Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: The Environment for Learning
Recommendations of the National Science Teachers Association
Map of Links to and from the Environment for Learning
The NSTA Standards for Education of Teachers of Science were not written by the authors of this paper set, but are included in their entirety within the article. All standards are shown with a light blue background. Text by the authors of this article is on white and grey backgrounds.
Each of the ten standards was written collaboratively. This standard, The Environment for Learning, was developed under the leadership of Hans Andersen.
Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: The Environment for Learning The program prepares candidates to design and manage safe and supportive learning environments reflecting high expectations for the success of all students. Learning environments refers to:
The National Standards for Science Education (NRC, 1995) identify the dimensions of the learning environment as (a) time for extended investigations; (b) a flexible and supportive setting for inquiry; (c) a safe working environment; (d) sufficient resources, including tools, materials, media and technological resources; (e) resources outside school; and (f) engagement of students. Some of these factors have been dealt with in other standards and will not be repeated here. Sustained, high quality education is the product of high quality teachers, but it is also important that teachers have the resources to do the job properly. Schools and school districts recognized for quality generally have strong, active community support with regard to resources. Teachers of science should provide a learning environment that (a) provides for the physical needs and variations of learners, including disabled learners; (b) provides for the safety of all students; (c) is orderly and well managed; (d) is physically and socially appropriate for the age and maturity of the learner; (e) stimulates interest and engagement in learning and (f) recognizes and respects the need for appropriate and humane treatment of living things. Weld (1990) discusses the need to provide an accessible environment for all science students, including those with special needs. Teachers must demonstrate awareness of the impact of special needs on potentially difficult activities such as field trips. They should also be aware of steps they can potentially take to meet the needs of all learners, from customizing equipment to adapting lessons to using cooperative learning approaches. Teachers should be aware of issues related to the keeping of animals in the classroom. The U.S. Humane Society, recommends stringent controls on the keeping and handling of animals in the classroom (Carin, 1997). The National Association of Biology Teachers does not recommend such restrictions, but does recommend careful attention to the humane care and use of animals, awareness of dangers, and the use of alternatives to dissection when they are available (NABT, 1990). Plants may also be hazardous, both in and outside of the classroom (Riechard, 1993). Safety and liability are of particular concern to science teachers, given the variety of environments they may teach in and materials they may use. Nagel (1982) recommended that safety education should be a condition of certification. Flinn Scientific Inc. (1992) has developed a generic chemical hygiene plan for high school laboratories covering many procedural issues. Guidelines and recommendations are also available from the American Chemical Society for chemistry laboratories (ACS, 1995). Yohe and Dunkleberger (1992) have suggested an inservice format for teaching safety that is applicable to all teachers of science. In the same vein, teachers should also be aware of the legal issues related to liability for their actions. Purvis, Leonard and Boulter (1982) have delineated the conditions of negligence and liability and related them to school science in the important areas of lab security, appropriate facilities, proper instruction and protective gear. Because science teachers are particularly likely to encounter injuries among their students, they should thoroughly understand the criteria for liability for negligence and defenses against negligence. By being aware of their responsibilities, they can act to ensure the well-being of the students under their care. 9.3 Recommendations of the National Science Teachers Association The importance of a supportive facilitative environment for learning cannot be overemphasized. Students in a science teacher education program should know how to develop and maintain an atmosphere conducive to the learning of science through investigation and inquiry. This includes the establishment of a stimulating physical environment that raises curiosity and establishes a sense of security and community. In addition, the environment should communicate ideas and concepts, and increase motivation to learn through displays, exhibits, and artifacts. Teacher preparation programs must give candidates the knowledge needed to maintain a safe environment for students by avoiding or controlling chemicals, plants and animals that may be hazardous to students; storing, cleaning up spills and disposing of chemicals safely; give safety instructions and use safety equipment properly; avoiding hazards of improperly shielded electrical equipment; properly instructing on field trips, and teaching students to avoid fire hazards and biological contaminants. The need for such preparation varies with the grade level and discipline for which the teacher is earning licensure. Most program today do little with safety, other than routine safety instruction provided with courses. The dangers in science are greater than in most other fields and the threat of liability should persuade teacher education programs to pay more attention to this issue. Teachers of science should be knowledgeable in the safe and ethical care of animals in the classroom. They should be sensitive to student attitudes and should treat living things with respect. Furthermore, teachers should know and comply with professional standards for classroom treatment of animals and should be aware of laws and regulations controlling the use of sentient, usually vertebrate, animals. The routine use of animals in university lab classes seldom teaches prospective teachers respect for animals, and does almost nothing for their knowledge of care for animals. All programs preparing teachers likely to keep animals in their classrooms - biology, general science, elementary and middle-level science - should address animal care. Technology is a part of the classroom environment. Teachers of science should incorporate computers, multimedia, and other technology into instruction to the greatest extent possible. Technology can enrich an environment and enhance learning. With it, students can participate in experiences and projects that would otherwise be impossible. They can communicate with other students around the world. Its presence creates a link between technology and science and extends the learning environment well beyond the classroom walls. The best teacher preparation programs ensure that candidates can create and maintain an effective classroom environment, establish routines, and enrich the environment for all students. Prospective teachers from such programs express understanding ad appreciation for the role of environment and context in promoting understanding and learning of science and can identify ways to enhance the environment. Such programs prepare students to demonstrate competency in maintaining a safe environment and enforcing rules necessary to safeguard children, animals and property under their care. They give significant and substantial attention to safety requirements and require students to pass a performance-based test on safety before releasing them into classrooms. They expect teachers who are likely to work with animals to have a good understanding of NABT and state guidelines for use of animals. 9.4 References ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. (1991, July 26). Federal Register, 56(144). American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1991). Barrier Free in Brief: Laboratories and Classrooms in Science and Engineering. Washington DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1 993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061, New York NY: Oxford University Press. American Chemical Society. (1995). Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories (6th. ed). Washington DC: Author. Biehle, James T. (1995, November). Six science labs for the 21st century. School Planning and Management, 34(9), 39-42. Biehle, James T. (1995, May). Complying with science. American School and University, 67(9), 54-56. Carin, A. A. (1997). Teaching science through discovery. (8th edition). Upper Saddle River NJ: Merrill. Flinn Scientific, Inc. (1992). Generic chemical hygiene plan for high school laboratories. Batavia IL: Author. Nagel, M. C. (1982). Lab magic and liability. The Science Teacher, 49(2), 31-33. National Association of Biology Teachers. (1990). Animals in biology classrooms. Reston VA: Author. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association. (1996). Pathways to the Science Standards, Arlington VA: Author. Nickerson, R. S. & Zodhiates, P. P. (1988). Technology in Education: Looking Toward 2020. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Purvis, J., Leonard, R. & Boulter, W. (1986). Liability in the laboratory. The Science Teacher, 53(4), 38-41. Reese, K. M. (Ed.) (1985). Teaching Chemistry to Physically Handicapped Students (Rev. ed.). Washington DC: American Chemical Society. Riechard, D. E. (1993). An educator's brief on dangerous plants. The Clearing House, 66(3), 151-153. Weld, J. D. (1990). Making science accessible. The Science Teacher, 57(8), 34-38. Yohe, B. & Dunkleberger, G. E. (1992). Laboratory safety and inspection procedures. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(2), 147-149 |