







































Creative collaboration:   

A phenomenological study of a science faculty curriculum project 
 

Andrea Foster                                              William A. Jasper 

Sam Houston State University 

 

 

 

Abstract 

Creative collaborations between scientists 

and educators can be difficult. It is often the case 

that faculty members from the College of Science 

and College of Education resist collaboration.  Is 

the culprit ego, agenda, busy schedules, lack of 

support or something else?  This 

phenomenological study unravels the secret behind 

successful collaboration between scientists, a 

mathematician, and a science educator.  This study 

identifies seven critical actions that are necessary 

for successful curriculum collaborations.  

  

Educational reform must be 

collaborative to succeed.  In the case of 

science, mathematics, and technology 

education, the scientific community must 

enter into partnership with the education 

community.” (AAAS, 1990, 224) 

 

Introduction 

Collaboration is the cornerstone of most 

successful, innovative, and meaningful pursuits. 

“The notion of the solitary thinker still appeals to 

those molded by the Western belief in 

individualism.  A careful scrutiny of how 

knowledge is constructed and artistic forms are 

shaped reveals a different reality.  Generative ideas 

emerge from joint thinking, from significant 

conversations, and from sustained, shared 

struggles to achieve new insights by partners in 

thought” (John-Steiner, 2000, p. 3).  Creative 

collaborations are necessary for clever solutions to  

the plethora of problems facing our educational 

 

Curriculum History 2018: 86-102 

 system today, particularly in the area of 

mathematics and science education reform 

(Moolenaar, Sleegers and Daly, 2012).  For 

decades, the call for significant changes in science, 

mathematics, and technology education have been 

loud and clear.  And yet, most American students 

are still not performing at a level deemed 

“proficient” in science (Robelen, 2011).  Data from 

the Nation’s Report Card Science 2011 show that 

less than one-third of the American elementary and 

high school students were at or above the 

proficient level science, and that the United States 

is trailing their counterparts in many European and 

Asian countries (Banchero, 2011).  This trend has 

continued for the 2015 data (The Nation’s Report 

Card 2015), with the following percentages of 

students achieving at or above proficient ratings:  

4th grade – 38%, 8th Grade – 34%, and 12th Grade 

– 22%.   Often faculty members from Colleges of 

Arts & Sciences and Colleges of Education resist 

collaboration.  Is the culprit ego, agenda, busy 

schedules, lack of support, or something else?  

This phenomenological study unravels the secrets 

behind a successful collaboration between 

scientists and educators.  This paper first reviews 

prior research on collaborations in higher 

education, particularly in science and mathematics 

education, and then elaborates on how faculty 

collaboration between College of Arts & Science 

and College of Education faculty designed an 

innovative science curriculum program at our 

institution.  

  

Research on Collaboration in Higher Education

 In the past few decades, numerous studies 



87 
 

on transforming science, mathematics, and 

technology education through interdisciplinary 

collaboration in higher education have surfaced 

(Laursen, Thiry, and Hunter, 2008; Tanner, 

Chatman, and Allen, 2003; Bower, 2005; Carr, 

2002; Sunai et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsely and 

Matsumoto, 1999; Girgus, 1994; and Goldston and 

Bland, 2002).   The “work and research findings 

within collaborative initiatives support the early 

work conducted by Darling-Hammond (1994), 

who discussed the necessity of generating shared 

vision among collaborators, and Loucks-Horsley, 

Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998), who pointed out 

that partners must have equal status for a 

collaborative to be successful” (Goldston & Bland, 

2002, 1).  Many researchers claim to have 

struggled with negotiating personal/professional 

agendas while working with their partners to create 

a shared vision for the collaborative.  To improve 

collaboration, “it’s not technology, it’s leadership.  

To create an environment where people like to 

collaborate, you literally have to understand every 

single member of the group.  It’s a fascinating 

flock of birds phenomena that makes this whole 

experience rewarding” (Abele, 2009, 1).  Defining 

roles, establishing a common language, and 

building the necessary relationships to create and 

sustain such partnerships is exhausting work. 

Nonetheless, in spite of these struggles, in the spirit 

of shared responsibility for preparing highly 

qualified K-12 teachers in science, mathematics, 

and technology, most collaborators are inspired 

and motivated by the opportunities to share ideas, 

generate a shared vision, and devise action plans to 

accomplish this goal (Goldston & Bland, 2002).  

Most educators also recognize that recruitment of 

quality teacher candidates doesn’t happen without 

conscientious efforts and “buy-in” from both 

scientists and educators.  

A number of collaborative efforts identify 

“lessons learned” in regard to the collaboration 

experience.   For example, a case study (Girgus, 

1994) that focused on working together to achieve 

diversity in science and mathematics identifies the 

following indicators of success: 

• Working with like-minded souls on 

problems of common interest is extremely 

energizing. 

• Committed energetic leadership and 

smoothly running administrative processes 

are as crucial to the success of the 

collaborative projects as they are to every 

other kind of enterprise. 

• Collaboration permits you to do things you 

probably would not or could not do alone. 

• Most importantly, conversation counts -- 

every successful collaboration depends on 

opportunities for participants to develop 

mutual respect and explore shared 

priorities band interests.  This applies 

equally to individuals working on a project, 

to a department revising its curriculum, and 

to institutions engaged in planning. 

(Girgus, 1994, 3) 

 A greater commitment by science faculty 

to focus on science education could drive 

education reform at universities and public 

schools, according to a report co-authored by 

several researchers from California State 

University and one from Purdue University 

(Laursen, Thiry, & Hunter, 2008).  In What Works: 

Building Natural Science Communities (Narum 

1991), the focus was on the concept of community 

from the perspective of the learning environment 

for students: what they learn, how they learn, 

where they learn. This dialogue recognizes that 

creating an effective community of learners 

requires dissolving any boundaries that inhibit 

dialogue and action, and thus community.  How to 

achieve the systemic reform this nation needs in 

science, mathematics, engineering and technology 



88 
 

education is a key question for collaborators. The 

basic pieces are the same - students and faculty, 

program and institution - but now there are 

questions about communities of interest: about 

stakeholders across the educational sectors, in 

public and private agencies.  All have a stake in 

ensuring that the undergraduate 

science/mathematics community serves the 

national interest into the next century.  A plethora 

of questions arise as we consider the challenge of 

collaboration.  How do the patterns change when 

we ask questions about financing reforms at the 

local and national level; when we consider 

exploring new collaborations between departments 

and between institutions? How do the patterns 

change when we decide to take some risks asking 

some hard and uncomfortable questions of 

ourselves and of our colleagues? How do the 

patterns change when there is an individual, 

institutional, and national commitment to dialogue 

and action to overcoming inertia? (Laursen, Thiry, 

& Hunter, 2008).  

Girgus (1994) cautions creative 

collaborators that an innovation that works well in 

one context may not be transplanted into a 

different context.  As innovations move out from 

their original settings, they must be adapted to the 

dynamics and the needs of each new setting.  

Imagine a series of collaborative opportunities that 

spiral outward from the faculty member as a series 

of concentric circles.  In the innermost circle are 

colleagues from the faculty member’s own 

department, in the next circle are colleagues from 

intellectually adjacent departments, in the next 

circle are the deans, provosts, and presidents, in the 

next are colleagues in other institutions.  

According to Girgus (1994), if we can learn how 

to harness good collaboration as we move from 

circle to circle, we might be able to institutionalize 

a particular reform into the curriculum and adapt 

the reform to the needs of a growing number of 

institutions.  Figure 1.1 illustrates this model of 

collaborative relationships between and among 

institutions.  

Pushkin (2008) reminds scientists that it is 

imperative to take on some responsibility in the 

preparation of science teachers.  He recognizes that 

as the number of teacher education courses 

required for initial certification dwindles, the 

predominantly de facto pedagogical influence on 

K-12 science teaching comes from undergraduate 

science professors, not teacher education 

professors.  There is a tremendous need for 

collaboration between science and education 

faculty.  

Carr (2002) tells us that powerful 

preparation of science teachers involves significant 

contributions from both scientists and teacher 

educators.  Ironically, faculty and students in 

science and teacher education departments are 

often isolated from one another, not only across the 

physical boundaries of the university, but across 

the cultural boundaries of academe.  Coordination 

and collaboration between science and education 

faculty requires careful negotiation of these 

cultural boundaries.  Carr illustrates Patterns of 

Difference in both teacher education departments 

and science departments in Table 1 on next page.  

These cultural differences, if not understood or 

recognized, can be a key barrier to successful 

collaboration.  

 Carr (2002) also highlights the conflicting 

epistemologies among scientists and educators.  

“Science is hard and teaching is easy,” represents 

a very real epistemological belief of many 

scientists and one that we confronted in our 

collaborative effort.  The following section 

describes the methodology and the players in our 

collaborative experience. 



89 
 

 
This model, created to illuminate Girgus’ (1994) ideas, highlights the significant collaborative 

relationships between and within institutions which is required for real and meaningful educational 

reform.        

Figure 1: Model of Collaborative Relationships Between and Among Institutions 

 

Pattern of Difference Teacher Education Dept. Science Department 

Communication Style Direct and clear communication is 

valued but sometimes must be 

sacrificed to preserve relationships. 

Direct and clear communication is 

highly valued and rarely 

compromised. 

Attitude toward Conflict Direct conflict is avoided, 

especially in public between 

colleagues. 

Conflict is an integral part of the 

process of creating knowledge and 

is often carried out publicly. 

Approaches to 

Completing Tasks 

Tasks are seen as ongoing and the 

process malleable, the building of 

relationships sometimes interferes 

with task completion.  

Tasks meticulously planned and 

carried out with efficiency. 

Decision-making Style Group consensus Delegation by authority 

Learning and Knowing Everybody is seen as a co-learner, 

and knowledge is gained through 

not only individual effort, but a 

result of relationships and dialogue. 

Learning is the assimilation of 

knowledge delivered by experts.  

Table 1: Carr’s (2002, 9) Comparison of the Patterns of Difference between Teacher Education and Science 

Departments 

 

 

Colleagues from 
Other Institutions

Dean, Provosts, 
President

Faculty from Art 
& Sciences

Faculty from the 
College of 
Education



90 
 

Methodology 

 For this study, the researchers used a 

phenomenological approach to make sense of our 

experience working with scientists and educators.  

According to Lester (1999), the purpose of a 

phenomenological approach is to “illuminate the 

specific and to identify phenomena through how 

they are perceived by the actors in a situation” (p. 

1).  This translates into gathering “deep” 

information and perceptions through inductive, 

qualitative methods such as interviews, 

discussions and participant observation, and 

representing it from the perspective of the research 

participant(s).  The deep information gathered for 

this study are derived from weekly meetings where 

the participants shared ideas, understandings and 

visions for a premiere middle school science 

program. There were key participants in this study, 

a science educator, a mathematics educator, and a 

scientist.  Several additional scientists representing 

all the scientific fields were also part of the process 

of this study.  The scientists, who came to the table, 

showed an interest in improving science education 

at our institution and helped to create course 

outlines for Biology, Physics, and an existing 

Chemistry course that were aligned to the state 

science standards.  For this study email transcripts, 

memos, and meeting notes were key to making 

sense of the episodes that occurred during the 

collaborative process.   

 Data from the document artifacts (email 

correspondences, meeting notes, and interactions 

among the participants) were analyzed using a 

constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 

1985) in an effort to enhance meaning making – in 

other words, to make sense of the process of 

collaboration between the participants and 

individual scientists who share a common goal – 

an improved science education program.  Themes 

emerged from the participants’ interaction with the 

data sets which shed light on their collaborative 

process.  These themes helped the researchers 

better understand the challenges and triumphs of 

their work to build a successful middle school 

science teacher preparation program.  

 

The Participants 

The science educator in the collaboration 

brings sixteen years teaching middle school and 

high school science to the collaborative triad. 

During her inner city public school experience, she 

was closely involved with the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science 

(AAAS) Project 2061’s K-12 national reform 

effort in science, mathematics and technology 

education as a Project 2061 Texas team member. 

Her early teaching experiences were enhanced 

through collaborations with scientists and 

educators from across the country including Jim 

Rutherford, Andrew (Chic) Ahlgren, and Joellen 

Roseman, key visionaries that produced critical 

reform documents such Science for all Americans, 

Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Designs for 

Science Literacy, Blueprints for Reform (AAAS, 

2002), and the Atlas for Science Literacy.  This 

science educator was charged early in her science 

teaching career to become an ambassador for 

science literacy, a challenge she took very 

seriously.  After becoming a National Presidential 

Awardee for Excellence in Science Teaching, she 

shifted her work to higher education and for the 

past thirteen years, she has been teaching science 

methods to prospective elementary and middle 

school teachers. Her role in the collaboration was 

to promote new and innovative ways of thinking 

about middle school science teaching and to 

educate the science faculty about the state 

standards for middle school science teaching with 

the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS); 

Career and College Readiness Standards (CCRS); 

and the Project 2061 reform tenets.  She also 

worked on reducing the physical barriers of the 



91 
 

university campus by walking to and from the 

College of Arts & Science once a week for regular 

“dream building” sessions with her two other main 

collaborators.  

 

The College of Arts & Sciences Mathematics 

Educator 

 The mathematician, or rather as he would 

prefer to be identified, the mathematics educator in 

this story played a critical role in creating and 

sustaining the significant relationships within the 

collaboration.  His prior career in the Air Force 

provided the foundation for the many tactical and 

logistical approaches to bringing key players 

together.  He knew exactly who to talk to first, 

what groups to gather informally and formally to 

share our ideas for the innovative program.  His 

middle school and university mathematics 

teaching experience afforded the necessary 

understanding of appropriate pedagogy and 

content for the science and mathematics 

disciplines.  In fact, the highly successful 

mathematics education program (arguably the best 

in the state) served as a model for building the 

middle level science program.  His constant 

energy, friendly demeanor coupled with the 

knowledge of how to navigate the hierarchy that 

comprises the university system were invaluable to 

the overall collaborative effort.  He was not simply 

the glue that held the group together but the 

“superglue!”  He was also the collaborative 

initiator. 

 

The College of Arts & Sciences Research 

Scientist & Associate Dean 

The scientist in the story is an 

entomologist/parasitologist who also was the 

Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences.  

She was more than willing to take on a worthy 

project that would mean better prepared middle 

school science teachers. Her position and her 

passion for the innovation moved the collaborative 

effort closer to its goal.  Her communications to the 

science department chairs were crucial to the 

ongoing participation and support of the project.   

She was completely committed to seeing this 

project to fruition.  Her guidance and “reality 

checks” meant a great deal to the scientists and 

was, most likely, the primary reason for the high 

attendance at meetings.  The science faculty had a 

great respect for her expertise as she was truly, 

“one of them.”  Her knowledge of the curriculum 

process was a strength as well.  She kept the group 

informed of the deadlines for submitting new 

course proposals as well was as what possible 

barriers to anticipate with regard to the 

department/college political climate. 

 These individual collaborators came 

together each week for two years to grapple with 

how to develop a new program for middle school 

science.  They dreamed, argued, debated, 

celebrated, and experienced the unique 

phenomenon of very different faculty members 

coming together to build something worthwhile – 

a middle school science program with newly 

aligned, inquiry-based, project-based science 

courses.  Their relationship formed a very 

supportive “triad” structure that showed others that 

with teamwork and commitment, that effective 

communication between the Colleges could occur 

and curricular change could happen.  See Figure 2 

on next page.  

 

What worked for us -- Key factors of 

Collaboration at the University Level 

Establishing University Partnerships 

Four years ago, there was virtually no contact 

among the science department chairs in the 

College of Arts and Sciences and the primary 

science educator in the College of Education. The 

mathematics educator on this project set up initial 

contacts and meetings among these key players.  

Another key player in establishing these  



92 
 

 
Figure 2. The three essential components of the 

triad that hold the collaborative together are the 

science educator, the mathematics educator and 

the scientists.  The college deans are represented 

at the top of the figure to illustrate their overall 

direction and support.   

collaborations was the Associate Dean of the 

College of Arts and Sciences, who strongly 

supported improving science teacher preparation 

programs, and who chaired frequent meetings 

among scientists and educators.  Initially, most 

science department chairs were not excited about 

enhancing the science teacher preparation program 

at our university, and were more focused on 

recruiting students as majors in their respective 

departments.  As a result, there were only a few 

students seeking high school science teaching 

certification, and none seeking middle school 

science teaching certification at our university.  

However, these initial meetings opened up 

communication channels and regular meetings 

began.  With communication, collaboration began. 

 

Support from Key Administrators 

Once an initial vision of our program was 

created, presentations were made to the Deans of 

the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Education.  

Both Deans enthusiastically endorsed creating a 

model science teacher preparation program, 

recognizing the need for exceptional science 

teachers in our public schools.  Without the strong 

support from the Deans, it is unlikely that science 

department chairs and key educators would have 

responded favorably to this effort.  It was 

important for the Dean to assure science faculty 

members that work on this project (in addition to 

hard research within their discipline) would be 

respected and honored.  Most university faculty 

members are very busy within their own domains, 

and it takes special interest in a new project to 

dedicate precious time.  Course release time and 

other support would help even more, but we did 

not have this as an option at our university.  In 

addition, the Associate Dean of the College of Arts 

and Sciences communicated directly with the 

science department chairs, scheduled meetings, 

and served as a bridge between the two colleges.  

The top-level enthusiastic approval of the project 

helped science department chairs realize the 

importance of the project.  This would have been 

harder to accomplish if only a science educator in 

the College of Education were dealing with science 

department chairs. 

The Dean and Associate Dean for the 

College of Education expressed their strong 

support for the collaboration via these email 

correspondences. 

 

This is SO great!  Thank you so much for 

all your thought and hard work on this 

vitally important issue.  I am excited 

about the possibilities.   

 

This is so exciting, and I'm so glad you all 

are doing this work......our university 

really could be a leader in Texas in 

science education. And, since candidates 

planning to teach  science are eligible 

for the TEACH grants, they could have 

their tuition and fees entirely covered for 

their junior and senior years! We 

 really look forward to the 

Deans of 
COAS and 

COE

Science 
Educators

Scientists

Mathematics 
Educators



93 
 

development process and to the new 

beginning for middle school science 

education. You three make a fantastic 

team! 

 

Communicating the need for a new science 

teacher preparation program 

 Several years ago, the State of Texas 

changed the certification levels of teachers to 

grades 7-12; 4-8, and Early Childhood-6.  The 7-

12 certifications only cover the high school science 

teaching requirements, and the EC-6 certification 

prepares teachers for the elementary grades.  

Because the EC-6 program is very popular with 

pre-service teachers, middle school programs 

(grades 4-8 certification levels) saw reduced 

enrollments.  At our university, the 4-8 science 

teacher certification plan was deleted due to low 

numbers of students.  So, who will teach middle 

school science in the future? (Authors, 2010).  The 

need for a middle school certification program 

with strong science content and pedagogy is very 

high.  Once scientists at our university realized 

this, they raised their commitment levels to our 

project. 

 In November, the Associate Dean for the 

College of Arts & Sciences, in an effort to 

jumpstart the collaborative effort to revive the 

middle level science program at our institution sent 

a long email to the science and education 

department chairs and copied to the Deans of both 

Colleges. The emailed outlined the need for 

collaboration and recapped efforts during the 

preceding two years (see Appendix 1).  That email 

was followed by another email setting a date to 

begin work on the middle grades certification 

program (see Appendix 2).  The second email was 

also sent to key science faculty. 

 

 

 

Mutual Respect and Appreciation for Science 

and Education Faculty 

      At regular meetings with the science 

department chairs, the need to improve science 

teacher preparation programs, vision sharing, and 

program development guidelines were analyzed 

and discussed.  These discussions were sometimes 

heated, yet, over time, there developed a sense of 

respect and appreciation for the positions, ideas, 

and limitations of both the scientists and educators.  

This was not easy to accomplish and it was 

sometimes difficult for scientists to visualize good 

educational practices, and also for educators to 

understand the requirements of rigorous course 

study in the sciences.  But scientists began to 

empathize with the need to create a great teacher 

preparation program, and educators came to 

understand the needs and limitations of the science 

departments.  Gradually, we made compromises 

and we developed a great vision for our program 

together.  This would not have happened without 

respect and appreciation for each other. 

 

Team Building 

 Once science department chairs committed 

to the program, we recruited volunteer science 

faculty members in Biology, Physics and 

Chemistry who were interested in the teaching side 

of science, and who were passionate about our 

mission to create a model science teacher 

preparation program.  Now it was time for the 

detailed work to begin.  Because these scientists 

strongly believed in this program, they worked 

diligently to construct the science course content 

needed to best prepare future science teachers.  The 

science educator worked closely with the 

scientists, and strong bonds were formed among 

these faculty members, with high levels of respect 

for each other, and good understanding of the 

needs of the program.  This working group was the 

heart of the collaboration effort.  In fact, these 



94 
 

same dedicated faculty members also began to 

work together on other related projects, and one 

result was submission of a National Science 

Foundation grant proposal for scholarships for 

future science teachers. 

 

Overcoming Hurdles – Moving Beyond the 

Misunderstandings and The Harsh Reality that 

Change is Difficult 

“Everyone in the College of Education 

should be shot!”  These words still resonate with 

the science educator at the very first meeting with 

the group of scientists to discuss the possibility of 

a new middle school science program.  The 

antagonist was a distinguished professor who 

wanted to make it quite clear that he was not happy 

with how things were done in the College of 

Education.  Rather than back down, cave in, or run-

away from the direct assault, the science educator 

discovered why he felt this way.  As it turned out, 

his course was haphazardly removed from the 4-8 

integrated mathematics/science degree plan 

implemented in several years before.  This faculty 

member had good reason to be upset.  His lively 

debate and argumentative style could have been a 

bit difficult to take; but, he was the very person 

who would leave the meetings with negative 

comments and then send thoughtful, reflective, and 

brilliant communications to the group about how 

to better prepare prospective science teachers.  The 

multi-page email can be found in Appendix 3. 

Disagreement and compromise are 

expected and necessary – we must overcome the 

deep antagonism.  It becomes very personal. 

Because there was disagreement, a better program 

evolved.  Collaborators must not expect a group of 

“Yes-men” and they do not want them either.  The 

power of the collaboration lies within these 

provocative conversations.  This is a painful 

process because people generally don’t like to be 

disagreeable.  Again, Carr (2002) reminds us that 

scientists and educators represent entirely different 

epistemologies and academic cultures.  After the 

dust settles, we realize that we all saying the same 

thing, yet in different ways.  Our goals were not 

that far apart.  There was not a huge valley between 

our positions and vision. 

Continuing conversations and overcoming 

perceived obstacles became an important and 

necessary part of the collaborative process. A 

special meeting was set up to meet with the 

Geology department chairs to discuss the draft 

Middle School Science plan, and many of their 

suggestions were incorporated into the revised 

plan. 

 

Feelings of Discouragement    

There were times when the core 

collaborators left meetings thinking that our 

“vision” had been squelched or waylaid by the 

scientists.  Nonetheless, the passion for the 

program was still there—so we recharged our 

batteries, revised our goals, and set up another 

meeting to discuss our plan of action.  Over time 

and some degree of compromise a stronger 

program evolved and that was supportable, 

sustainable, and had the buy-in of the scientists.  

We all have automatic negative reactions to 

change, to education; to teaching . . . we are all 

programmed to protect our empire and 

epistemologies.  Frustration was a two-way street.  

The science educator did not understand the 

resistance by the science faculty (many of whom 

had served as department chairs and deans). “We 

can’t do that.”  “We have never done that before.”  

“We don’t have faculty lines to teach those 

courses.”  “Why not just use our existing courses.”  

The science educator wondered why the scientists 

were resistant to the idea of creating the ideal 

without worrying about the obstacles.  Why were 

these scientists so concerned with why this will not 

work rather than the possibilities that could exist if 



95 
 

we create it?  Again, compromise and 

understanding each collaborative member’s 

patterns of difference seemed to help us to 

overcome some potential paralyzing obstacles.  

Reaching a “common ground” and understanding 

the professional cultures of the scientists and 

educators in the group made the difference.  

   

Summary and Implications 

The lessons we learned from our 

collaborative experiences were many.  When 

working with scientists and educators, the 

following actions are critical to successful 

collaborations.  

 

• Identify a shared need 

• Achieve support from key 

administrators  

• Know your collaborators and their 

patterns of difference 

• Demonstrate mutual respect and 

appreciation for science and 

education faculty  

• Recruit enthusiastic and talented 

faculty to form a working team 

• Recognize that disagreements are a 

healthy part of the process 

• Expect to be discouraged and, most 

importantly, don’t give up! 

 

These actions sustained our efforts to 

create a strong science program at our institution 

and led to enduring professional relationships 

between and among faculty and administrators 

from both colleges within our university. 

We see our collaboration to build a middle 

school science program as a successful endeavor. 

We accomplished our initial goal of aligning a set 

of science courses to the Science TEKS and the 

Texas Career and College Readiness Standards, 

created scope and sequences, course descriptions, 

we have mapped out an exciting degree plan for the 

new middle school science teacher preparation 

program which is strong in content and includes 

extensive field experiences.  We have reached 

consensus with regard to having our program 

recognized by both college administrators and key 

faculty.  As our journey continues, relationships 

have to be maintained, communications must 

continue.  We have plans to present the new 

courses to each of the science departments for their 

approval before it moves through the formal 

institutional curriculum process.  We are very 

excited about the new Interdisciplinary Science 

Literacy course that will serve as a recruiting 

ground for future middle school science teachers 

as well as the upper level biology and physics 

courses that will use inquiry, project, and problem-

based approaches.  The bottom-line to the success 

of creative collaborations is that there is no secret 

formula to getting it done.  The process is tricky, 

egos must not get in the way of ideas, and key 

support structures through productive relationships 

are necessary.  A greater commitment by science 

faculty to focus on science teacher education could 

drive education reform at universities and K-12 

classrooms.  Communication and patience are 

needed.  Effective collaboration does not happen 

overnight. 

 

 

References 

Abele, J. (2009). Ideas, ego, and collaboration.  

Kingbridge collaboration blog. Posted June 15, 

2009.  http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/ 

wordpress/?p=59 

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, AAAS (1990).  Science for all 

Americans. New York, Oxford University 

Press.  

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. (2002). Blueprints for reform for 

science, mathematics, and technology 



96 
 

education.  New York. Oxford University 

Press.  

Authors. (2010). The new pandemic:  Who will 

teach middle school science and mathematics? 

The Texas Science Teacher. 39, 3-8.   

Banchero, S. (2011).  Students Score Poorly on 

Science Test.  The Wall Street Journal, January 

26, 2011. 

Bower, J. (2005).  Scientists and science education 

reform:  Myths, methods, and madness.  

National Academy of Sciences. 

http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg2a.htm 

Carr, K. (2002).  Building bridges and crossing 

borders:  Using service learning to overcome 

cultural barriers to collaboration between 

science and education departments.  School 

Science and Mathematics, 102, (6), 285-298.  

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional 

development schools:  Schools for developing 

a profession.  New York:  Teachers College 

Press.  

Girgus, J. S. (1994). Moving into the future: Next 

steps in the reform of undergraduate science 

education: The importance of collaboration. 

Paper written for Project Kaleidoscope 

Invitational Symposium on Dealing with 

Success: Administrative Challenges in 

Sustaining the Momentum for Reform. San 

Antonio, TX. http://www.pkal.org/ 

documents/MovingIntoTheFuture.cfm  

Goldston, D. & Bland, J. (2002). Trailing Halley’s 

Comet:  Transforming science, mathematics, 

and technology education through 

interdisciplinary collaborations in higher 

education. School Science and Mathematics 

Association, 102(6), 241-249. 

John-Steiner, V. (2000).  Creative Collaborations.  

New York, Oxford University Press.  

Laursen, S. L., Thiry, H., & Hunter, A.-B. (2008). 

Professional development for education-

engaged scientists: A research-based 

framework. In Garmany, C. D., and Gibbs, M. 

G. (eds.), EPO and a Changing World: 

Creating Linkages and Expanding 

Partnerships, ASP Conference Series. San 

Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 

Lester, S. (1999).  An introduction to 

phenomenological research.  Stan Lester 

Developments, Inc. http://www.sld.demon. 

co.uk/resmethy.pdf. 

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985).  Naturalistic 

inquiry. London: Sage.  

Louchs-Horsely, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & 

Stiles, I. (1998).  Designing professional 

development for teachers of science and 

mathematics.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 

Press.  

Loucks-Horsley, S. & Matsumoto, C. (1999).  

Research on professional development for 

teachers of mathematics and science:  The state 

of the scene. School Science and Mathematics 

Association, 99(5), 258-271. 

Moolenaar, N., Sleegers, P., & Daly, A. (2012). 

Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, 

collective efficacy, and student achievement. 

Teacher and Teacher Education, 28(2) 251-

262. 

Narum,J. L. (1991). What Works: Building Natural 

Science Communities. Cedar Rapids, IA:  

Stamats Communications. 

The Nation’s Report Card (2011). Science 2011. 

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_20

11/summary.aspx 

The Nation’s Report Card (2015). Science 2015. 

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov 

Pushkin, D. (2008).  Planting seeds:  The influence 

of college science teaching on the next 

generation of science teachers.  Journal of 

College Science Teaching, 38 (2) 14-15.  

Robelen, E. (2011).  Proficiency eludes U.S. 

students on science NAEP.  Education Week.  

http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg2a.htm
http://www.pkal.org/%20documents/MovingIntoTheFuture.cfm
http://www.pkal.org/%20documents/MovingIntoTheFuture.cfm
http://www.sld.demon/
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2011/summary.aspx
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2011/summary.aspx
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/


97 
 

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/01/2

5/10naep_ep.h30.html. 

Sunai, D., Hodges, J., Sunai, C, Whitaker, K., 

Freeman, M., Edwards, L. et al. (2001).  

Teaching science in higher education: faculty 

professional development and barriers to 

change. School Science and Mathematics 

Association, 101 (5), 246-257. 

Tanner, K., Chatman, L., and Allen, D. (2003).  

Approaches to Biology Teaching and 

Learning: Science Teaching and Learning 

Across the School-University Divide – 

Cultivating Conversations through Scientist-

Teacher Partnerships, Cell Biology Education, 

Vol. 2, Winter. 

  

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/01/25/10naep_ep.h30.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/01/25/10naep_ep.h30.html


98 
 

Appendix 1 

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 11th   

To:   Science Faculty  

Cc:   College Deans and Department Chairs 

Subject: Middle-level science teacher prep 

 

Dear Science Educators, 

 

As you recall, last spring we met to discuss a potential model middle level science teacher preparation 

program at SHSU.  We appreciated your input, ideas, expertise, and positive response towards this 

endeavor.  Even though we have all been extremely busy with NCATE accreditation, conferences, 

teaching, and research efforts, we have managed to find some time to move forward with this project, 

incorporating your input from last spring.  We are now to the point that we have a number of items 

ready for discussion and further input. 

 

Over the past two years, interested faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) and the 

College of Education (COE) have been working together to strengthen an almost non-existent middle 

level science teacher preparation program at SHSU.  We are in the initial stages of designing five new 

science courses targeted specifically to middle school science teacher candidates.  Our goal is to align 

the five courses to the TCCRS and at the same time further develop the courses at the scope & 

sequence level.  Our plan is to invite a talented COAS faculty from physics, geology, biology and 

chemistry with a science educator from COE to align the Texas College and Career Readiness 

Standards for Science (TCCRS) with the new innovative, interdisciplinary science content 

courses.  The TCCRS will serve as a framework and provide a necessary infrastructure for as these 

new science courses as they come to fruition. We are proposing a standalone 4-8 Science Program in 

which we recruit earlier in their program to turn teacher candidates on to science, strengthen science 

content knowledge with additional courses specialized for middle level education; and align content of 

those courses with what these students are expected to teach (Science for all Americans, National 

Science Teachers Association standards, the TCCRS, and the TEKS framework for middle school 

science). 

 

The second item for your consideration is a proposed sequence of courses for this program (see 

attached file “program proposal”).  Briefly, we propose two, 3-credit hour freshmen level 

interdisciplinary courses, one each, 4-credit hour upper level course in Biology, Geology and Physics, 

and four freshmen level courses already offered by our science departments.  This proposal is based 

on the new TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) framework for middle school science.  The 

new TEKS focus primarily on physical science, life science, and earth and space science. What we 

hope to discuss with you is whether you feel that our proposed sequence of courses adequately 

addresses these standards and based on these standards if you feel we should also include an upper 

level chemistry course in the proposed course sequence. I have attached an electronic copy of the new 



99 
 

TEKS. 

 

We have developed a VERY preliminary scope and sequence for the two new freshmen level courses 

using the TEKS as a guideline and based on the text book “The Sciences: An Integrated Approach” 

5th ed. by Trefil and Hazen, 2007.  I have attached draft forms for these two courses and we are 

hoping to discuss our ideas with you. 

 

If you are interested in continuing the discussion about creating an excellent program for middle-level 

science education, please let me know if you are available for a meeting either November 17th or 

December 1st at 3:30 PM in the COAS dean’s conference room.  Also, please invite any other faculty 

in your departments that you feel would be interested in pursuing the development of such a program. 

 

Thank you so much for your consideration.  We look forward to hearing from you soon. 

 

Cheers 

 

 

Appendix 2 

 

Hello all, 

 

We hope that your semester is off to a great start and that you are ready to continue discussing middle-

level science teacher preparation.  We feel that the discussion thus far has been very productive (and 

provocative at times) and are eager to start developing a plan.  To that end, I have attached a 

document outlining some ideas stemming from our initial discussions. Through continued discussions, 

we would like to have the foundation laid for a middle-level science teacher preparation program by 

the end of the semester.  Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you are available for a 

meeting on Monday February 8th at 3 p.m. to discuss the attached document. 

 

All the Best. 

  



100 
 

Appendix 3 

 

To:  The Science Collaborative Team 

From:  Geology Department 

Date:  November 20th  

Subject: Middle School Science Teacher Preparation 

CC:  Science Department Chairs 

 Please see my attached response. It is meant to be provocative. 

Permit us to offer some comments by way of a follow-up from Tuesday’s meeting as well as response to 

Science Department Chair memo of November 19th.  

 

Scientific Literacy 

 Obviously, I endorse the basic thesis of the memo: the underlying copout that pervades, so it 

seems, the whole of science teacher preparation is a continuing scandal – both institutionally and 

nationally. Ultimately the solution to the ills of all levels of science education – but particularly K-12 – is 

to actually impose some real rigor. Colleges of Education must seek to move beyond the Detroit model 

(viz: ill-trained, border line illiterate students churned out like so many irrelevant gas guzzling monster 

SUVs that are justified in terms of “volume” rather than anything that connects with relevance or 

modernity or real rigor.) As far as I am concerned only the highest possible standards should be 

acceptable in terms of preparing students for the critical task of teacher training – offering contentless or 

dumbed-down (“for non-science…”) or baby math courses (here I do not include customized math course 

such as the X8X course) should not be an option for any prospective teacher, no matter the grade they 

intend to teach.  

 While I strongly endorse the concept of a science facility that addresses the specific needs of 

middle school teachers I also feel that to only focus on this grade range is to apply the Band Aid a tad too 

late: the damage has already been done to school children by equally limited elementary teachers who are 

perhaps even more math and science phobic. If colleges of education are to genuinely attempt to deal with 

the crushing scientific and mathematical illiteracy of teachers they will have to revise their requirements 

for all teachers. Given the dependency of the United States on science and technology it is beyond my 

comprehension that critically important elementary teachers are to all intents and purposes little better 

than the modern equivalent of those wonderful ladies that populated the dame schools and the single room 

schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: kind to children, competent at instilling basic values 

but woefully undereducated when it comes to science and mathematics. It is this part of the educational 

system that instills the basic malaise of math and science phobia. Elementary teachers who encounter such 

a shallow education in science and mathematics beget future generations of young people who are 

wonderfully motivated to teach but who lack a solid half of what is now required of modern teachers. 

That being said I do admire the clever approach at relevant customization that underpins our existing 

Math Education approach. I think we can and should respond positively to its transfer to Science. 

 

Science Education Resource Center (SERC) 



101 
 

I support the notion of the development of some form of Science facility to be housed in the College of 

Arts and Sciences. While a model based on the present configuration of Math Education seems desirable 

there are some serious challenges to a simple copy. Math is a single discipline. The sciences are 

necessarily all different. Thus, they need a more complex system of loose affiliation that leads to a 

meaningful amalgam composed of different, mutually respectful, disciplines. My colleagues suggest a 

hub-like configuration and propose a notion of a “Science Education Resource Center”.   

The Center might offer courses in its own right – content loaded Science Foundation Course(s) including, 

perhaps SCI courses such as the existing Fundamentals of Sciences courses that appear to me to be ill-

housed in individual discipline departments; cross-listed science discipline courses; or upper level 

capstone course(s). The Center would also provide to the scientific disciplines insight and guidance as to 

how best to customize their content, order, pacing, etc. that would best service the specific pedagogical 

interface needs of this program. However I do not foresee the educational weak dog wagging the 

scientific tail. 

 

Geoscience course offerings 

As Chemistry Chair noted, Geology and Geography do not offer “not for science majors” courses. All of 

our introductory level courses (GEL132/112 Geological Hazards; 133/113 Physical Geology; 134/114 

Historical Geology; GEO 131/111 Weather and Climate) exist as part of the science core and are used to 

various degrees as prerequisites for upper level courses in the majors. It would be a relatively simple task 

for us to identify and customize either individual sections for 6-8 science teachers or to engineer 

combined courses (for example, our reading of Texas College and Career Readiness Standards appears to 

demand  not just an introduction to Physical Geology (GEL133/113) but also to Historical Geology 

GEL134/114) and also to Weather and Climate (GEO131/111). Perhaps three full individual courses from 

a single discipline would be unfair to the other disciplines and it may perhaps be better to think about a 

combined foundation course in Earth (Geological) Science (GEL133/134). 

Beyond the introductory foundation level we might contemplate a selection of existing and new courses 

that would reflect the sort of structure outlined (by our chemistry professor) on Tuesday – rigorous 

content-heavy courses that also specifically bridge down to the limited foundation provided by the 100-

level courses. In the development of the detailed content of these courses we envisage some significant 

guidance and nudging from our science educator to make them sensitive not only to our particular 

scientific discipline but also to the customized needs of grades 6-8 teachers-to-be. Our broad, possibly 

integrated, focus for all three grades but specifically for Grade 8 requirements would be on Earth Cycles. 

To this end we are cogitating (!) the following: 

 

Page 3 

Existing Courses:  

GEL 330 Oceanography Already directed at an education and/or general science audience 

    Could be adapted to deal more directly with Ocean/Atmosphere cycles 

    Already contains a Human impacts component 

New Courses: 

GEL 38X Earth Cycles Biogeochem (C; S, O, Hydro, etc.) cycles in space and time 



102 
 

    Rock/Wilson Cycles 

    Human impacts and influences 

 

GEO 38Y Climate Cycles Global Climate Change 

    Biogeography 

    Human impacts and influences 

 

Both Geography and Geology would like to be active players if this proposal moves forward. We 

foresee a symbiotic linkage for certain new courses that would service both a Science Education purpose 

and, perhaps, also a major(?)/minor purpose. However, like Chemistry Chair, we are presently at, indeed 

beyond, capacity with faculty already teaching overloads in order to accommodate our basic major/minor 

teaching responsibilities. For the time being I doubt that any contribution that we might make will amount 

to much more than applause from the sidelines! For this idea to move forward into reality will, I suspect, 

need some senior level input to reallocate certain faculty resources. 

 


