FIELD-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE IN EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER ... · technology into the public school science ... FIELD-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE IN EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

ABSTRACT

A pilot of a field-based, research experience in EarthScience teacher education program was conducted for acohort of secondary science teachers from PrinceGeorge’s County, Maryland. The goal of this M.Ed.degree program at Loyola College in Maryland was toproduce well-prepared, scientifically and tech-nologically literate Earth Science teachers, through ateaching- and research-oriented partnership betweenin-service teachers and a university scientist-educator.Program participants were exposed to a broad back-ground in field-based instruction in physical, historical,and environmental aspects of Earth Science content andteaching methods, followed by participation in anauthentic, technology-rich field research project.

Attrition rates were initially high, as someparticipants had difficulty with the logistics andconditions of working in field settings. The pilotprogram was successful, however, in achieving its goalof preparing quality Earth Science teachers through fieldresearch experiences. Participants have become con-fident and innovative in their Earth Science teaching andhave developed effective field-based curricula for theirown classrooms. The participants have published andpresented the results of their societally-relevant geologicstudy at national and international conferences,contributing to the body of Earth Science knowledge,locally and globally.

Keywords: Education – Field Based; Education –Geoscience; Education – Teacher Education

INTRODUCTION

In September of 1998, the Maryland State Board ofEducation (MSDE, 1998) declared a statewide criticalshortage of qualified, certified, technologically literatesecondary-level Earth Science teachers. In the EducationDepartment at Loyola College in Maryland, we alreadyhad a variety of teacher preparation programs leading toa Master of Education degree in Curriculum andInstruction, including one with a focus on elementaryand middle school science. As a geologist and assistantprofessor in the department, I was already in the processof designing an equivalent course of study for in-servicesecondary teachers, when the MSDE put forth itsdeclaration. In response to this critical need, I developeda field-based, research experience-driven, secondaryEarth Science teacher education M.Ed. program.

Aimed at bringing cutting-edge research andtechnology into the public school science curricula, thisnew program was designed to combine current scienceteaching practices with first-hand student content ex-periences. The participants conducted field-basedinvestigations that clearly integrated geologic, geo-graphic, environmental and geophysical techniques, asvehicles for building their own content understanding.The teacher-students could then take that deeperunderstanding and apply it in their own Earth Science

classrooms through innovative curriculum design andteaching methods. The intent of the program was not toduplicate the content of a major or minor in Geology, butto involve classroom teachers in experiences that wouldallow them to develop a better understanding of what itmeans to practice Earth Science. The teacher-studentswere provided access to Earth Science information and,once interpreted, they were better able to teach scientificprocesses to their own students.

The initial pilot program, partnering myself as auniversity scientist-educator in research settings withpublic school teachers, was conducted with a cohort of 17in-service secondary teachers from Prince George’sCounty, Maryland. A cohort size of 15 to 20 students wasthe desired goal for a reasonable student-to-teacher ratio,and to allow for the flexibility and mobility required infield studies. Members of the cohort group were requiredto meet the admissions standards for graduate study atthe College, before moving lock-step through thetwo-year sequence of Earth Science courses designedand conducted specifically for them. As there is noGeology department at Loyola College, I, as a practicingresearch geologist and experienced K-12 scienceeducator, taught all of the content courses through theEducation Department.

The make-up of the cohort group was representativeof the population of Prince George’s County, and of theteaching population, in general. Most participants werefemale, with 4 to 10 years of teaching experience. Whilethere was no formal funding used to develop and teachthis new M.Ed. program, approximately one-half of eachstudent’s tuition was covered by the Prince George’sCounty school system. All program participants werecertified, or working toward certification, in a contentarea other than Earth Science. Most had little or nocoursework or formal background in the subject, eventhough Earth Science constituted a significant part oftheir teaching load. This situation is representative of theCounty’s public school system, where there are threetimes the number of teachers teaching Earth Science inthe secondary schools than are certified in the discipline(PG Co. school system, pers. comm., 1999).

Certification alone, however, does not ensure qualityEarth Science teaching. Following the initial suggestionsfor science literacy standards addressed in Science For AllAmericans (AAAS, 1989), Project 2061 organized specificgrade-appropriate science content goals for achievingliteracy in Benchmarks For Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993).In each of these works, the Earth Sciences receivedconsiderable attention in their importance as unifyingthemes in the sciences to be studied in the country’sschools. This importance is reflected by the inclusion ofcontent standards for the Earth Sciences in the NationalScience Education Standards (NSES) (National ResearchCouncil, 1995). Also included in the NSES are specificstandards for science teaching, professional develop-ment of science teachers and assessment of scienceeducation, as well as standards for science educationprograms and systems.

Many of the changes in science education, as calledfor in the NSES, concern the manner in which students

64 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, n. 1, January, 2003, p. 64-70

FIELD-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE IN EARTH SCIENCE

TEACHER EDUCATION

Michael L. O’Neal Education Department, Loyola College in Maryland, 4501 North Charles Street, Baltimore,Maryland 21210, [email protected]

are taught science. Hands-on, minds-on, inquiry-basedlearning, in which students are able to personallyconstruct meaning in scientific endeavors and relatethem to societal issues are some of the major tenets of theNSES reforms in science teaching. But the NSES gobeyond current trends in constructivist, inquiry-basedclassroom teaching to propose that teacher preparationand professional development programs should beconducted in the same manner, using the same teachingmethods as outlined for the elementary and secondaryschools. Not only should good science teaching begrounded in current teaching methods and science-related pedagogy, but teachers should enter theclassroom with significant experiences in sciencecontent, and an understanding of the scientific andtechnological strategies for the investigation, analysisand presentation of socially relevant problems in science.Intended for pre-service and in-service science teachersalike, the NSES Professional Development Standard Astates, in part:

Professional development for teachers of sciencerequires learning essential science contentthrough the perspectives and methods of inquiry.Science learning experiences for teachers must:

- Involve teachers in actively investigatingphenomena that can be studied scientifically,interpreting results, and making sense of findingsconsistent with currently accepted scientificunderstanding.

- Address issues, events, problems, or topicssignificant in science and of interest to part-icipants.

- Introduce teachers to scientific literature, media,and technological resources that expand theirscience knowledge and their ability to accessfurther knowledge.

Involving teachers in authentic, relevantinvestigations requires them to perform like researchers,employing scientific thinking and using availabletechnology to accomplish their task. The ultimate goalfor these teachers is for them to translate theirunderstanding of the workings of scientific research intoappropriate classroom curricula and learning ex-periences for their students. Currently, however,teacher-as-researcher trends focus more on scienceteaching methods and classroom-based assessmentstrategies, than on science content research broughtfirst-hand into the classroom.

In contrast, Van Zee (1998) reports success using theNSES standards for professional development inteaching both science content and pedagogy by inquiry,involving long-term research projects and studentteaching experiences within a science methods course.Still, the component of scientific research in teacherpreparation and professional development programstypically suffers from a lack of research-based expertiseand/or resources on the part of the institutions offeringthese programs. Most college and university educationdepartments do not employ practicing scientists in theirscience education programs, and most sciencedepartments do not hire science education and teachingspecialists. In most circumstances, research oppor-tunities for teachers arise from collaborations between

school districts or university education programs, withuniversity science departments or government researchinstitutions. Typical associations are through internshipand summer research institute programs.

The importance of these collaborative efforts isevident in participating teachers’ newly foundenthusiasm toward inquiry-based science classrooms,inspired by their association with research scientists(Fraser-Abder and Leonhardt, 1996; Crosby, 1997; Bybee,1998). This enthusiasm translates into innovative scienceclassroom curricula, built upon the teachers’ first-handposition of authority on the nature of scientific inquiry,the use of technology and the relevance of science tosociety (Stockman et al., 1997; Roth and McGinn, 1998).The assertion in these collaborative endeavors is that thequality of science teaching is dramatically improvedwhen a teacher has meaningful, relevant scientificresearch experience. This assertion extends to theimproved quality of technology use in the classroomwhen a teacher has experience in scientific projectdesign, data collection, interpretation and presentationthrough current technological media. For these reasons,collaborative associations between classroom scienceteachers and practicing research scientists have beenencouraged and supported by major educationorganizations such as the National Association ofGeoscience Teachers, the National EducationAssociation, the National Earth Science Teachers As-sociation and the National Science Teachers Association.These efforts are also supported by educational outreachprograms within various science organizations,including the American Geological Institute, theAmerican Geophysical Union, the Geological Society ofAmerica, and the National Science Foundation (NSF,1997).

The current shortage in qualified, certified,technologically literate secondary-level Earth Scienceteachers, and the need for pre- and in-service teacherpreparation, as well as professional developmentprograms that stress authentic research experiences andinquiry science teaching methodologies, are quitepronounced.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

In addition to a science-driven, five-course sequence inpedagogical and educational foundations, participantsin the field-based, M.Ed. pilot program at Loyola Collegefollowed a seven-course sequence in Earth Sciencecontent and science curriculum design. Throughout thesequence, students were required to maintain a portfolioof inquiry-based curricula they developed for use in theirown classrooms, based on their coursework and fieldexperiences.

Authentic experiences were designed to be a centraltheme of the Earth Science content sequence, withnumerous exercises and field opportunities. The goalwas to move the teacher from the role of classroom-basedinquiry-learner, to the role of field-based researcher and,finally, to the role of science expert in the classroom. Toaccomplish this goal, the seven-course sequenceconsisted of three courses of inquiry-delivered EarthScience content (Physical, Historical, and EnvironmentalEarth Science), before shifting to three courses with aresearch focus. The first research course was devoted toteaching current methods of Earth Science field research,appropriate for secondary school students. The twoother research courses (Global Climate Change and Field

O’Neal - Field-based Research Experiences 65

Study in Earth Science) were concerned with the design,implementation and evaluation of relevant, significant,thematic, field-based research projects. The seventh, andfinal course in the sequence required the participants toapply their pedagogy coursework and field experiencesto the design of collaborative, research-driven curriculafor their own secondary classrooms.

In designing the program, I felt that the best way toprepare teachers to effectively use innovative teachingmethods to share science content with their ownstudents, was to expose them to the expertise ofprofessional educators and scientists in authenticsettings. The result was an interactive learning com-munity, built on a partnership between myself, as auniversity scientist-educator, and in-service teachers.

The idea of partnership between in-service teachers,education faculty, and practicing Earth Scienceresearchers is directly related to the policy of theEducation Department at Loyola College to hire onlyscience education faculty who are both practicingresearch scientists and K-12 school-experienced scienceteaching specialists. I view this combination of expertisewithin a single university department as an asset, in thatit allowed for the creation of research experiences thatinherently addressed the learning and teaching needs ofthe teacher participants. Also, the efficiency of planningand executing the pilot program, as well as the ability toadvise these teacher-students, was greatly increased byhaving content and methods unified in one facultymember.

FIELD EXPERIENCE METHODS

At the core of this pilot program was the goal to provideteachers with field-based research experiences in theEarth Sciences, in an effort to improve the quality of theirclassroom teaching. It was not the aim of this program toturn science teachers into full-time research scientists.

As most of the participants in the pilot program hadnot been Earth Science undergraduate majors,considerable time was invested in assuring that theteachers correctly and thoroughly learned pertinentmethods of Earth Science-related field techniques. Theseexercises, developed so that they could be included in thesecondary classroom, involved methods of collectingand logging field data. The format of these field exerciseswas designed to allow participants to learn the field skillsnecessary for future project work in the program, whilesimultaneously creating curriculum projects for theirown classes, based on these acquired skills. These skillsare included in Table 1.

The traditional methods of Earth Science fieldworkcovered in the program involved the use of hand transitsto create thematic maps for future site work. These

included topographic, land use and land cover maps.Field relationships of rock structures and rock typeswere used in the interpretation of geologic maps.Interpretations of soil distribution and recentsedimentary environments were accomplished throughlithologic analyses performed on subsurface samplescollected through hand-auger borings and continuouscores obtained using a vibracoring apparatus (Figure 1).

Land use and land cover mapping was done in localareas to facilitate the teachers’ creation of hydrologic andenvironmental based projects in the secondaryclassroom. Geologic map interpretation was carried outin western Maryland, in an effort to support theparticipants’ understanding of long-term, regional scaleearth history and tectonic activity. Field analyses ofsediment particle size and grain lithology wereperformed at sites in the Atlantic Coastal Plain inMaryland, to promote an understanding of the use ofsediment distribution and surficial processes inpaleoenvironmental interpretations.

Knowledgeable Earth Science teaching requiresexposure to the more sophisticated technologicalapproaches to Earth Science research in use today. In thisprogram, these approaches ranged from the use oflow-end technology in accurate site mapping using asurveyor’s transit, to high-end technology in subsurfacegeophysical surveys employing a ground penetratingradar (GPR) system. These techniques were taught to thestudents during training exercises, with each toolfiguring prominently in the culminating research projectnear the end of the program.

The use of a surveyor’s transit system (Figure 2) insite mapping allowed for the integration of technologywith higher-level mathematics in the Earth Scienceclassroom. Basic surveying techniques were used tocreate accurate topographic profiles for site-based work.Survey and borehole (hand-auger and vibracore) datawere combined to compile site maps with subsurfacecross-sections. Ground penetrating radar profiling atsites allowed for the generation of subsurface transectsused in stratigraphic interpretation and for the optimallocation of boring sites (Figure 3). GPR was thegeophysical tool of choice for this program based on itsrelative ease of operation, and its ability tonon-invasively produce geologic cross-section-likeprofiles at shallower depths (accessible to hand-coringdevices) than is possible using more complex seismicreflection techniques. The GPR system used in this studywas PC-based, menu driven and required only minimalpost-collection processing for basic surveys (Figure 4).

Introduction to, and training in, traditional andtechnological techniques of field-based Earth Scienceresearch was the first part of the participants’ authentic


Use of Interpretion of Generation of

Hand TransitsSurveyor’s Transit Systems

Hand AugersVibracoring Apparatus

Ground Penetrating Radar

Geologic MapsSoil Distribution

Sedimentary EnvironmentsGeophysical Profiles

Topographic MapsLand Use/Cover Maps

Land Use Potential MapsTopographic Profiles

Stratigraphic Cross-Sections

Table 1.Skills and methods stressed for the collection, analysis and interpretation of Earth Science field data.

research experience in this program. Students thenparticipated in the design, execution, evaluation anddissemination of an Earth Science field research projectof significant importance to science and society. Eachstudent functioned as a member of a team within theoverall site-based project. Each team rotated through thecollection of geophysical, survey, and lithologic data,ensuring that every student was exposed to eachtechnique during research conditions. Teamworkcontinued in the post-collection processing, inter-pretation and reporting of project data. The result was anEarth Science research project that was disseminated tothe scientific community through conference pre-sentations, classroom curricula, and a peer-reviewedjournal paper (O’Neal et al., 2002a). These presentationsand publications occurred on both a national (Pritchett etal., 2001) and international level (O’Neal et al., 2002b),providing the students with a scientific audience andproviding a scientific audience with an insight intosecondary classrooms. These academic experiences wereunknown to the teachers, prior to their entry into theprogram. Access to such experiences was a valuablelearning tool, as the transformation from Earth Scienceteacher to Earth Science researcher continued. Theopportunity for teacher-student interaction with andamong practicing Earth Scientists only helped toemphasize the success of this particular partnership of ascientist-educator with in-service teachers.


Figure 1. Author and teacher-students obtaining a

continuous sediment core using a vibracoring

apparatus.

Figure 2. Students setting up a surveyor’s transit

for research site mapping and topographic profiling.

Figure 3. Program participants retrieve and analyze

subsurface sediment samples using a hand auger

system.

Figure 4. A geophysics team of teacher/researchers

and author perform a common-offset profile using a

ground penetrating radar (GPR) system.

FIELD RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

The theme of the field research experience in our pilotprogram was an investigation of the stratigraphic recordof coastal modification in the Mid-Atlantic region,stemming from climate-induced sea level fluctuationsduring the Quaternary Period. This geologic and geo-graphic framework was chosen for several reasons. Asthe primary developer and principal content/methodscollaborator of the M.Ed. program, I am involved inongoing, long-term research of coastal climate/sea levelrecords in the local area (O’Neal, et al., 2000; O’Neal andMcGeary, 2002). My experience in the Delaware andChesapeake Bay regions suggested that analyses of thesedimentary record of Pleistocene climate change werewithin reach, both conceptually and geographically, oflocal Earth Science teachers. Learning experiences aimedat giving teacher-students the skills necessary for basicsedimentary, stratigraphic, and geophysical studiesallowed them to form an effective research team, whenwe partnered to undertake an authentic field study of sealevel change in the Chesapeake Bay area. As an issue inthe forefront of public concern on a global scale, thesocietal relevance of climate change was inherent in thisenvironmental and geologic study. Additionally, theproximity of the research area to the teacher-students’homes and schools added relevance to their classroomcurricula.

We convened every other weekend during thesummer of 2001, using GPR surveys and lithologicborings to locate and characterize three previouslyunknown, paleoshoreline deposits on the eastern marginof the Chesapeake Bay, near Cambridge, Maryland. Ouranalyses revealed these deposits to be barrier island-stylefeatures, overtopping one another, having been em-placed during three distinct higher-than-present sealevel events during the mid Pleistocene (Figure 5).

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION

The results of this research have been disseminated infour venues. In the first, we gave a research poster at theAnnual Meeting of the Geological Society of America inBoston, in 2001, with the teacher-students serving as theprimary presenters (Pritchett et al., 2001). Second, theresearch team produced a peer-reviewed journal article,with the teacher-students serving as coauthors (O’Nealet al., 2002a). In the third venue, I presented the researchposter, on behalf of the team, to an internationalaudience at the International Coastal Symposium inNorthern Ireland, in 2002 (O’Neal et al., 2002b). Thefourth, and possibly most far-ranging venue, was theinclusion of the field research methods and processeslearned into collaborative curricula, written by the teamfor use in their local school district. In these curricula, theteacher-student participants incorporated the classroom,laboratory, and field experiences from this program intotheir own classroom teaching strategies and contentareas.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The primary intended outcome of this field-basedresearch experience in Earth Science education programwas simple: to produce well-prepared Earth Scienceteachers. The method I chose to achieve this desiredoutcome was to expose in-service teachers to a broadbackground in field-based instruction in physical,historical, and environmental aspects of Earth Science,followed by participation in an authentic field researchproject. The objectives of these methods were to increaseteachers’ understanding of Earth Science content wellbeyond their textbooks. Successful participants shouldbe teachers who are well-prepared to be creative andadept at developing and teaching classroom, laboratory,and field exercises, and to bring authority of the subjectto their classrooms through a firm understanding of howEarth Science research is performed. A secondaryobjective of this pilot program was to assess the validity


Figure 5. 250 MHz radar profile revealing backbarrier, shoreface and foreshore structures of a stranded,

mid-Pleistocene, barrier island-style Chesapeake Bay shoreline, buried in the subsurface on Maryland’s

Eastern Shore. Students used radar reflections showing sedimentary structures and lithologic analyses from

auger borings (RDA 10, 11 and 12) to determine sedimentary environments. Modified from O’Neal et al.

(2002a).

of scientific research conducted by teacher-students infield settings.

To evaluate these objectives, I relied on qualitativedata gathered through satisfaction questionnaires,student portfolios, and faculty observations of studentgrowth and performance. As the feasibility of such afield-based program for in-service teachers was atquestion in general, I opted to focus my efforts onprogram development and informal evaluation ofstudent experiences.

At both the midpoint and end of the program, eachparticipant was asked to complete an informalsatisfaction questionnaire, aimed at assessing theirattitude toward the methods and settings in which theyhad learned content material and teaching strategies,and the applicability of these to their own classroomteaching. Questions were worded generally and were leftopen-ended for students to elaborate on their responses.Anonymity of respondents was maintained to ensure thefreedom to respond openly.

All respondents indicated a high degree ofsatisfaction with the learning environment created infield settings. Many elaborated that most of the conceptshad much greater personal meaning, and were learned inless time than in the classroom, because of theexperiential nature of the active, learning environment.This was especially pronounced among those par-ticipants who held undergraduate degrees in a disciplineother than the Earth Sciences. Most respondents felt thatparticipating in research activities in authentic settingsincreased the personal relevance of the content whenthey were required to teach the same subject matter intheir own classrooms. Further, these respondents feltthat they were able to impart this relevance to theirstudents, based on their own experiences.

Alternatively, some respondents expressed initialdifficulty in adapting to unfamiliar learning situations,finding the added complexities of learning outdoors tobe a distraction. Those same respondents, however,echoed the positive sentiments of their colleagues oncethey had undergone an adjustment period of usually nomore than a semester. The logistics of fieldwork proveddifficult for most program participants, regardless oftheir response to other questions. All program part-icipants were working teachers, many with families.Most of the difficulties centered on the weekend andsummer time required to complete field exercises. Otherdifficulties arose from personal comfort levels withphysical work, temperature and weather extremes, andthe lack of amenities in outdoor settings. Participantswho chose to withdraw from the program most oftencited these difficulties as their rationale for leaving. Withan attrition rate of 58% (10 of the original 17), thesedifficulties inherent in a field-based program must beconsidered significant. Of the remaining 42% of thecohort (7 of 17), however, it is also significant that all ofthe teacher-students continued with the graduateprogram after the initial Earth Science contentseven-course sequence, graduating with their M.Ed.degrees.

At both the midpoint and end program assessments,all program participants indicated that they were moreconfident in their Earth Science content knowledge andteaching ability than they had been initially. Allrespondents also indicated that they were currentlyusing methods, strategies, and activities they hadlearned in the program, within their own classrooms.

Throughout the pilot program, a portfolio of studentwork was maintained for each teacher-studentparticipant. Most notable of the coursework contained inthese portfolios were the curriculum projects eachstudent was required to create as the culminatingexperience in each of the science content courses.Students were given the freedom to develop an activityor project of their own design, which would allow themto bring the course content to their own classrooms. Nolimitations were placed on the venue for theschool-based activity. A clear pattern emerged for eachparticipant of the program, with projects exhibiting anincreasing complexity and level of duration, and adecreasing dependence on the school classroom. Initialactivities developed were to be conducted in short timeperiods within the confines of the participants’classroom, whereas subsequent activities were intendedto move their students outdoors (both on and off schoolgrounds), placing them in long-term, problem solvingsituations.

Concurrent with these changes in curriculumdevelopment were the faculty observations of personalgrowth in confidence and independence on the part ofeach participant. I initially observed most teacher-students approaching their field-study and problem-solving assignments with apprehension, unsure of howto begin a project or pace themselves during a field day.This was most evident in the first field exercise whereskills previously taught in the program were needed tomake interpretations. By the end of the summer fieldstudy session, the participants were routinely observedmaking independent decisions of where and how togather data, and freely engaging in field discussions ofpossible data interpretation. During the posterpresentation of their research at the annual GeologicalSociety of America meeting, the attending programparticipants explained their results to, and fieldedquestions from, their geologic research peers withconfidence and enthusiasm. As the accompanyingfaculty at the conference, I was not allowed to speak!Such ability on behalf of the students served as furtherevidence of the successful partnership of a scientist/researcher with teacher/researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Field-based research experiences in Earth Scienceeducation can effectively promote the development ofcontent-qualified, technologically-literate, scientifically-confident, and enthusiastic secondary level Earth Scienceteachers. The partnering of university scientists/education faculty with in-service teachers provides anopportunity for a coherent learning community whereauthentic research experiences are designed andconducted with the ultimate goals of the disseminationof research in both professional scientific circles andschool-based curricula.

This pilot program has resulted in a publishedgeologic study of societal relevance, contributing to thebody of Earth Science knowledge, locally and globally.This research was conducted by a cohort of in-serviceteachers who have become confident and innovative intheir Earth Science teaching, and have developed anetwork for sharing ideas and teaching strategies. Sincegraduating with their M.Ed. degrees, two of the sevenparticipants completing the program have taken onadministrative roles within their schools, in addition to


their teaching positions. Additionally, three cohortmembers are seeking doctoral programs to further theireducational careers, and one has begun teaching at thecollege level, staying active in Earth Science research.

The Master of Education in Curriculum andInstruction, with a focus on secondary Earth Science,degree program continues at Loyola College inMaryland. In the fall of 2001, a cohort group ofteacher-students from another county school system inMaryland entered the program. These students willconduct their field research during the summer of 2003.In addition, the Earth Science M.Ed. program has servedas a model for secondary teacher preparation in otherscience disciplines at Loyola. A cohort of students hasrecently begun a newly created M.Ed. program for thepreparation of secondary Physics teachers, partneringin-service teachers with faculty/researchers from thePhysics department.

From the standpoint of a practicing geologist, I feelthis program should serve as a model for otherscientist-teacher partnerships. The local geologicresearch program I maintain at Loyola benefited greatlyfrom the teachers’ participation, providing more thanmere field assistance, but rather a considerably largerdata set than otherwise would have been possible tocollect in so short a time. Likewise, from an experiencedK-12 educator’s point of view, I believe this program tobe a successful model for Earth Science teacherpreparation, where direct, meaningful experiences infield-based research transform Earth Science teachersinto Earth Science experts in the classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Robert Behling, Paul Harnik,Robert Ross and an anonymous reader for their helpfulreviews of this manuscript. I would also like to thank theadministration of the Education Department and theCollege of Arts and Sciences at Loyola College inMaryland for their support during the challenges ofcreating and operating this program, as well as the Officeof Science in the Prince George’s County, Maryland,Public School System for their forward thinking in theirattempts to prepare quality secondary Earth Scienceteachers.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science,1989, Project 2061: Science for All Americans,Washington, DC, American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

American Association for the Advancement of Science,1993, Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy,Washington, DC, American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

Bybee, R., 1998, Improving precollege science education– the involvement of scientists and engineers,Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 27, p. 324-328.

Crosby, G., 1997, The neccesary role of scientists in theeducation of elementary teachers, Journal ofChemical Education, v. 74, p. 271-272.

Fraser-Abder, P. and Leonhardt, N., 1996, Researchexperiences for teachers: Working with laboratoryscientists provides fresh insights and knowledge

that transfer to the classroom, The Science Teacher,v. 63, p. 30-33.

Maryland State Department of Education, 1998, Teachershortage areas announced, MSDE Bulletin, v. 9,September 25.

National Research Council, 1995, National ScienceEducation Standards, National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 262 p.

National Science Foundation, 1997, GeoscienceEducation: a recommended strategy, Directorate forGeosciences Report, NSF 97-171.

O’Neal, M., Wehmiller, J. and Newell, W., 2000, Aminoacid geochronology of Quaternary coastal terraceson the northern margin of Delaware Bay, southernNew Jersey, USA, in Perspectives in Amino Acid andProtein Geochemistry, Goodfriend, G., editor, NewYork, Oxford University Press, p. 301-319.

O’Neal, M. and McGeary, S., 2002, Late Quaternarystratigraphy and sea-level history of the northernDelaware Bay margin, southern New Jersey, USA,Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 929-946.

O’Neal, M.L., Agwu, I.U., Green, M.T., Johnson, V.A.,Jones, P.Y., Pritchett, S.R., Tummings, M.C., andWalton, M.F., 2002a, Ground penetrating radaranalysis of an emergent mid-Pleistocene estuarineshoreline complex, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland,USA, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 36, p.564-571.

O’Neal, M.L., Agwu, I.U., Green, M.T., Johnson, V.A.,Jones, P.Y., Pritchett, S.R., Tummings, M.C., andWalton, M.F., 2002b, Ground penetrating radaranalysis of an emergent mid-Pleistocene estuarineshoreline complex, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland,USA, International Coastal Symposium 2002 (ICS2002), Northern Ireland, Abstracts with Programs.

Pritchett, S., Agwu, I., Green, M., Johnson, V., Jones, P.,Tummings, M., Walton, M. and O’Neal, M, 2001,Ground penetrating radar investigation of anemergent mid-Pleistocene estuarine shorelinecomplex on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, ChesapeakeBay, Maryland, USA, Annual Meeting of theGeological Society of America, Abstracts withPrograms.

Roth, W. and McGinn, M., 1998, Knowing, researching,and reporting science education: Lessons fromscience and technology studies, Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, v. 35, p. 213-235.

Stockman, S., Sauber, J. and Linscheid, E., 1997, A highschool and NASA join forces to investigate theAlaska/Aleutian subduction zone near KodiakIsland, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 45, p.440-446.

Van Zee, E., 1998, Preparing teachers as researchers incourses on methods of teaching science, Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, v. 35, p. 791-809.


Documents

FIELD-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE IN EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER ... · technology into the public school science ... FIELD-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE IN EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION