph.D. degree he is ready to teach. . . .It is surprising to me that one is expected to become a college science teacher overnight without learning how to teach. I have found in teaching the 101 course that it is a major challenge to reach and talk to the students.

     Mike spoke further about the challenge of reaching and talking to the student in general studies science courses: "One of the best ways is to come up with examples with which they can associate. Energy is particularly a good topic, providing many daily experiences and situations to which students can relate." Mike's belief embodies a key pedagogical practice recommended to SME&T faculty: "[R]elate the subject matter to things the student already knows" (National Science Foundation, 1996, p. 65). Energy is an excellent example of a transdisciplinary concept with which students do have some familiarity. The AAAS Study Group (1990) speaks to the importance of students developing an awareness of such integrative concepts in the science instruction that comprises a liberal education: "[a]n instance of a familiar idea in a new context allows the student to relate what is known. . .to the unfamiliar and provides a schema for organizing new knowledge" (p. 21-22).

     In the transcript excerpt that follows, Mike made reference again to energy and to another transdisciplinary concept: efficiency. Here, he voiced concern in regards to deficiencies many students have in their background knowledge of these concepts as well as mathematics, and the implications this has for learning science at the post-secondary level.

I have noticed that the knowledge of basic math is pitiful in college students. . . .The students in my 101 course were not aware of the concept of efficiency. They did not have a good understanding of the definition of energy, either. If they do not understand what energy and efficiency mean, then they are not able to think intelligently about related problems of energy consumption. . . .For example, how would one realize the gross inefficiency of driving a car or riding an elevator?

     Mike described another root to the above deficiencies: The initial exposure students have to science usually is not "the right" exposure and creates in them a negative impression. Project 2061 recognized the existence of such deficiencies and respective root causes, and set in motion a national long-range effort to achieve major improvements in science, mathematics, and technology education at the K-12 level (AAAS, 1993; National Research Council, 1996a). However, achieving these outcomes will take time. The AAAS Study Group (1990) speaks to what can be done now at the post-secondary level to respond to the concerns voiced by Mike. Amongst their recommendations is that the study of mathematics be integrated with, as opposed to being a prerequisite to, college science courses. The group believes that this action will facilitate student understanding of the essentiality of mathematics to the study of science and increase enrollment of "mathematics-shy" students in science courses.

Remaining Interviews and Class Observations

     During the second and third interviews, questions were posed to Mike on the topic of exemplary college science teaching. Mike spoke first to this concern: What is necessary for this university, and others similar to it, to realize exemplary college science teaching on a wider scale? Mike reported:

Teaching has to be made a priority by the administration. . . .There is a big push for external funding, which brings the research element of a faculty person's job responsibility to the front. Granting tenure rests almost exclusively with bringing in grants and publishing. . . .The university has to reflect the importance of teaching in the tenure decision, in order to make a real commitment to achieving wide-scale exemplary college science teaching. . . .Teaching [currently] is not the highest priority. Look at the sizes of some of the classes: They contain 200 to 250 students. How can a teacher talk with the students in such a large class?

     I believe the first step in achieving good teaching is getting to know your students--what their needs are and where they are coming from. You need to know their educational background--their existing knowledge relevant to the course--so you can build on it. If you have a chance to determine this, then you can talk with them and attempt to individualize instruction.

     Gillespie (1996) contends that large class sizes do not preclude the provision of quality instruction, and steps towards achieving such should include learning students' names and beginning class by inviting students' input about the current topic. Mike did not view a large class size as an insurmountable obstacle to "getting to know" enrolled students. In an undergraduate general studies science course he teaches with a variable enrollment of 90 to 150 students, he sets a personal goal of learning each student's name. Mike viewed this as critical to engaging students in class discussion:

If you can not address a student by name when calling on that student, then you should not expect much of a response. . . .On the SRTs [the university's standard course evaluation instrument] for 101, this is one thing [addressing students by name] that the students reported as really a positive experience.

Interviewer: I felt the classroom climate was such that students felt free to speak--to respond to your questions or provide an unsolicited contribution. . . .Based solely on my observation of this class, I would characterize your teaching style more so as "having a conversation" with students as opposed to a one-way presentation of information. . . . [W]ould you agree or disagree with this and for what reasons?

Mike: I agree completely. This is my intention. . . .You have to look for input from the students' experiences. This makes the course rich, especially if the course contains a substantial societal dimension, such as an STS course. . . .I usually stop two to three times during a lecture to obtain their input, especially if I am dealing with policy aspects of issues. There are things I can learn from them and I have, in fact, learned quite a bit.

Interviewer: I recall the student talking about geothermal energy in Iceland and that you recognized another student as. . .being more of an authority on the latter than you.

Mike: Yes, he is a geography major and knows more about geothermal energy than I do. And there is another student in the course who has spent time working on an off-shore oil rig. So when we are on the topic of petroleum exploration or production, I call on her.

Of course, [the importance of] this [attitude] will be more so for some courses than others . . . in STS courses or a course like 101, where you really get into social aspects which influence their daily lifestyle. One clear example of this was in the class [you attended] today--the first presentation, which was on the architectural design of solar homes. She [the presenter] is a graduate student in architecture and knows much more about solar architecture than I do. In a course like STS , there is no way a single person can be knowledgeable about all such relevant areas.

     There are two purposes. First, to give them the chance to bring up their questions, concerns, or comments on any relevant issue. You know, it is hard sometimes for students to be spontaneous and talkative on their own, so I give them the platform. Second, to start a conversation with them--so they realize that I want to hear their comments and teach and learn through conversation. Sometimes I solicit the opinions of the students whom I know have views at the opposite ends of an issue in order to illustrate different sides . . .to bring these opinions to the surface. . . .And I do try to make clear the side that I support when an issue is being discussed. I think it is important to let the students know where a teacher stands on an issue.

     The idea of "opposing viewpoints" is central to the concept of "issue." Bender (1991) discusses the importance of considering and analyzing critically opposing views to develop basic reading and thinking skills and suggests that "those who do not completely understand their adversary's point of view do not fully understand their own" (p. 9). It is clear that such skills are fundamental to a liberal education and underlay an important dimension of responsible citizenship for the 21st century: the ability to make informed decisions about societal issues that involve science and technology. In a classroom discussion surrounding a text reading of one such issue, Mike conveyed to his class that related debates can sometimes be power struggles: "It is important to think and reflect on what will be the result: Who will benefit from this [position or action being espoused]?" Mike's directive, and his interest in externalizing and considering opposing viewpoints in class, concerns a broader dimension addressed by the AAAS Study Group in their "prolegomenon to a new pedagogy." Specifically, they hold that "Students must learn to interact critically with lectures and reading materials, mentally interrogating the speaker or writer" (p. 36).

     Another of Mike's class sessions attended by the researcher was devoted to student presentations and related discussion. Mike did not appear "anxious" to interject his opinions during or immediately after each presentation. He did not appear to have the need to be seen as an authority figure in this context. In fact, he never interrupted a student while giving a presentation and let the other students ask all of their questions first. The researcher shared these observations with Mike during a follow-up interview; Mike's reaction follows:

A main purpose here is to provide an environment where students can interact with one another and get input from their fellow students. Even when I strongly disagree, I am not anxious to jump in. . . .The idea is to let the opposing views be expressed. . . .[E]veryone should be allowed to express their opinion and it should be respected. . . .[T]he student should not feel suppressed to express such views. In regards to the comment I made about CFC. . .I waited awhile before I brought this up, hoping that one of the students would challenge this view first. It is important that students do not go away from class with misinformation.

     As mentioned earlier in this paper, Mike and the researcher were involved in a project leading to the offering of a new STS course for general studies science credit. Mike was asked to reflect on his involvement to date and share with the researcher anything that he felt comfortable in disclosing.

I view my involvement as a very valuable experience--being able to work with people from different disciplines, especially the science policy areas which I did not know much about. The multidisciplinary nature of this experience has been great. The choice of subjects for the course is excellent.

     In his reflections on the planning process for the new STS course, Mike spoke to the utility of the concept map tool (presented at a course planning workshop) as "a good way to organize my thoughts" and as "a practical tool:"

The first thing that comes to mind is the concept mapping. . . .I use it all the time. For example, I use it in planning instruction for a graduate course. . . .I believe it is most useful for me in organizing and presenting my thought processes or putting a lecture or course together. I will have a concept map of each lecture in the [new] STS course and likely will show it to students before or at the end of each lecture, depending on how each session develops. It is a good way to show where everything belongs--where everything fits. And it is a good summary tool.

     Mike went on to reflect on the utility of concept mapping for the assessment of instruction. Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996) recently have described problems surrounding the use of concept maps for science assessment, and call for research that examines the validity of concept maps as measures of students' structural knowledge. Mike also identified a limitation to the use of concept maps for assessment:

I have thought about it as a grading tool--there are problems with it here. I don't want to substitute concept mapping for essay questions or student presentations. I do see problems at this university with students being able to express themselves orally or in writing. Some of the seniors are really poor writers, even those from a liberal arts background.

     The conclusions are set forth as three assertions, each followed by commentary, which are grounded in the findings of this study.

Assertion 1. Mike strives to develop a participatory culture in his classroom.

     Mike's classroom manifests a culture where student opinion is encouraged and respected, where students contribute to the richness of class lectures, and where the instructor learns from the students. To shape this culture, Mike endeavors to: (a) learn the names of students and address them accordingly; (b) become aware of students' educational and experiential backgrounds and call on them to "contribute" when the course topic relates to their background; (c) give students "the platform" at the beginning of class to bring up course-related issues and questions; and (d) stimulate thought by soliciting from the students alternative and opposing views. The instructor's belief that "I can learn from the students" and his respect for individual perspectives ("Everyone should be allowed to express their opinion . . . the student should not feel suppressed") reinforces the above practices and, to some extent, drives the classroom culture. The practice of obtaining the students' input, especially as it relates to their own life experiences, is a firm recommendation for improving undergraduate SME&T education (National Science Foundation, 1996). Such efforts at establishing a participatory culture provides for a meaningful learning context, which was noted as lacking by college students who "switched out" of a science major (Lipson & Tobias, 1991). This practice also contributes to the STS philosophy of learning science within the context of human experience (Yager, Tamir, & Huang, 1992). The endeavors described above require neither lengthy preparation nor adherence to complicated procedures, yet very likely have a substantial positive impact on the learning climate for enrolled students.

Assertion 2. Mike models the typical values and methods of practicing scientists as well as dispositions that are desired in a liberally educated adult.

     The AAAS Study Group (1990) acknowledges that faculty serve as role models to their students for various intellectual processes as well as dispositions. For Mike, this includes his encouragement of critical thinking and consideration of multiple perspectives: "Sometimes I solicit the opinions of the students whom I know have views at the opposite ends in order to illustrate different sides." This stimulation to think critically also engenders in students a "habit of mind" that is manifest in practicing scientists and deemed a vital characteristic of citizenship scientific literacy: a healthy level of skepticism (AAAS, 1993).

     Mike's perspective that "I can learn from others" (be they students or colleagues) also exemplifies a disposition that is desirable in liberally educated adults as well as practicing scientists: being open-minded. Being open to new ideas and sharing knowledge are two of several "values and ways of knowing" deemed integral to a liberally educated adult's conception of the nature of scientific understanding (AAAS, 1990). Mike's interest in the concept map as an instructional tool and his reflections about its limitations in assessment further illustrate his openness to new ideas as well as "a healthy level of skepticism."

Assertion 3. Mike believes that undergraduate science instruction is compromised at the institutional level.

     Mike sees a relative lack of pre-professional training on how to teach as creating "a burden" for the new professor. It seems illogical to assign teaching responsibilities to individuals who have not completed such formalized training. Teaching can become a frustrating component of one's job when preparation to teach has come mostly in the form of past observations as a student of other teachers. Additionally, the prevailing faculty reward system at major universities, which bases tenure and promotion decisions heavily on research performance (National Science Foundation, 1996), does not communicate the importance of quality teaching in the mission of the university and can contribute to "the burden" for young faculty. Yet, despite this concern, Mike has taken steps to improve undergraduate education in the science courses he teaches. While his attempts may not be as dramatic as those called for in some of the current reform literature, Mike apparently has found a balance between his beliefs about "good" science instruction and the expectations the university community holds for him as a researcher and scholar.

     Published case studies that explicate the teaching beliefs and practices of science faculty endeavoring to "make a difference" in undergraduate education are scarce. We believe case studies of reform-oriented faculty are essential in the attempt to improve undergraduate science education. Accordingly, a principal recommendation is to develop a literature base of these case studies which might inform the curricular and pedagogical improvements seen as necessary to "shape the future" of undergraduate SME&T education (National Science Foundation, 1996). The assertions that emanated from this case study, as well as the barriers to and recommendations for quality undergraduate SME&T instruction, could inform the interview protocols and field observation guides employed by such studies. Further, these studies could contribute to identifying the critical elements of an educational program to prepare future faculty for college science teaching. An important institutional action is the inclusion of such preparation for graduate students (National Science Foundation, 1996).

     Project proposals that provide faculty experience with preparing graduate students to deliver undergraduate instruction are "especially emphasized" by the National Science Foundation (1997). This endeavor would also build common ground and facilitate collaboration between faculty in education and the natural sciences. The relative lack of such is presently seen as an organizational barrier to quality undergraduate instruction. A subset of SME&T faculty that contributed to Shaping the Future believed that joint work between education and SME&T faculty was the key means for improving the preparation of undergraduate teachers (National Science Foundation, 1996).

     Additional studies are needed of students enrolled in undergraduate science courses where practices are employed such as those that surfaced in this case study, in an effort to learn "what works best." Studies that collect such data from both the faculty and enrolled students allow for greater triangulation, and the potential to enhance the credibility of assertions.

     The teaching practices and dispositions of the participant, as revealed in this study, have been recognized as important for increasing the quality of undergraduate SME&T instruction (AAAS, 1990; Lipson & Tobias, 1991; National Science Foundation, 1996; Tobias, 1992). The National Science Foundation (1996) makes clear that improvements in pedagogical practices "have not been widely implemented . . . . what we need is not more innovation but more implementation" (p. 56). Accordingly, instructors of undergraduate SME&T courses should move toward adopting practices that nurture a participatory classroom culture and critical thinking--to look for input from the student's experience and consider (when possible) multiple perspectives. However, a major constraint to such will be the degree of support at the institutional level to remove the barriers to achieving quality undergraduate science instruction: "What is needed now is institutional action, not just commitment" (National Science Foundation, 1996, p. 56). And amongst these actions, change in institutional policy is critical to emphasize excellence in undergraduate science teaching by making it a prominent criterion in decisions about tenure and promotion (AAAS, 1990; National Science Foundation, 1996).

     Another consideration might be the hiring of "teaching faculty" for introductory and general studies science courses whose main responsibility is the planning and delivery of exemplary instruction (AAAS Study Group, 1990). However, a concern relative to the latter is the possibility of developing a two-tier faculty system in which teaching is viewed as a second class activity. Arden (1997) suggests "a separation of rank and tenure" (p. 2): Excellence in teaching should be allowed as a prominent criterion for the granting of tenure and promotion to the associate level, whereas the full professor status would be reserved for individuals who have proven to be excellent teachers and "who also conduct research that is so elegant and fruitful as to have helped make American universities the envy of the world" (p. 2).

     Finally, STS instruction addresses many pedagogical and subject matter concerns of the AAAS Study Group (AAAS, 1990) and the STS approach is amongst those "specific improvements" reported by the National Science Foundation (1996). STS courses provide a social context for the learning of science, emphasize transdisciplinary concepts and connections with technology, and encourage critical thinking about controversial issues. Furthermore, they can facilitate collaboration amongst faculty across science and other departments, thereby responding to the organizational barrier of high autonomy amongst individual SME&T faculty. Accordingly, policy-makers could place emphasis on the development and utilization of STS courses to satisfy general studies science requirements.

     American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

     American Association for the Advancement of Science Study Group of the Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences. (1990). The liberal art of science. Washington D.C.: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Inc.

     Aikenhead, G. (1994, March). A review of research into STS science. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, California.

    Arden, E. (1997). A separation of rank and tenure. College Teaching, 45, 2.

    Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design, instruction and assessment. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10, 37-52.

     Bender, D. (1991). Why consider opposing viewpoints? In Polesetsky, M., Global resources (pg. 9-11). San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

    Bernstein, J. (1993). Science education of the nonscientist. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 92-97.

    Blackwell, D., & Henkin, L. (1989). Mathematics: A Project 2061 Panel Report. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Inc.

    Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the President. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

    Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

     Ellis, D., & Ellis, M. (1991). Science and technology: A liberal arts college perspective. In Majumdar, S., Rosenfeld, L. Rubba, P, Miler, E., & Schmalz, R., Science education in the United States: Issues, crises and priorities (pg. 230-238). Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.

     Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

     Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier-Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 286-290.

     Foltz, F., & Roy, R. (1991). Postsecondary science for nonscientists: STS, the new approach, to the largest population. In Majumdar, S., Rosenfeld, L. Rubba, P, Miler, E., & Schmalz, R., Science education in the United States: Issues, crises and priorities (pg. 209-229). Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science

    Glickman, C. (1991). Supervision of instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Gillespie, F. (1996-1997). The phenomenon of large classes and practical suggestions for teaching them. Teaching Excellence, 8 (5).

    Hetherington, N., Miller, M., Sperling, N., & Reich, P. (1989). Liberal education and the sciences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19, 91-93, 124-127.

    Hurd, P. D. (1992). Closing the educational gaps between science, technology, and society. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 12, 127-135.

    Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the classroom: mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall , Inc.

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

    Lipson, A. & Tobias, S. (1991). Why do some of our best college students leave science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 92-95.

     Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

     Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

     National Research Council. (1996a). National science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

     National Research Council. (1996b). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

     National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. (NSF 96-139). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

     National Science Foundation. (1997). Undergraduate course and curriculum development program project book and awards. (NSF 97-72). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

     National Science Foundation. (1997). Undergraduate education : program announcement and guidelines. (NSF 97-29). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

     Novak, J. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 25-52.

     Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

     Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77, 235-258.

     Roth, W, & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557.

     Roth, W. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534.

     Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.

     Rye, J. , Rubba, P., and Waks, L. (April, 1995). A Science-Technology-Society (STS) critical issues course for general studies natural science credit: The evaluation of a pilot offering. A paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.

     Spring, J. (1994). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality, a brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.

     Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In Gabel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pg. 45-93). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

     Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don't. Tucson: Arizona Research Corporation.

     Wandersee, J. (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 923-936

    Willerman, M. & Mac Harg, R. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 705-711.

     Yager, R. E., Tamir, P, & Haung, D. (1992). An STS approach to human biology instruction affects achievement and attitudes of elementary science majors. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 349-355.

About the authors. . . .

James A. Rye (jrye@wvu.edu) is Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, at West Virginia University (WVU) in Morgantown, WV. His major responsibility currently is to serve as a curriculum coordinator to the Health Sciences and Technology Academy (http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/hsta) at the WVU Health Sciences Center. Here, he provides professional development and support to secondary science teachers who facilitate extracurricular science clubs for underrepresented students in several counties. Dr. Rye's academic background includes a B.S. in Biology from Central Michigan University, an M.S. in Human Nutrition from Michigan State University, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Penn State University.

Thomas M. Dana (tmd3@psu.edu) is Assistant Professor and Science Education Program Coordinator in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Education Programs, at Penn State University in State College, PA. Dr. Dana's academic background includes a B.S. in Earth Sciences Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, an M.S. in Affective Education/Science Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, and a Ph.D in Science Education from Florida State University.

To get to the top of this page, click here.

To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.

To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.