1. INTRODUCTION: SCIENCE IS A VERB

Theory and research increasingly supports the notion that students build knowledge and skills in an active, constructive process (Doran et al. 1998, page 7). This "constructivism" provides a firm foundation for the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council {NRC}1996).

"The Standards rest on the premise that science is an active process. Learning science is something that students do, not something that is done to them. ... In this way, students actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills."

-- (NRC 1996, page 2)

Teachers of science have a direct connection to this concept in the methods of science, whereby the practitioner collects data, conducts experiments, and analyzes the results to help build knowledge about the workings of the natural world.

1.1 STUDY SCIENCE BY DOING SCIENCE

Science is a verb to be practiced, not a series of nouns to commit to memory. Doing science means observation, inference, and experimentation, all contributing to growing and building an understanding of how we know what we know (NRC 1996). These skills can develop "independent inquirers" with the "dispositions to use the skills, abilities, and attitudes associated with science" (NRC 1996).

"When people know how scientists go about their work and reach scientific conclusions, and what the limitations of such conclusions are, they are more likely to react thoughtfully to scientific claims and less likely to reject them out of hand or accept them uncritically.

Once people gain a good sense of how science operates -- along with a basic inventory of key science concepts as a basis for learning more later -- they can follow the science adventure story as it plays out during their lifetimes.

The images that many people have of science and how it works are often distorted. The myths and stereotypes that young people have about science are not dispelled when science teaching focuses narrowly on the laws, concepts and theories of science. Hence, the study of science as a way of knowing needs to be made explicit in the curriculum."

-- Benchmarks for Science Literacy American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993, page 3)

1.2 THE METHODS OF SCIENCE -- MISSING IN ACTION

Despite these calls for making the learning of science an active process similar to the practice of science, understanding the practice of science is absent even among advanced high school students. A working knowledge of the methods of scientific investigation recently stood out as a notable weakness among students taking the Advanced Placement Environmental Science test (Gail Boyarsky, personal communication).

The emphasis on students' building their own knowledge does not mean less rigor, but will in fact require a greater depth of understanding. What is called for is not learning "about" science, but learning science itself. Mallow (1986) uses the analogy of learning art by just looking at it versus trying your hand at drawing. One could also consider the difference in learning about cooking from only a cookbook compared to the knowledge one would gain from spending time in a kitchen preparing several recipes. "We need a similar experience with science: we need to 'do' science in order to truly appreciate its power." (Mallow 1986). Furthermore, Mallow (1986) suggests that the best way to overcome students' learned aversion to science might be for them to discover what science really is. It is not a textbook. It is not a scripted or simulated "investigation" where the result is known ahead of time.

1.3 OBJECTIVE: REAL SCIENCE SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS

The challenge is to create within the traditional school building, during the traditional school day, with the traditional textbook and paucity of materials, a series of experiences that involve students doing real science, not pretend science. The National Science Education Standards point the way at least when they call on teachers to "create environments in which they and their students work together as active learners." and together "...they are active as members of science-learning communities" (NRC 1996). This implies activities where neither the students nor the teachers know the outcomes in advance. It also suggests activities which include stakeholders and professionals outside the classroom as part of the learning community.

I propose to identify and develop local or regional scientific problems in need of solution that are related to the earth/environmental science curriculum published by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) (2001). By bringing the practice of science into science teaching and learning, students benefit twice as they:

1. Acquire science content information in a more interesting format; and
2. Gain experience with the scientific way of building knowledge that can be applied to other situations.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SCIENCE IN SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITY

"Generic problems" will be identified that likely exist in most communities in some form. Teachers who have led their classes in similar projects involving group and outdoor activities and local environmental problems will be identified and contacted in the hopes of finding and avoiding pitfalls and roadblocks they may have experienced.

Selected problems will form the basis for class projects that will engage students in doing science in service of the community. Development of each problem will require communicating with scientists, engineers, and other professionals in the community. These local stakeholders and experts may be found in institutions of higher education, local government agencies, and private companies.

Example problems include:

1. Measuring the amount and pollutant load of storm water runoff and identifying and testing methods to reduce runoff from the school campus or other site(s) in the community;
2. Determining the extent and effects of soil erosion on the school campus or nearby site(s) and identifying and testing best practices to reduce erosion;
3. Determining the volume and mass of waste sent from the campus and local community to the local landfill, and exploring alternative practices to reduce it;
4. Working with local communities to identify and measure the effectiveness of techniques to reduce the impacts of construction and development on soil, water, and air quality;
5. Assessing trends in local weather and climate to determine possible connections to global climate change patterns;
6. Monitoring local air quality and collaborating with area governments and other schools to develop a picture of regional air quality trends; and
7. Assessing local stream, lake, and wetland habitat and water quality, and working with community stakeholders to identify and test best practices to improve the health of these critical ecosystems.

2.1 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

Project-based learning (PBL) represents "...one approach to creating learning environments in which students construct personal knowledge" in a minds-on engagement with a problem that enhances student motivation (Moursund 1999). Each "real" problem forms the basis for an extended activity that will involve:

• (A) contacting community stakeholders and local experts to help create the context for the project, provide practical guidance, and point the way to needed support;
• (B) practicing with peers (Kaplan and Owings 2001), the basic skills of scientific investigation that will be used to solve the problem -- observation, measurement, experimental design, hypothesis testing, analyzing data, and interpreting results;
• (C) conducting background research to build a foundation for the new knowledge to be discovered;
• (D) designing all aspects of the scientific investigation in both the field and the laboratory; and
• (E) communicating, sharing, and discussing results with other investigators and stakeholders in the community.

2.2 PRODUCTS

Three projects will be identified and prepared. Products for each project will include:

1. A description of the generic problem and possible alternative manifestations of the problem in different regions;
2. A list of local contact types to provide guidance, technical support, and interest in the results;
3. Suggestions on effective partnership-building tactics (see Warlick 1999, pages 30-33, and Atkin and Atkin 1989);
4. A set of related basic skill lessons/activities with associated web sites; and
5. Suggested project break-down into sections for use by small groups within a class, descriptions of how different groups or classes will provide data replication; and guidelines for merging into a coherent whole the independent progress of several groups.

2.3 WEB PUBLISHING

The results of student data collection, experiments, and research analysis will be published on peer- reviewed web sites. Existing web sites may be employed for this component, or a new web site will be created for North Carolina student earth/environmental research.

3. EVALUATION

Formative evaluations will include documented trials of suggested projects at Leesville Road High School, and perhaps at one or two other selected schools where willing teachers may be found. Projects and associated products will be revised based on these trials.

Summative evaluations will use pre and post-tests of participating and non-participating classes to examine the effectiveness of project participation in helping students acquire knowledge of science content related to the specific problem topic and a working understanding of methods of scientific investigation.

4. DISSEMINATION

In addition to presentations at NCSTA and perhaps other appropriate forums, web and email (including listserv) communications will also share information about this effort. It may also prove feasible to identify selected earth/environmental science teachers at secondary schools in the state and share with them an overview of the project.

Dissemination efforts may also identify master teachers who would be willing to help add local or regional information to the identified projects, or who, with some guidance and support, may help develop additional projects.

5. TIMELINE

An initial task for the first spring and early summer will be to identify and contact teachers who have done similar, real-world earth/environmental projects with students. Several potential teacher contacts have been identified.

At least four potential projects will be explored during the first summer. Projects will be evaluated for suitability based on a set of criteria to be developed. From these potential projects, one will be selected for development during the first summer. This first project will undergo trials during the first semester of the 2002-2003 school year, and will be revised during the second summer based on these trials.

Two additional projects will be selected before the end of the second semester of the 2002-2003 school year. Additional trial schools and teachers will be sought during this time. These second and third projects will be developed during the second summer and tested the following academic year.

Existing web sites for practicing basic science investigation skills and publishing student work will be identified and examined for suitability. If new web sites are required, these will be outlined during the first summer and technical support will be lined up to assist with web site development.

6. BUDGET

Budget details cannot be spelled out until specific projects are selected. At that time, costs for supplies in support of student research for the project trial will be revised.

Funds or in-kind support will be required for the web publishing effort. The necessary support will include web authoring and web site hosting.

Travel needs will include visits to scientists, engineers, and other stakeholders with backgrounds in the generic problems selected for project development, and attendance/participation at professional meetings focused on project-related topics.

7. LITERATURE CITED

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 421pp.
• Atkin, J.M., and A. Atkin. 1989. Improving Science Education through Local Alliances. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Network Publications, Santa Cruz, CA. 157pp.
• Boyarsky, Gail. Informal report from a scoring session for free response questions from the Advanced Placement Environmental Science test, stated during a meeting of college environmental science faculty and high school A.P. Environmental Science teachers held at UNC Chapel Hill, 2001.
• Doran, R., F. Chan, and P. Tamir. 1998. Science Educator's Guide to Assessment. NSTA, Arlington, VA. 210pp.
• DuBay, D.T., and A. Taylor (eds.). 1995. North Carolina Environmental Education Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 54pp.
• Kaplan, L.S., and W.A. Owings. 2001. Teacher quality and student achievement: Recommendations for Principals. Bulletin - Journal of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 85(628), November.
• Mallow, J.V. 1986. Science Anxiety: Fear of Science and How to Overcome It. H&H Publishing Company, Clearwater, FL. 175pp.
• Moore, J.A. 1985. Science as a way of knowing - human ecology. American Zoologist 25:377-378.
• Moursund, D. 1999. Project-Based Learning Using Information Technology. International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, OR. 160pp.
• National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 262pp.
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 2001. Earth/Environmental Science Curriculum.
• Research Triangle Science and Mathematics Partnership. 2001.
• Warlick, D. 1999. Raw Materials for the Mind. The Landmark Project, Raleigh, NC. 223pp.

Copyright 2002 by Denis T. DuBay