Skip to content

Tag: Science Classrooms

Published on

NSTA Position Statement

A hallmark of science is that it generates theories and laws that must be consistent with observations. Much of the evidence from these observations is collected during laboratory investigations. A school laboratory investigation (also referred to as a lab) is defined as an experience in the laboratory, classroom, or the field that provides students with opportunities to interact directly with natural phenomena or with data collected by others using tools, materials, data collection techniques, and models (NRC 2006, p. 3). Throughout the process, students should have opportunities to design investigations, engage in scientific reasoning, manipulate equipment, record data, analyze results, and discuss their findings. These skills and knowledge, fostered by laboratory investigations, are an important part of inquiry—the process of asking questions and conducting experiments as a way to understand the natural world (NSTA 2004). While reading about science, using computer simulations, and observing teacher demonstrations may be valuable, they are not a substitute for laboratory investigations by students (NRC 2006, p. 3).

View Statement

Published on

NSTA Position Statement

Science educators face many challenges—including national standards, state standards, district goals, and public demands—as they attempt to provide safe and effective science learning. Science students and educators require adequate working conditions to meet these challenges.

View Statement

Published on

Waight & Abd-El-Khalick, 2011

The Biology Workbench (BW) is a web-based tool enabling scientists to search a wide array of protein and nucleic acid sequence databases with integrated access to a variety of analysis and modeling tools. The present study examined the development of this scientific tool and its consequent adoption into the context of high school science teaching in the form of the Biology Student Workbench (BSW). Participants included scientists, programmers, science educators, and science teachers who played key roles along the pathway of the design and development of BW, and/or the adaptation and implementation of BSW in high school science classrooms. Participants also included four teachers who, with their students, continue to use BSW. Data sources included interviews, classroom observations, and relevant artifacts. Contrary to what often is advocated as a major benefit accruing from the integration of authentic scientific tools into precollege science teaching, classroom enactments of BSW lacked elements of inquiry and were teacher-centered with prescribed convergent activities. Students mostly were preoccupied with following instructions and a focus on science content. The desired and actual realizations of BSW fell on two extremes that reflected the disparity between scientists’ and educators’ views on science, inquiry science teaching, and the related roles of technological tools. Research on large-scale adoptions of technological tools into precollege science classrooms needs to expand beyond its current focus on teacher knowledge, skills, beliefs, and practices to examine the role of the scientists, researchers, and teacher educators who often are involved in such adoptions.

View Article

Published on

By T. R. Dunlap.

Over the last decade STEM has been the topic of much discussion in education circles. STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education promotes pertinent, science-related courses of study in the educational experience of students. In an increasingly globalized and competitive market, it is widely recognized that the need for STEM skills is rapidly increasing. While STEM sectors are in high demand, it seems there are simply not enough proficient participants in these fields. The U.S. Department of Education reports that only 16 percent of American high schools seniors are prepared for and interested in a STEM career (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). With statistics like this, there is a gathering storm in the American workforce.

In American education there has been a tremendous redirection of attention to emphasize STEM courses. Consequently, governmental and philanthropic investments have been made to make STEM classes central in our education system. It follows that facility administrators and planners have sought funds to develop and bolster STEM programs at many private and public schools, and universities have invested millions of dollars in STEM-related facilities. There are some important considerations to keep in mind as educational institutions seek to expand services into the STEM markets with state-of-the-art facilities. Here are just three:

#1 – EVALUATE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE STEM INVESTMENT

STEM courses are important! Nobody is arguing against that fact. It stands to reason that educational institutions should invest in facilities that meet the demands of a global market. However, every facility may not be equipped for the most advanced STEM classroom features, and fiscal constraints will be a factor. There is great financial cost involved in designing, building or retrofitting facilities for STEM education. Biology and chemistry labs, science observation rooms, technology centers, etc., are all important and necessary.

As your institution plans to invest in STEM programs, consider the cost/benefit ratio for your particular setting. Some schools have had to navigate these waters only to find costs were greater than expected (Catalanello, Solochek, & Ackerman, 2012). Seek counsel from those organizations that have gone through this process before and develop a clear plan to identify the goals of this investment. Determine the level of financial investment that is appropriate to the goals of the institution. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.

#2 – REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF A BALANCED CURRICULUM

STEM education isn’t the only game in town. Recently, in his Washington Post column, Fareed Zakaria even called current trends to emphasize STEM courses “dangerous” (Zakaria, 2015). Zakaria’s central point was that the elevation of STEM subjects over and against other disciplines leads to shortsightedness among students, if not their disenfranchisement for having other interests. An integrated approach to STEM education has been called for in order to develop a multidisciplinary approach to learning (Johnson, 2013). Educational planners must take care to avoid the over direction of resources to select fields of study.

#3 – STEM EDUCATION IS AN EVER-EVOLVING TREND

While STEM fields are viewed as the principle sectors for job growth and international economic advantage, there is not a clear consensus on what methods, subjects, and criteria comprise STEM education (Brown, 2012). Courses in biology, chemistry, and physics will find a comfortable home within the STEM education classification; however, the evolution of technology and changes in the types of jobs in demand demonstrate that STEM is evolving and there is yet to be a comprehensive definition.

We must remember that STEM education is a trend, and, like all trends, it undergoes critique, evolution, and reinterpretation. Currently, there are several other STEM derivatives. STEAM education is a newer framework for teaching (Yakman, 2012). The ‘A’ in STEAM refers to ‘the arts’, as this approach integrates the arts—visual art, performance, music, etc.—within the STEM paradigm. Other spinoffs have sought to highlight ‘reading’ (R) to create STREAM education (Furman, 2014). Innovation and global competitiveness are not only driven by technology and engineering, but also by creativity, storytelling, design, and other skills. Perhaps if districts would wish to be on board with the most current trend in education, a facility investment should include appropriations for art and reading spaces.

These are just three things to think about when preparing to develop STEM programs and planning for the resultant facility adaptations that might be required. Keep in mind that a STEM investment must be thoughtful and goal-oriented; STEM courses are only one facet of education; and, the STEM trend today may not govern the education agenda of tomorrow.

Printable Blog

References

Brown, J. (2012). The Current Status of STEM Education Research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7–11.

Catalanello, R., Solochek, J. S., Ackerman, S. (2012). Bulking up STEM comes with a price tag, educators say. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/bulking-up-stem-comes-with-a-price-tag-educators-say/1210889

Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing Integrated STEM Education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368. http://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12043

Furman, R. (2014). STEM Needs to Be Updated to STREAM. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-furman/stem-needs-updated-to-str_b_5461814.html

Yakman, G. (2012). Recognizing the A in STEM Education. Middle Ground, 16(1), 15–16.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem

Zakaria, F. (2015). Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html

T. R. Dunlap is a research assistant at George Washington University in the Education Facilities Clearinghouse. After having worked as a foreign language educator, he now researches topics relevant to education facilities and their improvements.

Published on

National Science Teachers Association, 2007

For over 50 years, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has been providing information to teachers and schools regarding science facilities and equipment. To provide assistance in the design of secondary school science facilities, NSTA in 1954 published its first book on facilities, School Facilities for Science Instruction. This publication was revised and updated in 1961. Although the Association subsequently released several related pamphlets, it became evident by the end of that decade that an updated document was needed.

View Guide

Published on

NYC Department of Education, 2008. This manual is intended for use by all individuals who are responsible for implementing a laboratory program in their school. Special sections in this safety manual will enumerate the individual responsibilities of the principal, assistant principal, science cluster teacher, science staff developer or coach, science teacher, laboratory specialist, custodian, and student. The manual also provides general guidelines for all laboratories and specific safety rules for each subject area. In these sections, safety rules and regulations for laboratory, demonstrations and activities will be discussed.

View link

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.