Elementary education majors experience hands-on learning in introductory biology
http://www.100md.com
《生理学进展》医学期刊
Division of Basic Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: B. E. Goodman, Univ. of South Dakota School of Medicine, 414 E. Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069 (e-mail: barb.goodman@usd.edu)
Abstract
Faculty members from the University of South Dakota attended the Curriculum Reform Institute offered by the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, WI, during the summer of 2002 to design a course sequence for elementary education majors that better meets their needs for both content and pedagogy based on the science education standards. The special section of introductory biology that resulted from this workshop is designed to use laboratories and activities that either help students learn major concepts in the life sciences or model how to teach these concepts to their future K–8 students. This study describes how the active, hands-on learning opportunity for preservice teachers with its emphasis on both content and performance-based assessment was implemented in an introductory biology course for elementary education majors during the spring of 2004. During the initial offering of this course, student perceptions about what helped them to learn in the special section was compared with their nonscience major peers in the large lecture-intensive class that they would have taken. Each group of students completed early and late web-based surveys to assess their perceptions about learning during the courses. After the completion of the course, students in the special section appreciated how the relevance of science and conducting their own scientific experimentation helped them learn, enjoyed working and studying in small groups, valued diverse class time with very little lecture, were more confident in their abilities in science, and were more interested in discussing science with others. This course format is recommended for science classes for preservice teachers.
Key words: preservice teachers; scientific method; scientific relevance
Introduction
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS often feel uncomfortable teaching science because of a lack of background or understanding. A 1993 survey showed that while 76% of elementary teachers felt competent to teach reading and language arts, only 28% felt competent to teach science (8). United States students are in desperate need of science education throughout their schooling. According to the National Science Education Standards (9), "If reform is to be accomplished, professional development must include experiences that engage prospective and practicing teachers in active learning that builds their knowledge, understanding, and ability." Current science education reform literature recommends that college classroom structures allow science students to work both independently and together in small collaborative groups to learn science content through problem solving (3). In addition, classrooms should have supplementary materials that help make the connections between classroom content and "real" world interactions and technology. Black (3) reports that vigorous modeling of student-centered, process-oriented classrooms with technology must be offered in courses where preservice teachers learn science content. Elementary education majors need to know both content and pedagogy to be able to help their K–8 students learn science. Students planning to become elementary education majors are required to take only three science courses at the University of South Dakota (USD): Earth Science 101 (along with other nonmajors in the sciences), Elementary Education 121 (Physical Science taught by the science education faculty member in the School of Education), and Biology 103 (along with other nonmajors in the sciences).
With support from the USD Administration, a team of faculty members attended the Curriculum Reform Institute (CRI) offered by the University of Wisconsin Women and Science Program during the summer of 2002 to design a course sequence for elementary education majors that meets their needs for both content and pedagogy based on National Science Education standards and South Dakota Science Education standards. The team included an earth scientist, a physicist, a life science education faculty member, a physiologist, a biologist, and a chemist representing the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Medicine, and the School of Education at USD. The team spent the week of the institute in intensive discussion and planning to redesign the three science courses that elementary education majors take at USD. As of this date, only changes in the Biology 103 course have been implemented for a select group of elementary education majors. This study describes how the team approach to designing an active, hands-on learning opportunity for preservice teachers with an emphasis on both content and performance-based assessment was implemented in Biology 103 for elementary education majors during the spring of 2004 and the assessment of perceptions about learning by the students in the course.
Biology 103 is the second semester of the introductory biology course for nonscience majors and, with Biology 101, meets the general education requirements for a sequential two-semester science course with laboratory for undergraduates at USD. Semesters at USD are 15 wk long. Students planning to be elementary education majors are allowed to waive the sequential science course requirement and generally take Biology 103 without taking Biology 101. One of the laboratory sections of the large Biology 103 course during the spring semester of 2004 was designated to be a comprehensive hands-on biology course with combined lecture-laboratory sessions for elementary education majors. The advisor for students planning to major in elementary education solicited students for the special section in the registration period during the fall semester and specifically recommended the section to students who had less life science in high school or who felt uncomfortable with their life science backgrounds. The class was offered twice a week for 2 h at one time and 3 h at another time to be equivalent to the 3 h of lecture and the 2 h of laboratory in the regular Biology 103 class.
The philosophy of this special section of Biology 103 was that both instructors and students are life-long learners in the sciences and that learning is accomplished in many ways. The students and instructors were a team to enhance learning and enthusiasm for the life sciences. Therefore, this section combined hands-on learning, individual, pair, and group activities and writing with a few traditional lectures (some given before the coordinated laboratory activities and some after). The course was designed to use laboratories and activities that either helped students learn major concepts in the life sciences or modeled how to teach these life science concepts to their future students. For example, the "What is the biological definition of life" activity is an inquiry-based approach using stations that helps students identify the characteristics of life. This activity would be very appropriate to use with middle school and higher level students. Students could access notes, course information, links to other websites, the discussion board, course e-mail, and their grades via WebCT (an on-line course management tool). Exams consisted of a multiple-choice portion given with a time limit in class and an essay portion that was take home. Both in-class and take-home exams were open book and open notes. Each student had a science notebook that included all notes and assignments from the course. The science notebooks included the concept challenges from the companion website for the text, the web investigations on relevant and current scientific issues, the assigned "minute papers" for some of the topics covered in class (minute papers are brief, in-class, written assignments on a topic requiring 1 or 2 paragraphs), the pair and group activities used during the class time, reports from the laboratory activities, and reflections on the hands-on experiences. The class time was generally used for a brief lecture and/or review of scientific concepts, a discussion of current scientific topics, an experiment or project, and reports on other activities. Students were expected to use the website and the accompanying CD for the textbook to learn the assigned scientific concepts and to participate in bulletin board discussions of various relevant scientific issues outside of the class time.
During the 2002 CRI, the faculty team started with National Science Education Standards for K–8 students and designed the three courses around questions that elementary and middle school students might ask related to the standards. Content topics were listed under each question, and performance assessment activities were planned by the team. B. E. Goodman and K. Rasmussen started with the initial plans from the CRI, chose a new textbook that was designed to cover introductory biology during one semester, and provided numerous resources for student self-learning (1), and designed the new course as a hands-on course dealing with life science concepts that need to be taught by K–8 teachers. The chapters selected for the course were chosen from the National Science Education Standards life science standards for K–8 students. These standards are listed below with the "student-like" questions that were used to generate the student learning objectives for the special section of Biology 103 for elementary education majors:
Characteristics of organisms (levels K–4): Are plants living How do we know if something is alive
Life cycles of organisms (levels K–4): Do plants and all animals have babies
Structure and function in living systems (levels 5–8): Why do I get hungry
Reproduction and heredity (levels 5–8): If my mom keeps dyeing her hair blond, will my new sibling have blond hair
Regulation and behavior (levels 5–8): Why do I sweat in the summer
Organisms and environment (levels K–4)/population and ecosystems (levels 5–8): Why are some animals and plants endangered Can we grow plants on the space station
Diversity and adaptations of organisms (levels 5–8): Why do giraffes have long necks
METHODS
The course design was completed by K. Rasmussen and B. E. Goodman and offered to the first class of 16 students intending to major in elementary education during the spring of 2004. Assisting with the class was either K. Rasmussen or B. E. Goodman, a biology PhD graduate student teaching assistant, an education EdD graduate student assistant, and an upper-level undergraduate biology student training to become a secondary science teacher. Table 1 summarizes the organization of the course and some of the activities used in the classroom. In addition to the activities listed in Table 1, textbook resources including concept challenges, web investigations, issues in biology, and animations were freely used both in and out of class to explain concepts to the students and to bring into the discussions relevant scientific issues. The hands-on activities were selected to either teach a scientific concept in a more interactive way than a lecture or to model experiments that could be easily and cheaply adapted to be used with K–8 students. Most of the laboratory activities (including some of the testing) were done with pairs or small groups of students working together. All exams had both in-class portions and take-home portions for which any resources in the science notebooks or textbook could be used. Table 2 includes a sample of the schedule for one section of the course with reference to the activities from the textbook and in class and the learning objectives that corresponded with that section. All of this information was available to the students in the course syllabus.
The large lecture-based Biology 103 course that the students would have taken has course-wide learning objectives but not topic learning objectives. The student learning outcomes for the course are as follows:
1. Demonstrate the scientific method in a laboratory experience. This is assessed by laboratories covering various biological topics to reinforce concepts and information presented in lecture, allow students to perform demonstrations or experiments that teach understanding the scientific method, and give students a hands-on laboratory experience; and by knowledge of basic concepts, terminology, theories, and scientific method in biology that are tested by laboratory practical exams and performance on weekly quizzes and activities in the laboratory.
2. Gather and critically evaluate data using the scientific method. This is assessed by students demonstrating an understanding of experimental data and factual knowledge about characteristics of organisms through exams, quizzes, and practical exams.
3. Identify and explain basic concepts, terminology, and theories of the biological sciences. This is assessed by students demonstrating factual knowledge and understanding of biological concepts and terminology (in ecology, animal anatomy and physiology, and animal diversity) through exams and participation in discussions and laboratory exercises.
4. Apply biological concepts and theories to contemporary issues. This is assessed by discussion groups, which are used to evaluate the students’ application of biological concepts to contemporary issues via an electronic discussion board, and by students’ understanding of the application of biological principles to current topics as assessed by questions on exams.
Students in the special section and volunteer students from the large lecture-based Biology 103 course completed a web-based survey to assess their perceptions about their learning in the course in both precourse and postcourse versions. The survey used was "science education for new civic engagement and responsibility student assessment of learning gains" (SENCER SALG), available as a revision of the original SALG from the National Institute for Science Education at the University of Wisconsin by a National Science Foundation grant to SENCER through the Association of American Colleges and Universities. In addition to the precourse and postcourse SENCER SALG, students in the special section were given a customized class satisfaction survey in addition to the standard university course evaluation form.
RESULTS
Once the initial course design was complete and activities had been selected for the students to use, the instructors could approach the course as a biweekly fun time playing with science. Since most of the hands-on activities were student led, in-class time was relaxing, enthusiastic, and interesting for the faculty members and teaching assistants. During class time, it was encouraging to see the students working together, developing confidence, expressing their opinions, and addressing current issues of the day and their biological implications. Students were required to send copies of their textbook-related content and issue-based activities to the instructor when they were complete so that the instructors could evaluate student progress and keep up with the completion of their assignments.
For the class satisfaction survey of the students in the special section, 15 of 16 students responded to the questions. In summary, the best parts of the course were as follows: the laboratories and/or lectures-laboratories together (10), working with other students (4), and classroom rapport and individual attention (8). The information that was most valuable to the future teachers was to be able to learn the concepts in ways in which they can teach them to students (6). In answer to the most valuable information question, other students commented on specific laboratories that they enjoyed.
In our study, the students served in the special section were a select group of students intending to become elementary teachers before their actual enrollment in the School of Education cohort of preservice teachers. The large lecture-based Biology 103 class serves nonscience majors at USD including students intending to major in elementary education. While the class has a very large enrollment (450 students), it is generally broken down into 2–3 lecture sections and weekly laboratories with no more than 24 students in them facilitated by biology graduate teaching assistants. Since Biology 103 is the second course in the sequence for nonscience majors, many of the students have already taken Biology 101. The special section of Biology 103 reported in this study did not use the same textbook and was not designed to cover the same material as the large lecture course. The textbook for the special section was designed for a one-semester introductory course in the principles of biology. It would have been ideal if we could have differentiated between intended elementary education majors in the special section and intended elementary education majors in the large Biology 103 class to directly compare their responses on the precourse and postcourse SENCER SALG survey. Unfortunately, the data could not be collected in such a way as to be able to subsequently identify individual students. However, the students in the large lecture sections of Biology 103 were all intending to be nonscience majors and may or may not have already had one semester of biology. Thus, in our surveys of the large lecture section, we cannot distinguish between nonscience majors who intended to teach K–8 students and nonscience majors with other career choices. Intended elementary education majors may take two different science disciplines (usually Earth Science 101 and Biology 103) to meet their general education requirement for a sequential science course with laboratory.
The major data collection performed in this study compared student perceptions of what aspects of the course aided their learning (10) early in the course and at the end of the course between the special hands-on section for preservice teachers group and the large lecture-intensive nonscience majors group. While the surveys evaluated a number of student perceptions about their learning including their interests, learning styles, confidence in learning, etc., they did not actually evaluate their learning gains. The student responses could not be correlated with course grades due to inadequate survey design [the survey now allows blinded (to the instructor) answers from identified students]. A t-test was conducted to discover which questions on the assessment survey demonstrated a difference between the control large class and the experimental small class. Of the 123 students from the large class who answered the presurvey, 11% were in a teacher preparation program and 9% were undecided about a teacher preparation program, whereas in the special section with 16 responses, 94% were in a teacher preparation program and 6% were undecided about a teacher preparation program. Table 3 lists the number of students who completed the precourse SALG surveys who self-identified as planning to participate in a teacher preparation program. Whereas 139 students completed the precourse surveys, only 55 completed the postcourse surveys. It was much more difficult to provide followup reminders to the students to do the postcourse surveys. Of the 55 students who completed the postcourse surveys, 10 (of 16 in the class) were from the experimental class and 45 (123 had completed the precourse surveys) were from the control class. Table 3 shows the precourse survey items with statistically significant differences between the two groups. The first three items are the ones scored higher by the experimental small class (tdf < 0, P < 0.05). The last two items are the ones rated higher by the large lecture control class (tdf > 0, P < 0.05). The scale used throughout was that lower numbers 1 or 2 represent lower levels of agreement with the statement and higher levels 4 or 5 represent higher levels of agreement with the statement. The first statement was grouped in the category of "Presently, I am interested in...," with 1 being "not at all interested," 2 being "a little interested," 3 being "somewhat interested," 4 being "highly interested," and 5 being "extremely interested." The second and third statements were grouped in the category of "Please tell us why you are taking this course...," with 1 being "strongly disagree," 2 being "disagree," 3 being "neutral," 4 being "agree," and 5 being "strongly agree." The fourth and fifth statements were grouped in the category of "In the past year, how often have you...," with 1 being "never," 2 being "once," 3 being "twice," 4 being "three times," and 5 being "more than three times." Please note that a higher percentage of students in the special hands-on section were preservice teachers, as expected, and that they were more interested in a course that would address civic issues and apply science to real world issues. The fourth and fifth statements documented that this population of nonscience major undergraduate students is unlikely to talk with a public official about a science- or civic-related issue or offer comments on a civic or political issue.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 show that there were significant differences between groups, with the experimental small class having higher postcourse assessment scores than the large lecture control class for 42 items when tdf < 0 (P < 0.05). Note in Table 4 that the students in the experimental group believed that aspects of the focus of the special section of the course, class activities, and graded activities, and assignments helped their learning. In addition, they were more likely to study with a partner or a group and were more comfortable with the relationships between different parts of the course. For the answers to these surveys on helping learning in Table 4, the choices were 1 ("no help"), 2 ("a little help"), 3 ("moderate help"), 4 ("much help"), and 5 ("very much help"). Note in Table 5 that the students in the experimental group were significantly more confident in their abilities to discuss scientific concepts, think critically about science, argue about scientific evidence, interpret tables and graphs, understand the math related to science, obtain scientific data, understand scientific research, pose scientific questions, work collaboratively on science, apply scientific information to society, communicate science to K–8 students, and run simple science experiments. These data are very encouraging because many of the strengths seen with this special section were also available to the control group in their weekly laboratory activities but were not likely to be integrated with lecture in the same manner as in the experimental group. The choices for answers for this section in Table 5 were 1 ("not confident"), 2 ("a little confident"), 3 ("somewhat confident"), 4 ("highly confident"), and 5 ("extremely confident"). In addition, note in Table 5 that the students in the experimental group were significantly more interested in discussing science, reading about science, taking additional science courses, attending graduate school in science, volunteering for science-related service, and participating in nonformal science education at a museum or school. The choices for answers for this section in Table 5 were 1 ("not at all interested"), 2 ("a little interested"), 3 ("somewhat interested"), 4 ("highly interested"), and 5 ("extremely interested"). Finally, note in Table 6 that the students in the experimental group were more likely to be involved in scientifically literate citizenry by discussing science-related civic or political issues, attending a meeting about a civic or political issue, participating in science-related civic education, doing an internship at a civic organization, attending a meeting about a civic issue, participating in an event such as a walk-a-thon, and voting in elections. There were no postcourse assessment survey items rated statistically significantly higher by the large lecture control class than the small experimental class.
While the advantages of primarily using activities to teach concepts to the students may not have been identifiable in this study, numerous students commented that after taking this course, they now knew better HOW to teach science due to the strong modeling of pedagogical skills in this course. The individual activities used were borrowed from American Physiological Society education resources or other laboratory resources known to the teaching faculty. Depending on the grade level that the preservice teacher is training to teach, some of the activities may be directly applicable for students in higher grades (4–8) and some may be too complex for early elementary students (K–3). However, during the activities, the faculty members freely discussed suggestions for modifications of the activities for younger students.
E. M. Freeburg is a recent graduate in biology education from the University of Notre Dame who was working on her doctorate in science education in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction of USD’s School of Education and had recently completed her master’s degree in education through a program that placed her in a sixth-grade science classroom for a year while being mentored by an experienced teacher and education faculty members. E. M. Freeburg volunteered as an assistant in the laboratory of the special section and participated in the teaching and learning activities while observing the students. E. M. Freeburg designed the science notebook activity and kept the list of its suggested contents up to date for the students. The following is an excerpt from her observations of students in the special section:
In my experience with teacher education during my undergraduate work, I found myself learning many different teaching strategies to use in the elementary and secondary classroom to promote learning that is more meaningful. However, it was frustrating to me as a science-education student to learn all of these great teaching techniques in my education classes and then not see them practiced in the undergraduate science courses at my University. During this course, a group of undergraduate elementary education majors arrived in class ready for a ’typical science lecture’ in which they could sink into their chairs and learn passively as I had done in my training. However, to their surprise, the students immediately found themselves participating in inquiry-based labs, discussions, and activities that encouraged them to work together to construct knowledge and become actively involved in the learning process. Many of these students came into the classroom disdaining science as too monotonous and too difficult to learn. However, they left excited about the material and looked forward to sharing their knowledge with their future students. I noticed that the students were eager to participate in the classroom activities and were surprised with their ability to understand science. The students generated thoughtful questions, worked with the material to develop understanding, and made conclusions about the information that they were presented. They ultimately made their learning meaningful, connected, relevant, and useful.
DISCUSSION
Our curriculum design team set out to change the courses for elementary education majors based on an initial idea from an science education faculty member and our own perceptions a science faculty members about what works and what does not work in teaching future teachers. However, current science education reform literature has reported similar findings with science curricular changes for this population of students. Beiswenger and colleagues (2) reported on an experimental program to develop science courses for prospective elementary teachers at the University of Wyoming. Their program was designed to produce teachers who "have a solid foundation in science content and a realistic view of science and technology; are competent in designing and implementing science instruction; are confident in their ability to do science and to teach it; and exhibit a positive attitude toward science and are excited about teaching it to children" (2). More recently, Guziec and Lawson (6) implemented a three-credit lecture course in interdisciplinary science designed for childhood education majors at State University of New York College at Fredonia, NY (6); 71% of their 85 respondents were more interested in science after the course than before and 85% would recommend the course to others. Jarrett (7) reported on her project to model hands-on activities in a field-based science methods course with preservice elementary teachers at Georgia State University. Her results reported that there were high correlations among ratings of the activities as fun, interesting, and high in learning potential and that preservice teachers would be more likely to implement activities that they rated highly in those three qualities. In an additional study, Jarrett (8) investigated which prior experiences were most likely to predict interest in science among preservice elementary teachers. She found that the best predictor of interest in science was a positive experience with science in elementary school, although high school experience and informal science experience (collecting bugs or rocks, playing with Legos, chemistry sets, microscopes, taking nature walks, visiting science museums, etc.) also contributed significantly to an interest in science. Downing and colleagues (5) reported that as preservice elementary teachers improved their science process skills in science courses, their attitudes toward science significantly improved. Science courses that modeled various science process skills including "classifying, creating models, formulating hypotheses, generalizing, identifying variables, inferring, interpreting data, making decisions, manipulating materials, measuring, observing, predicting, recording data, replicating, and using numbers" assisted in building preservice teacher confidence in science (5). However, Douglass (4) reported on a study of the differences in attitude and ability among biology majors, nonmajors, and preservice teachers at Central Michigan University using a simple pretest/posttest design. The preservice elementary teachers entered her biology course with the lowest scores in attitude toward the subject of biology and self-concept of their ability to do well in biology. The nonmajors had slightly better attitudes and self-concepts than the teachers, and the students planning to major in science had the highest initial attitude and self-concept scores. Because elementary teachers who enjoy and appreciate science are more likely to do science with their students, offering preservice elementary teachers science courses designed to stimulate interest in science may be a long-term solution to the low level of scientific literacy in the United States population.
The data reported in this study were collected during the initial offering of this special section of Biology 103 for elementary education majors. Thus, the students had no preconceived notion about how the course might differ from other large lecture classes for nonscience majors. Subsequently, this special section has been offered for two additional years. The class reputation has grown considerably among elementary education majors. The special section is one of the first to fill up during the fall registration period and generally has a waiting list of students trying to get into the section, which is limited to 24 students due to the size of laboratory space. In addition, the School of Education continues to request this special section, and the chair of the Department of Biology continues to allow K. Rasmussen to redirect her teaching time to teach half of this course. Some of the changes that have been or are being incorporated into the course are that the on-line discussion board activities have been dropped due to difficulty in keeping it going, the science notebook will contain more limited resources created by the students due to difficulty in grading it, a new textbook that is a larger version by the same authors will be used to more fully address the standards for K–8 science education, and the students will be learning concepts by self-study with the textbook and the web-based quizzes offered by the authors for self-assessment to have a more formal way to evaluate whether the students are keeping up on the material. The course continues to attract undergraduate teaching assistants with an interest in teaching science at the secondary level who want to experience more pedagogically sound science classes.
Our results in designing and implementing this hands-on course in introductory biology for elementary education majors show that upon completion of the course, the students appreciated how the relevance of science and conducting their own scientific experimentation could help them learn and analyze scientific concepts. The students enjoyed working and studying in partners or in small groups. They also valued the design of the course, which offered class time with both content discussion and hands-on experiments. The students were much more confident in their ability to discuss, evaluate, teach, and model science to others including their future students after completion of the course. They were also more interested in participating in discussions about science with friends, family, and the general public and learning more about science throughout their lives/careers. In addition, they were also more likely to be involved in civic or political issues that may have scientific implications. Thus, this study would agree with other published studies showing that hands-on science teaching and learning increases the confidence in science of future elementary or middle school teachers. The students in our special section were more confident and interested in science and its relevance than a similar population of students who learned similar material in a 3-h didactic lecture class with a separate 2-h laboratory class. In addition due to the open-book/open-note testing and other performance assessments used throughout the course, the students were likely to have experienced the course material as long-term learning instead of concentrating on memorization and recall learning. Thus, we recommend designing other science classes for education majors in a similar fashion.
REFERENCES
Audesirk T, Audesirk G, and Byers BE. Life on Earth (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Beiswenger RE, Stepans JI, and McClurg PA. Developing science courses for prospective elementary teachers: an experimental program at the University of Wyoming succeeds in preparing better science teachers. J Coll Sci Teach 27: 253–257, 1998.
Black KM. Improved science content for pre-service teachers: modeling of teaching strategies based on current science education reform literature. Annu. Meet. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach.: ERIC ED 369 647, 1994.
Douglass CB. Differences in attitude and ability of biology majors, nonmajors, and teachers. Improv Coll Univ Teach 27: 110–113, 1979.
Downing JE, Filer JD, and Chamberlain RA. Science process skills and attitudes of pre-service elementary teachers. Mid-South Edu. Res. Assoc.: ERIC ED 416 191, 1997.
Guziec MK and Lawson H. Science for elementary educators: modeling science instruction for childhood education majors. J Coll Sci Teach 33: 36–40, 2004.
Jarrett OS. Playfulness: a motivator in elementary science teacher. School Sci Math 98: 181–188, 1998.
Jarrett OS. Science interest and confidence among pre-service elementary teachers. J Elem Sci Educ 11: 47–57, 1999.
National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. SENCER SALG (online). http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/salgains/fac/ [7 September 2006].(Barbara E. Goodman, Elizabeth M. Freebur)
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: B. E. Goodman, Univ. of South Dakota School of Medicine, 414 E. Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069 (e-mail: barb.goodman@usd.edu)
Abstract
Faculty members from the University of South Dakota attended the Curriculum Reform Institute offered by the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, WI, during the summer of 2002 to design a course sequence for elementary education majors that better meets their needs for both content and pedagogy based on the science education standards. The special section of introductory biology that resulted from this workshop is designed to use laboratories and activities that either help students learn major concepts in the life sciences or model how to teach these concepts to their future K–8 students. This study describes how the active, hands-on learning opportunity for preservice teachers with its emphasis on both content and performance-based assessment was implemented in an introductory biology course for elementary education majors during the spring of 2004. During the initial offering of this course, student perceptions about what helped them to learn in the special section was compared with their nonscience major peers in the large lecture-intensive class that they would have taken. Each group of students completed early and late web-based surveys to assess their perceptions about learning during the courses. After the completion of the course, students in the special section appreciated how the relevance of science and conducting their own scientific experimentation helped them learn, enjoyed working and studying in small groups, valued diverse class time with very little lecture, were more confident in their abilities in science, and were more interested in discussing science with others. This course format is recommended for science classes for preservice teachers.
Key words: preservice teachers; scientific method; scientific relevance
Introduction
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS often feel uncomfortable teaching science because of a lack of background or understanding. A 1993 survey showed that while 76% of elementary teachers felt competent to teach reading and language arts, only 28% felt competent to teach science (8). United States students are in desperate need of science education throughout their schooling. According to the National Science Education Standards (9), "If reform is to be accomplished, professional development must include experiences that engage prospective and practicing teachers in active learning that builds their knowledge, understanding, and ability." Current science education reform literature recommends that college classroom structures allow science students to work both independently and together in small collaborative groups to learn science content through problem solving (3). In addition, classrooms should have supplementary materials that help make the connections between classroom content and "real" world interactions and technology. Black (3) reports that vigorous modeling of student-centered, process-oriented classrooms with technology must be offered in courses where preservice teachers learn science content. Elementary education majors need to know both content and pedagogy to be able to help their K–8 students learn science. Students planning to become elementary education majors are required to take only three science courses at the University of South Dakota (USD): Earth Science 101 (along with other nonmajors in the sciences), Elementary Education 121 (Physical Science taught by the science education faculty member in the School of Education), and Biology 103 (along with other nonmajors in the sciences).
With support from the USD Administration, a team of faculty members attended the Curriculum Reform Institute (CRI) offered by the University of Wisconsin Women and Science Program during the summer of 2002 to design a course sequence for elementary education majors that meets their needs for both content and pedagogy based on National Science Education standards and South Dakota Science Education standards. The team included an earth scientist, a physicist, a life science education faculty member, a physiologist, a biologist, and a chemist representing the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Medicine, and the School of Education at USD. The team spent the week of the institute in intensive discussion and planning to redesign the three science courses that elementary education majors take at USD. As of this date, only changes in the Biology 103 course have been implemented for a select group of elementary education majors. This study describes how the team approach to designing an active, hands-on learning opportunity for preservice teachers with an emphasis on both content and performance-based assessment was implemented in Biology 103 for elementary education majors during the spring of 2004 and the assessment of perceptions about learning by the students in the course.
Biology 103 is the second semester of the introductory biology course for nonscience majors and, with Biology 101, meets the general education requirements for a sequential two-semester science course with laboratory for undergraduates at USD. Semesters at USD are 15 wk long. Students planning to be elementary education majors are allowed to waive the sequential science course requirement and generally take Biology 103 without taking Biology 101. One of the laboratory sections of the large Biology 103 course during the spring semester of 2004 was designated to be a comprehensive hands-on biology course with combined lecture-laboratory sessions for elementary education majors. The advisor for students planning to major in elementary education solicited students for the special section in the registration period during the fall semester and specifically recommended the section to students who had less life science in high school or who felt uncomfortable with their life science backgrounds. The class was offered twice a week for 2 h at one time and 3 h at another time to be equivalent to the 3 h of lecture and the 2 h of laboratory in the regular Biology 103 class.
The philosophy of this special section of Biology 103 was that both instructors and students are life-long learners in the sciences and that learning is accomplished in many ways. The students and instructors were a team to enhance learning and enthusiasm for the life sciences. Therefore, this section combined hands-on learning, individual, pair, and group activities and writing with a few traditional lectures (some given before the coordinated laboratory activities and some after). The course was designed to use laboratories and activities that either helped students learn major concepts in the life sciences or modeled how to teach these life science concepts to their future students. For example, the "What is the biological definition of life" activity is an inquiry-based approach using stations that helps students identify the characteristics of life. This activity would be very appropriate to use with middle school and higher level students. Students could access notes, course information, links to other websites, the discussion board, course e-mail, and their grades via WebCT (an on-line course management tool). Exams consisted of a multiple-choice portion given with a time limit in class and an essay portion that was take home. Both in-class and take-home exams were open book and open notes. Each student had a science notebook that included all notes and assignments from the course. The science notebooks included the concept challenges from the companion website for the text, the web investigations on relevant and current scientific issues, the assigned "minute papers" for some of the topics covered in class (minute papers are brief, in-class, written assignments on a topic requiring 1 or 2 paragraphs), the pair and group activities used during the class time, reports from the laboratory activities, and reflections on the hands-on experiences. The class time was generally used for a brief lecture and/or review of scientific concepts, a discussion of current scientific topics, an experiment or project, and reports on other activities. Students were expected to use the website and the accompanying CD for the textbook to learn the assigned scientific concepts and to participate in bulletin board discussions of various relevant scientific issues outside of the class time.
During the 2002 CRI, the faculty team started with National Science Education Standards for K–8 students and designed the three courses around questions that elementary and middle school students might ask related to the standards. Content topics were listed under each question, and performance assessment activities were planned by the team. B. E. Goodman and K. Rasmussen started with the initial plans from the CRI, chose a new textbook that was designed to cover introductory biology during one semester, and provided numerous resources for student self-learning (1), and designed the new course as a hands-on course dealing with life science concepts that need to be taught by K–8 teachers. The chapters selected for the course were chosen from the National Science Education Standards life science standards for K–8 students. These standards are listed below with the "student-like" questions that were used to generate the student learning objectives for the special section of Biology 103 for elementary education majors:
Characteristics of organisms (levels K–4): Are plants living How do we know if something is alive
Life cycles of organisms (levels K–4): Do plants and all animals have babies
Structure and function in living systems (levels 5–8): Why do I get hungry
Reproduction and heredity (levels 5–8): If my mom keeps dyeing her hair blond, will my new sibling have blond hair
Regulation and behavior (levels 5–8): Why do I sweat in the summer
Organisms and environment (levels K–4)/population and ecosystems (levels 5–8): Why are some animals and plants endangered Can we grow plants on the space station
Diversity and adaptations of organisms (levels 5–8): Why do giraffes have long necks
METHODS
The course design was completed by K. Rasmussen and B. E. Goodman and offered to the first class of 16 students intending to major in elementary education during the spring of 2004. Assisting with the class was either K. Rasmussen or B. E. Goodman, a biology PhD graduate student teaching assistant, an education EdD graduate student assistant, and an upper-level undergraduate biology student training to become a secondary science teacher. Table 1 summarizes the organization of the course and some of the activities used in the classroom. In addition to the activities listed in Table 1, textbook resources including concept challenges, web investigations, issues in biology, and animations were freely used both in and out of class to explain concepts to the students and to bring into the discussions relevant scientific issues. The hands-on activities were selected to either teach a scientific concept in a more interactive way than a lecture or to model experiments that could be easily and cheaply adapted to be used with K–8 students. Most of the laboratory activities (including some of the testing) were done with pairs or small groups of students working together. All exams had both in-class portions and take-home portions for which any resources in the science notebooks or textbook could be used. Table 2 includes a sample of the schedule for one section of the course with reference to the activities from the textbook and in class and the learning objectives that corresponded with that section. All of this information was available to the students in the course syllabus.
The large lecture-based Biology 103 course that the students would have taken has course-wide learning objectives but not topic learning objectives. The student learning outcomes for the course are as follows:
1. Demonstrate the scientific method in a laboratory experience. This is assessed by laboratories covering various biological topics to reinforce concepts and information presented in lecture, allow students to perform demonstrations or experiments that teach understanding the scientific method, and give students a hands-on laboratory experience; and by knowledge of basic concepts, terminology, theories, and scientific method in biology that are tested by laboratory practical exams and performance on weekly quizzes and activities in the laboratory.
2. Gather and critically evaluate data using the scientific method. This is assessed by students demonstrating an understanding of experimental data and factual knowledge about characteristics of organisms through exams, quizzes, and practical exams.
3. Identify and explain basic concepts, terminology, and theories of the biological sciences. This is assessed by students demonstrating factual knowledge and understanding of biological concepts and terminology (in ecology, animal anatomy and physiology, and animal diversity) through exams and participation in discussions and laboratory exercises.
4. Apply biological concepts and theories to contemporary issues. This is assessed by discussion groups, which are used to evaluate the students’ application of biological concepts to contemporary issues via an electronic discussion board, and by students’ understanding of the application of biological principles to current topics as assessed by questions on exams.
Students in the special section and volunteer students from the large lecture-based Biology 103 course completed a web-based survey to assess their perceptions about their learning in the course in both precourse and postcourse versions. The survey used was "science education for new civic engagement and responsibility student assessment of learning gains" (SENCER SALG), available as a revision of the original SALG from the National Institute for Science Education at the University of Wisconsin by a National Science Foundation grant to SENCER through the Association of American Colleges and Universities. In addition to the precourse and postcourse SENCER SALG, students in the special section were given a customized class satisfaction survey in addition to the standard university course evaluation form.
RESULTS
Once the initial course design was complete and activities had been selected for the students to use, the instructors could approach the course as a biweekly fun time playing with science. Since most of the hands-on activities were student led, in-class time was relaxing, enthusiastic, and interesting for the faculty members and teaching assistants. During class time, it was encouraging to see the students working together, developing confidence, expressing their opinions, and addressing current issues of the day and their biological implications. Students were required to send copies of their textbook-related content and issue-based activities to the instructor when they were complete so that the instructors could evaluate student progress and keep up with the completion of their assignments.
For the class satisfaction survey of the students in the special section, 15 of 16 students responded to the questions. In summary, the best parts of the course were as follows: the laboratories and/or lectures-laboratories together (10), working with other students (4), and classroom rapport and individual attention (8). The information that was most valuable to the future teachers was to be able to learn the concepts in ways in which they can teach them to students (6). In answer to the most valuable information question, other students commented on specific laboratories that they enjoyed.
In our study, the students served in the special section were a select group of students intending to become elementary teachers before their actual enrollment in the School of Education cohort of preservice teachers. The large lecture-based Biology 103 class serves nonscience majors at USD including students intending to major in elementary education. While the class has a very large enrollment (450 students), it is generally broken down into 2–3 lecture sections and weekly laboratories with no more than 24 students in them facilitated by biology graduate teaching assistants. Since Biology 103 is the second course in the sequence for nonscience majors, many of the students have already taken Biology 101. The special section of Biology 103 reported in this study did not use the same textbook and was not designed to cover the same material as the large lecture course. The textbook for the special section was designed for a one-semester introductory course in the principles of biology. It would have been ideal if we could have differentiated between intended elementary education majors in the special section and intended elementary education majors in the large Biology 103 class to directly compare their responses on the precourse and postcourse SENCER SALG survey. Unfortunately, the data could not be collected in such a way as to be able to subsequently identify individual students. However, the students in the large lecture sections of Biology 103 were all intending to be nonscience majors and may or may not have already had one semester of biology. Thus, in our surveys of the large lecture section, we cannot distinguish between nonscience majors who intended to teach K–8 students and nonscience majors with other career choices. Intended elementary education majors may take two different science disciplines (usually Earth Science 101 and Biology 103) to meet their general education requirement for a sequential science course with laboratory.
The major data collection performed in this study compared student perceptions of what aspects of the course aided their learning (10) early in the course and at the end of the course between the special hands-on section for preservice teachers group and the large lecture-intensive nonscience majors group. While the surveys evaluated a number of student perceptions about their learning including their interests, learning styles, confidence in learning, etc., they did not actually evaluate their learning gains. The student responses could not be correlated with course grades due to inadequate survey design [the survey now allows blinded (to the instructor) answers from identified students]. A t-test was conducted to discover which questions on the assessment survey demonstrated a difference between the control large class and the experimental small class. Of the 123 students from the large class who answered the presurvey, 11% were in a teacher preparation program and 9% were undecided about a teacher preparation program, whereas in the special section with 16 responses, 94% were in a teacher preparation program and 6% were undecided about a teacher preparation program. Table 3 lists the number of students who completed the precourse SALG surveys who self-identified as planning to participate in a teacher preparation program. Whereas 139 students completed the precourse surveys, only 55 completed the postcourse surveys. It was much more difficult to provide followup reminders to the students to do the postcourse surveys. Of the 55 students who completed the postcourse surveys, 10 (of 16 in the class) were from the experimental class and 45 (123 had completed the precourse surveys) were from the control class. Table 3 shows the precourse survey items with statistically significant differences between the two groups. The first three items are the ones scored higher by the experimental small class (tdf < 0, P < 0.05). The last two items are the ones rated higher by the large lecture control class (tdf > 0, P < 0.05). The scale used throughout was that lower numbers 1 or 2 represent lower levels of agreement with the statement and higher levels 4 or 5 represent higher levels of agreement with the statement. The first statement was grouped in the category of "Presently, I am interested in...," with 1 being "not at all interested," 2 being "a little interested," 3 being "somewhat interested," 4 being "highly interested," and 5 being "extremely interested." The second and third statements were grouped in the category of "Please tell us why you are taking this course...," with 1 being "strongly disagree," 2 being "disagree," 3 being "neutral," 4 being "agree," and 5 being "strongly agree." The fourth and fifth statements were grouped in the category of "In the past year, how often have you...," with 1 being "never," 2 being "once," 3 being "twice," 4 being "three times," and 5 being "more than three times." Please note that a higher percentage of students in the special hands-on section were preservice teachers, as expected, and that they were more interested in a course that would address civic issues and apply science to real world issues. The fourth and fifth statements documented that this population of nonscience major undergraduate students is unlikely to talk with a public official about a science- or civic-related issue or offer comments on a civic or political issue.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 show that there were significant differences between groups, with the experimental small class having higher postcourse assessment scores than the large lecture control class for 42 items when tdf < 0 (P < 0.05). Note in Table 4 that the students in the experimental group believed that aspects of the focus of the special section of the course, class activities, and graded activities, and assignments helped their learning. In addition, they were more likely to study with a partner or a group and were more comfortable with the relationships between different parts of the course. For the answers to these surveys on helping learning in Table 4, the choices were 1 ("no help"), 2 ("a little help"), 3 ("moderate help"), 4 ("much help"), and 5 ("very much help"). Note in Table 5 that the students in the experimental group were significantly more confident in their abilities to discuss scientific concepts, think critically about science, argue about scientific evidence, interpret tables and graphs, understand the math related to science, obtain scientific data, understand scientific research, pose scientific questions, work collaboratively on science, apply scientific information to society, communicate science to K–8 students, and run simple science experiments. These data are very encouraging because many of the strengths seen with this special section were also available to the control group in their weekly laboratory activities but were not likely to be integrated with lecture in the same manner as in the experimental group. The choices for answers for this section in Table 5 were 1 ("not confident"), 2 ("a little confident"), 3 ("somewhat confident"), 4 ("highly confident"), and 5 ("extremely confident"). In addition, note in Table 5 that the students in the experimental group were significantly more interested in discussing science, reading about science, taking additional science courses, attending graduate school in science, volunteering for science-related service, and participating in nonformal science education at a museum or school. The choices for answers for this section in Table 5 were 1 ("not at all interested"), 2 ("a little interested"), 3 ("somewhat interested"), 4 ("highly interested"), and 5 ("extremely interested"). Finally, note in Table 6 that the students in the experimental group were more likely to be involved in scientifically literate citizenry by discussing science-related civic or political issues, attending a meeting about a civic or political issue, participating in science-related civic education, doing an internship at a civic organization, attending a meeting about a civic issue, participating in an event such as a walk-a-thon, and voting in elections. There were no postcourse assessment survey items rated statistically significantly higher by the large lecture control class than the small experimental class.
While the advantages of primarily using activities to teach concepts to the students may not have been identifiable in this study, numerous students commented that after taking this course, they now knew better HOW to teach science due to the strong modeling of pedagogical skills in this course. The individual activities used were borrowed from American Physiological Society education resources or other laboratory resources known to the teaching faculty. Depending on the grade level that the preservice teacher is training to teach, some of the activities may be directly applicable for students in higher grades (4–8) and some may be too complex for early elementary students (K–3). However, during the activities, the faculty members freely discussed suggestions for modifications of the activities for younger students.
E. M. Freeburg is a recent graduate in biology education from the University of Notre Dame who was working on her doctorate in science education in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction of USD’s School of Education and had recently completed her master’s degree in education through a program that placed her in a sixth-grade science classroom for a year while being mentored by an experienced teacher and education faculty members. E. M. Freeburg volunteered as an assistant in the laboratory of the special section and participated in the teaching and learning activities while observing the students. E. M. Freeburg designed the science notebook activity and kept the list of its suggested contents up to date for the students. The following is an excerpt from her observations of students in the special section:
In my experience with teacher education during my undergraduate work, I found myself learning many different teaching strategies to use in the elementary and secondary classroom to promote learning that is more meaningful. However, it was frustrating to me as a science-education student to learn all of these great teaching techniques in my education classes and then not see them practiced in the undergraduate science courses at my University. During this course, a group of undergraduate elementary education majors arrived in class ready for a ’typical science lecture’ in which they could sink into their chairs and learn passively as I had done in my training. However, to their surprise, the students immediately found themselves participating in inquiry-based labs, discussions, and activities that encouraged them to work together to construct knowledge and become actively involved in the learning process. Many of these students came into the classroom disdaining science as too monotonous and too difficult to learn. However, they left excited about the material and looked forward to sharing their knowledge with their future students. I noticed that the students were eager to participate in the classroom activities and were surprised with their ability to understand science. The students generated thoughtful questions, worked with the material to develop understanding, and made conclusions about the information that they were presented. They ultimately made their learning meaningful, connected, relevant, and useful.
DISCUSSION
Our curriculum design team set out to change the courses for elementary education majors based on an initial idea from an science education faculty member and our own perceptions a science faculty members about what works and what does not work in teaching future teachers. However, current science education reform literature has reported similar findings with science curricular changes for this population of students. Beiswenger and colleagues (2) reported on an experimental program to develop science courses for prospective elementary teachers at the University of Wyoming. Their program was designed to produce teachers who "have a solid foundation in science content and a realistic view of science and technology; are competent in designing and implementing science instruction; are confident in their ability to do science and to teach it; and exhibit a positive attitude toward science and are excited about teaching it to children" (2). More recently, Guziec and Lawson (6) implemented a three-credit lecture course in interdisciplinary science designed for childhood education majors at State University of New York College at Fredonia, NY (6); 71% of their 85 respondents were more interested in science after the course than before and 85% would recommend the course to others. Jarrett (7) reported on her project to model hands-on activities in a field-based science methods course with preservice elementary teachers at Georgia State University. Her results reported that there were high correlations among ratings of the activities as fun, interesting, and high in learning potential and that preservice teachers would be more likely to implement activities that they rated highly in those three qualities. In an additional study, Jarrett (8) investigated which prior experiences were most likely to predict interest in science among preservice elementary teachers. She found that the best predictor of interest in science was a positive experience with science in elementary school, although high school experience and informal science experience (collecting bugs or rocks, playing with Legos, chemistry sets, microscopes, taking nature walks, visiting science museums, etc.) also contributed significantly to an interest in science. Downing and colleagues (5) reported that as preservice elementary teachers improved their science process skills in science courses, their attitudes toward science significantly improved. Science courses that modeled various science process skills including "classifying, creating models, formulating hypotheses, generalizing, identifying variables, inferring, interpreting data, making decisions, manipulating materials, measuring, observing, predicting, recording data, replicating, and using numbers" assisted in building preservice teacher confidence in science (5). However, Douglass (4) reported on a study of the differences in attitude and ability among biology majors, nonmajors, and preservice teachers at Central Michigan University using a simple pretest/posttest design. The preservice elementary teachers entered her biology course with the lowest scores in attitude toward the subject of biology and self-concept of their ability to do well in biology. The nonmajors had slightly better attitudes and self-concepts than the teachers, and the students planning to major in science had the highest initial attitude and self-concept scores. Because elementary teachers who enjoy and appreciate science are more likely to do science with their students, offering preservice elementary teachers science courses designed to stimulate interest in science may be a long-term solution to the low level of scientific literacy in the United States population.
The data reported in this study were collected during the initial offering of this special section of Biology 103 for elementary education majors. Thus, the students had no preconceived notion about how the course might differ from other large lecture classes for nonscience majors. Subsequently, this special section has been offered for two additional years. The class reputation has grown considerably among elementary education majors. The special section is one of the first to fill up during the fall registration period and generally has a waiting list of students trying to get into the section, which is limited to 24 students due to the size of laboratory space. In addition, the School of Education continues to request this special section, and the chair of the Department of Biology continues to allow K. Rasmussen to redirect her teaching time to teach half of this course. Some of the changes that have been or are being incorporated into the course are that the on-line discussion board activities have been dropped due to difficulty in keeping it going, the science notebook will contain more limited resources created by the students due to difficulty in grading it, a new textbook that is a larger version by the same authors will be used to more fully address the standards for K–8 science education, and the students will be learning concepts by self-study with the textbook and the web-based quizzes offered by the authors for self-assessment to have a more formal way to evaluate whether the students are keeping up on the material. The course continues to attract undergraduate teaching assistants with an interest in teaching science at the secondary level who want to experience more pedagogically sound science classes.
Our results in designing and implementing this hands-on course in introductory biology for elementary education majors show that upon completion of the course, the students appreciated how the relevance of science and conducting their own scientific experimentation could help them learn and analyze scientific concepts. The students enjoyed working and studying in partners or in small groups. They also valued the design of the course, which offered class time with both content discussion and hands-on experiments. The students were much more confident in their ability to discuss, evaluate, teach, and model science to others including their future students after completion of the course. They were also more interested in participating in discussions about science with friends, family, and the general public and learning more about science throughout their lives/careers. In addition, they were also more likely to be involved in civic or political issues that may have scientific implications. Thus, this study would agree with other published studies showing that hands-on science teaching and learning increases the confidence in science of future elementary or middle school teachers. The students in our special section were more confident and interested in science and its relevance than a similar population of students who learned similar material in a 3-h didactic lecture class with a separate 2-h laboratory class. In addition due to the open-book/open-note testing and other performance assessments used throughout the course, the students were likely to have experienced the course material as long-term learning instead of concentrating on memorization and recall learning. Thus, we recommend designing other science classes for education majors in a similar fashion.
REFERENCES
Audesirk T, Audesirk G, and Byers BE. Life on Earth (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Beiswenger RE, Stepans JI, and McClurg PA. Developing science courses for prospective elementary teachers: an experimental program at the University of Wyoming succeeds in preparing better science teachers. J Coll Sci Teach 27: 253–257, 1998.
Black KM. Improved science content for pre-service teachers: modeling of teaching strategies based on current science education reform literature. Annu. Meet. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach.: ERIC ED 369 647, 1994.
Douglass CB. Differences in attitude and ability of biology majors, nonmajors, and teachers. Improv Coll Univ Teach 27: 110–113, 1979.
Downing JE, Filer JD, and Chamberlain RA. Science process skills and attitudes of pre-service elementary teachers. Mid-South Edu. Res. Assoc.: ERIC ED 416 191, 1997.
Guziec MK and Lawson H. Science for elementary educators: modeling science instruction for childhood education majors. J Coll Sci Teach 33: 36–40, 2004.
Jarrett OS. Playfulness: a motivator in elementary science teacher. School Sci Math 98: 181–188, 1998.
Jarrett OS. Science interest and confidence among pre-service elementary teachers. J Elem Sci Educ 11: 47–57, 1999.
National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. SENCER SALG (online). http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/salgains/fac/ [7 September 2006].(Barbara E. Goodman, Elizabeth M. Freebur)