Exploring a school-aquarium collaboration

27 Pages·2009·0.16 MB·English

SCIENCE LEARNING IN EVERYDAY LIFE
LynnD.DierkingandJohnH.Falk,SectionCoeditors
Exploring a School–Aquarium
Collaboration: An Intersection
of Communities of Practice
JAMESF.KISIEL
CaliforniaStateUniversity,LongBeach,CA90840,USA
Received9January2008;revised12February2009;accepted18February2009
DOI10.1002/sce.20350
Publishedonline6April2009inWileyInterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT:Thisstudyexaminesthedevelopmentandongoingactivitiesofacollabo-
rationbetweenanurbanelementaryschoolandanearbyaquarium.Althoughthebenefits
of such collaborations in support of science education are touted by numerous national
organizations,thepathwaytocreatingasuccessfulrelationshipbetweenthesetwodifferent
institutions, with inherently different cultures, is less well documented. Using the theo-
retical framework of communities of practice (E. Wenger, 1998), a better understanding
ofthechallengesandsuccessesofthiscollaborationispresented.Inparticular,theanal-
ysissuggeststhatparticipantengagementinbothcommunities(schoolandaquarium)led
to the development of an overlap in these communities of practice. This resulted when
common forms of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire emerged
overthecourseoftheproject.ConsistentwithWenger’sframework,boundaryobjectsand
brokerscouldbeidentifiedthathelpedsecuresuchoverlapinthisparticularcase.Impli-
cationsofthistheoreticalperspectiveforfacilitatingthedevelopmentofsuchinstitutional
collaborationsarealsodiscussed. (cid:2)C 2009WileyPeriodicals,Inc.SciEd94:95–121,2010
Correspondenceto:JamesF.Kisiel;e-mail:[email protected]
(cid:2)C 2009WileyPeriodicals,Inc.
96 KISIEL
INTRODUCTION
ThePossibilitiesofCollaborationBetweenSchools
andInformalScienceInstitutions
Scienceeducatorsandpolicymakersrecognizetheimportanceofusinginformallearning
contextstosupportscienceinstruction.TheNationalScienceEducationStandards(NSES)
suggest that “the classroom is a limited environment. The school science program must
extendbeyondthewallsoftheschooltotheresourcesofthecommunity”(NationalResearch
Council,1996,p.221).TheNSES,alongwiththeNationalScienceTeachersAssociation
(1998)andtheauthorsoftherecentreportAmerica’sPressingChallenge(NationalScience
Board, 2006), all identify museums and science centers, as well as universities, industry,
andtheenvironmentasresourcesthatcancreateandfosterlearningopportunitiesinK-12
science.Thisneedtoestablishconnectionswithout-of-schoolresourcesisfurtheridentified
bytheInstituteofMuseumandLibraryServices(IMLS,2005),whichrecognizestheneed
to“buildafabricofsocialagenciesthatfacilitateslifelonglearningamonglearnersofall
ages and circumstances. This fabric should weave together all institutions ...including
schools,librariesandmuseums—intoa‘seamlesslearninginfrastructure”’(p.7).
Explicitpartnershipsbetweeninformalscienceinstitutions(ISIs)andschoolsaremore
the exception than the rule, however, as most interactions between these institutions are
less formalized and primarily dependent on the actions of individual teachers (Bevan &
Semper,2006).ItistheteacherwhomusttypicallynegotiatebetweenISIandschoolsettings
to access and use the variety of resources provided by the informal learning institution,
effectively blend them into the curriculum, and ultimately create a successful learning
opportunity for the class. It is important to recognize that there is a body of evidence,
muchofitfocusingonschoolfieldtrips,indicatingthatschool–ISIinteractionscanindeed
support student learning and that certain pedagogical strategies can be used for creating
beneficialsciencelearningexperiences(see,e.g.,Anderson&Lucas,1997;Bamberger&
Tal,2007;Falk,Martin,&Balling,1978;Gennaro,1981;Griffin,1994;Kubota&Olstad,
1991; Orion, 1993; Rennie & McClafferty, 1995; Storksdieck, Werner, & Kaul, 2005).
Severalstudiessuggest,however,thattheseresearcheffortsarenoteffectivelyinforming
teacherpracticewithinthemuseumsetting(Anderson,Kisiel,&Storksdieck,2006;DeWitt
& Storksdieck, 2008; Griffin & Symington, 1997; Kisiel, 2005, 2007; Storksdieck et al.,
2005). Furthermore, recent studies suggest that science museum resources are generally
underused by the teachers they hope to serve (Bevan, 2007; Finkelstein, 2005; Phillips,
Finkelstein, & Wever-Frerichs, 2007) and that external factors such as rising costs and
accountabilityconcernsarelikelyinfluencingteacherandschoolparticipation(Anderson
etal.,2006;DeWitt&Storksdieck,2008).
Examining“Formal”Partnerships
Although the pairing of the formal and informal learning contexts may prove to be
challenging,therearenumerousexamplesofmuseumsandschoolcollaborations.Although
the term “museum–school” may have different meanings in different contexts, science
centers and museums such as the St. Louis Science Center, the American Museum of
Natural History, and the institutions located in Balboa Park in San Diego (just to name
a few) have all established unique programs that involve collaboration between schools
andinformallearninginstitutions(Bevan&Semper,2006;Klein,Corse,Grigsby,Hardin,
&Ward,2001;Pumpian,Wachowiak,&Fisher,2006).Documentationofsuchmuseum–
schoolcollaborationssuggestsseveraldifferentformatsorapproaches.Teacherresidency
programs provide teachers with an opportunity to work at the informal institution as a
ScienceEducation
EXPLORINGASCHOOL–AQUARIUMCOLLABORATION 97
formofprofessionaldevelopment,assistinginbuildingtheircontentknowledgeaswellas
awarenessofthesiteasateachingresource.Similarly,themoredirectteacherprofessional
developmentprogramssituatetheISIsasprovidersofsciencecontentandpedagogy.More
extensiveschool–museumcollaborationsofteninvolvecurriculummodificationsuchthat
the museum experiences are woven into the classroom learning objectives. These efforts
may involve bringing students to the museum, as in the School in the Park program in
whichelementaryschoolstudentsfromalocalschoolparticipateinanelaboratecurriculum
based on the resources of a group of institutions, including the San Diego Zoo, the San
Diego Natural History Museum, the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center, and several other
local museums (Pumpian et al., 2006). Alternatively, such a collaboration might involve
a combination of museum visitors to the school in addition to field trips to the museum
site. Although not a science institution, the Guggenheim’s Learning Through Art (LTA)
program brought teaching artists into classrooms as a way to supplement both art and
literacyeducation(RandiKorn&Associates,2007).
Althoughtherearenumerousexamplesofsuchpartnerships,thereislimiteddocumen-
tation of the successes, impacts, and even challenges encountered in establishing such
relationships.Althoughmanyreportpositiveoutcomesforstudents,anddescribemodels
forparticularcurriculumcomponents,alimitednumberofstudiesexamineimpactsonkey
stakeholderssuchasteachersorISIeducators.InherdiscussionoftheSchoolinthePark
program,Ross(2006)indicatesthatparticipatingelementaryschoolteachersindicatedthat
theyhaddevelopedanappreciationforthescienceresourcesofferedatthevariousmuse-
ums and even gained confidence inteaching science intheir own classroom. Randi Korn
&Associates (2007) showed thatteachers participating intheLTA program similarlyre-
ported increased comfort and ability for teaching art topics, as well as an increase in art
teachingintheirclassroom.DavidandMatthews(1995)alsoreportedthatelementaryand
middleschoolteachersparticipatinginamuseum’sTeacherInternshipProgramforScience
reportedbothincreasedcomfortinscienceteachingandincreasedtimeteachingscience.
Intheirinvestigationofaschool–universitypartnership,LeuhmannandMarkowitz(2007)
described a similar collaborative program in which university staff visited schools and
studentslaterconductedseveralinvestigationswhilevisitingauniversityteachinglabora-
tory.Teachersinvolvedinthiscollaboration,whichinvolvedprofessionaldevelopmentand
planningwithuniversityeducators,reportedasenseofvalidationintheirscienceteaching;
thatis,theyfelttheexperiencehelpedconnectwhattheydoinclasstowhatrealscientists
dointherealworld.Rahm(2006)notedasimilarimpactinthatteachersparticipatingin
amuseum–schoolcollaborationappreciatetheabilitytoparticipateinscienceratherthan
beingpassiveconsumersofscientificknowledge.
Several studies suggest that the differences in culture between schools and ISIs must
be taken into account when examining collaborations across such learning or teaching
contexts.IntheirstudyofprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsofferedbyISIs,Astor-Jack,
Balcerzak,andMcCallie(2006)notedthattheproviderstheyinterviewedrecognizedthe
importanceofnotonlycreatingprogramsthatwerecongruentwithclassroompractice(e.g.,
matchedwithstandards,relatedtotesting)butalsomatchingtheseneedswiththeirstaff’s
comfort in teaching such science topics. In their preliminary study of another museum–
school program, Klein et al. (2001) suggest that looking at such a partnership requires
recognizingthattherearetwoculturesinvolved,thatoftheschoolandthatoftheISI.They
identifiedseveralareasinwhichtheseculturesbeganto“merge,”suchasthedevelopmentof
asharedlanguageandtheunderstandingorawarenessofeachpartner’sresources.DeWitt
andOsborne(2007)alsonotetheimportanceofrecognizingculturaldifferencesbetween
schools and ISIs in their discussion of science field trips. In their paper, they suggest
a Framework for Museum Practice (FMP), based in part on cultural-historical activity
ScienceEducation
98 KISIEL
theory, which can help guide museum practitioners in establishing stronger relationships
with schools and teachers. One of the leading principles of FMP involves adopting the
perspectiveoftheteacher,suggestingthat“theteacher’sperceivedneedsforresources,his
orheragendaorgoalsfortheschooltrip,andthecontextinwhichheorsheoperatesshould
beaprimaryconsideration”(DeWitt&Osborne,2007,p.689).Theauthorsfurthersuggest
that because teachers and museum educators operate in different contexts, with different
responsibilities, rules, and constraints, creating resources for teachers requires museum
educatorstounderstandandappreciatetheteacher’scontext.Studiesofteacher–museum
interactionsillustratethepotentialgapbetweenmuseumeducatorandteacherexpectations
formuseum-basedlearningexperiencesand,asDeWittandOsbornesuggest,underscore
the importance of understanding the context of the “other” institution when creating or
sustainingsuchprograms(Tal&Steiner,2006;Tran,2006).
CommunitiesofPractice
Tobetterunderstandthechallengesinherentinteacheruseofinformalsciencesettings
andexplorethedifferencesin“culture”betweenISIsandschools,itmaybeusefultoreframe
the discussion in terms of communities of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe a
communityofpracticeasa“setofrelationsamongpersons,activity,andworld,overtime
and in relations with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (p. 98).
Wenger (1998) further suggests that the coherence of a community of practice depends
on three dimensions: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Mutual
engagement refers to the actions and interactions that community members share. The
relationshipsamongcommunitymembersrelyonbothprofessionalandsocialinteractions
astheyengageinaparticularactivity.Forinstance,teachersatagivenschoolmayadhereto
similarcurriculargoals,interactwithsimilarstudents,andfollowparticularadministrative
procedures. This is not to suggest that everything is done exactly the same way but that
members of the community share a common practice overall—it is this set of common
tasks(i.e.,“directinstruction,”“takingattendance,”etc.)thatcreatescoherencewithinthe
community.Jointenterprise,anothercharacteristicofacommunityofpractice,isthesetof
goalsorrequirementsforthepractice,asdefinedandnegotiated,informally,bymembers
ofthecommunity.While“helpingstudents”maybealargepartofajointenterprisefora
communityofschoolteachers,othercomponentsmightinclude“gettingtoknowparents,”
“scoringwellonastandardizedtest,”etc.Finally,sharedrepertoirereferstotheresources
thatfacilitatepractice—tools,artifacts,definitions,andcommonexperiences,forexample.
It is important to note that although a community of practice can be defined by these
three characteristics, the resulting “social energy” may be positive or negative—it may
helpcommunitymemberstomakemeaningofnewsituationsor,conversely,restrictthem
fromseeingbeyondtheexperiencesthatdefinethepractice.Itisnotsurprising,then,that
implementing change may be challenging, as it may require modification of the actions,
interactions,goals,andresourcesthatdefineacommunityofpractice.
CollaborationsasOverlappingCommunities
Asuccessfulcollaborationorpartnershipbetweenformalandinformallearninginstitu-
tions would involve creating connections between two communities of practice for some
desiredoutcomeorgoal.Ifweframesuchacollaborationastheintersectionoftwocom-
munitiesofpractice,thenwemustconsiderwhatfactorsmightfacilitateandsustainsuch
overlap. Wenger suggests that overlap occurs when two separate communities share a
commonpracticebutstillretaindistinctenterprisesanddistinctpractices.Thisconnection
or overlap between communities of practice is made possible through boundary objects
ScienceEducation
EXPLORINGASCHOOL–AQUARIUMCOLLABORATION 99
andbrokers.Boundaryobjectsarethosethings,documents,terms,andartifacts,thathelp
organizeinterconnectionsbetweencommunitiesofpractice.Brokersarethosepeoplewho
facilitateconnectionbyintroducingaspectsofonepracticetoanother.Itwouldseem,then,
thatasuccessfulcollaborationnotonlywouldrelyonclarifyingthepotentialboundaries
betweenthesecommunitiesofpracticebutwouldalsodependontheintroductionofappro-
priateboundaryobjectsaswellastheutilizationofbrokeringtomakefruitfulconnections.
ConnectingAquariumandSchool
In the fall of 2004, the executive director of a large nationally accredited aquarium
approached school district administrators and the principal of the newly opened King
ElementarySchool(pseudonym),locatedjustblocksaway,withaproposalofestablishing
a partnership between the two institutions. King Elementary School serves more than
500 students, Grades K–5, from the local neighborhood and is part of a middle-to-large
school district that serves 92,000 K–12 students in 95 schools. The student body of this
TitleIdesignatedschoolismadeofupprimarilyminoritystudents(75%Latinoand20%
AfricanAmerican)andisservedby25teachers(althoughthisnumberhaschangedslightly
since the study was conducted). Teacher experience ranged from first-year teachers to
33-yearveterans,althoughmorethanhalf(atthestartofthecollaboration)reportedbeing
in the classroom for less than 3 years. Despite the disproportionate number of novice
teachersatthisschool,allteachersencounteredsomenoveltyduringtheinitialyearofthe
project,astheywerefacedwithorientingthemselvestonewfacilities,newcolleagues,and,
formany,anewstudentpopulation.
Theaquarium,locatedinanurbancenterinCalifornia,servesmorethan1millionvisitors
peryearincludingnearly250,000schoolchildren.Theeducationdepartmentconsistedofan
educationdirector,sevenfull-timestaff,andnumerouspart-timestaffandvolunteers.The
aquariuminstructorsareresponsibleforthedevelopmentandimplementationofavariety
of educational programs, including aquarium-based classes and auditorium programs for
visitingschoolgroupsandpreschoolclasses,familyprograms,anda“mobileaquarium”that
takestouchtankstoschoolsacrosstheregion.Allsevenofthefull-timestaffparticipated
intheKingElementarySchoolcollaboration.Oneoftheeducatorsservedastheprogram
coordinatorforthecollaborationandtheremainingaquariuminstructorswereassigneda
particulargradelevel(K–5)thattheywouldworkwithovertheschoolyear.
Thebroadgoalforthiscollaborationprojectwastoutilizeaquariumresourcestoenhance
scienceeducationattheneighboringelementaryschool.Theproximityoftheschooltothe
aquarium (a 15-minute walk) made the collaboration even more desirable, as it reduced
logisticalconcerns(suchastransportation)and,moreimportantly,exemplifiedparticipation
andpartnershipwithinthisurbancommunity.
As part of this program, all classes were given free access to the aquarium, including
entry to the aquarium, as well as additional aquarium programming (classes, tours, etc.)
which would normally require a fee. A second component of the collaboration included
theimplementationofanaquariumoutreachprogramwherebyaquariuminstructorsvisited
each classroom approximately eight times over the course of the year, providing 30- to
50-minutesciencelessonsattheschoolsite.Althoughmostoftheselessonswererelated
to marine science, efforts were also made to align them with the state science standards.
Allclasses at the school were required to participate in these aquarium outreach lessons.
In addition to these two main components, the arrangement provided free access to the
aquariumfortheteachers(freefamilymemberships),aswellasreducedcostadmissions
forstudentfamilies.Theaquariuminstructorsalsoparticipatedinothereventsattheschool
site,suchasopenhouseandback-to-schoolnight.
ScienceEducation
100 KISIEL
METHODS
Theprimaryobjectiveofthisexploratoryinvestigationwastoestablishabetterunder-
standingofthedevelopmentofacollaborationorpartnershipbetweenaschoolandanISI.
Threequestionswereusedtoguidetheinvestigation:
1. How do stakeholders react and adjust to the implementation of a new school–ISI
collaboration? In particular, in what ways do the cultures of school and aquarium
influencetheimplementationofthisnewcollaborativeeffort?
2. What are the characteristics of the collaboration that contribute to its stability and
successovertime?
3. Inwhatwaysdidtheprogramimpactstakeholdersandstudents?
Anembeddedcasestudyapproach(Yin,1994),involvingmultipleunitsofanalysis,was
used to examine the implementation of the collaboration and its impact on teachers and
students.Thisapproachallowedforexaminationofthesesubunitsofanalysis(e.g.,teachers
andaquariuminstructors),makingitpossibletobetterdescribethecomplexitiesofthecase
andsubsequentlyimprovestudyvalidity.Standardizedopen-endedinterviews,consisting
ofspecificquestionsfollowedbydeeperprobing(Gall,Borg,&Gall,1996;Patton,1990),
were used to gather information from teachers, administrators, aquarium instructors, and
programcoordinatorsinthespringofthefirstandsecondyearsoftheproject.Interviews
were conducted in the latter part of both the first and second years of the collaboration,
eachgenerallylasted30minutesandwasconductedatatimeandplaceconvenienttothe
interviewee(eithertheschoolortheaquarium).Severalteacherswereunabletomeetwith
the researcher in person for these interviews, but they were able to respond via a survey
consistingofopen-endedquestionssimilartothoseposedintheinterviews.Morethan50
schoolandaquariumeducatorinterviews(oropen-endedsurveys)wereconductedoverthe
2-yearperiod.
Thisparticularsituationprovidedauniqueopportunitytoexaminethedevelopmentand
refinement of a school–ISI partnership from the ground up. Few published studies have
examinedindetailsuchinteractionsbetweenformalandinformalinstitutions,andtherapid
implementationandlimitedstakeholderinvolvementinlinkingschoolandcommunitypart-
ner,asencounteredinthiscase,arenotuncommonoccurrencesinthisauthor’sexperiences.
Interviewprotocolsforthetwoprimarygroupsofstakeholders(teachersandaquarium
instructors) shared similar questions across five categories: science planning, lesson suc-
cess, other components of the collaboration, impacts, and suggestions for improvement.
Scienceplanningquestionsprovidedinformationrelatedtoteachers’frequencyofscience
instruction,aswellastheircurricularchoicesrelatedtoscience,includingboththeirschool
curriculumandtheaquarium-ledoutreachlessons.Aquariuminstructorswereaskedsimilar
questionsregardingtheirpreparationoftheoutreachlessons.Stakeholderswereaskedto
talk about the success of the outreach lessons (e.g., “How might you rate the success of
theseaquariumsessions?Whatmakesyousayso?Weretherelessonsyoumightconsider
‘unsuccessful’?Whydoyouthinktheydidnotwork?”)Anothersetofquestionsposedto
theclassroomteachersonlyrequiredthemtocommentonotheraspectsofthecollabora-
tion,includingfrequencyoffieldtripstotheaquarium,aswellasthekindofactivitiesthey
werelikelytodothere.Anothersetofquestionsforbothgroupsofstakeholdersaskedthem
tocommentonprogramimpactforallinvolved,includingstudents,classroomteachers,and
aquariuminstructors.Finally,bothaquariuminstructorsandclassroomteacherswereasked
toprovidesuggestionsforimprovingthecollaborationandsuggestionstocolleagueswho
might be embarking in a similar collaboration. These suggestions to colleagues provided
ScienceEducation
EXPLORINGASCHOOL–AQUARIUMCOLLABORATION 101
additionalinsightsintohowparticipantsadjustedtotheprogramandwhattheyfeltwasim-
portantforcreatingasuccessfulcollaboration.Protocolsforteacherandaquariumeducator
interviewsareprovidedinAppendicesAandB.
Interviews were conducted by the researcher, recorded via audiotape and transcribed
totext.Opencodingwasinitiallyusedtoidentifyrecurringthemesandpatternsobtained
from among the classroom teachers and aquarium instructors (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Thisqualitativemethodinvolvedcarefulexaminationoftheinterviewtranscriptstoexpose
the patterns of ideas and meanings found within the data. Wenger’s (1998) concept of
communityofpracticewasthenusedtohelporganizeandreframethesedataasawayto
betterdescribetheimplementationoftheprogram(ResearchQuestions1and2).Although
this is principally a qualitative analysis, frequencies of some responses are reported to
furtheremphasizeobservedoutcomeswhereappropriate.
Theanalysispresentedisderivedfromthedetailedresponsesofthedifferentstakehold-
ersinvolvedintheschool–aquariumcollaboration.Assuch,thevalidityofthefindingsthat
emergedfromthisqualitativeanalysiswasachievedprimarilythroughthetriangulationof
multipledatasources(Patton,1990).Commentsobtainedfrommembersofbothinstitutions
(theschoolandtheaquarium)atdifferenttimesduringthelifeoftheproject(Year1and
Year2)revealedconvergentdatathatwereusedtoeffectivelydescribeandprovideperspec-
tiveonthecaseexaminedhere.Validitywasalsosupportedviamemberchecksconducted
throughouttheproject(Isaac&Michael,1997).Preliminaryevaluationreportswereused
during both years of the study to provide information to participating stakeholders and
subsequently gather their feedback regarding the credibility of the findings. Several of
theparticipatingeducatorswerealsoinvitedtoexaminethefinalmanuscripttodetermine
whethertheanalysisandtheoreticalexplanationswereconsistentwiththeirexperiences.
Unlikeinvestigationsalignedwithmorequantitativeorexperimentaltraditions,natural-
isticinquiryreliesmoreheavilyontheinsightandinterpretationsoftheresearcheraswell
ashisorherabilitytogainaccesstotheculture(s)beingstudied(Isaac&Michael,1997;
Patton, 1990). Although not a direct participant in the activities of this collaboration, the
researcherwasabletousehisexperiencesasbothaformerteacherandaformermuseum
educator to effectively gain entry into these two communities. Such expertise does not
eliminate the need for validity checks but rather provides the potential for examining the
complexitiesandperspectivesofbothgroupsinamoreevenhandedmanner.
FINDINGS
CharacteristicsofCommunitiesofPractice
Responsesfromtheaquariuminstructorsandtheclassroomteachersrevealedimportant
characteristicsofthesetwocommunitiesofpractice.Althoughitisnotsurprisingthateach
group of educators functions within a somewhat different context, it is important to note
the differences as these have the potential to serve as boundaries between communities,
therebylimitingeffectiveconnectionbetweenpractices.
OverviewofSchoolCommunity. KingElementarySchoolfirstopeneditsdoorsinthe
fall of 2004, about the time of the institution of the new partnership with the aquarium.
During this time, teachers found themselves acclimating to a new school and, for some,
adifferentstudentpopulationcomparedwiththosethattheyhadworkedwithinthepast.
Muchoftheirenergywentintofamiliarizingthemselveswiththenewfacilitiesandtheir
new colleagues. All of the teachers at the school had full teaching credentials, although
theyhaddifferentnumbersofyearsofexperience.
ScienceEducation
102 KISIEL
Like many elementary schoolteachers across the country, these teachers continue to
face the pressures of accountability for student achievement within a test-driven curricu-
lum. They are aware of the importance of teaching all subjects but are required to fol-
low regimented language arts and mathematics curricula that take up at least half of the
day’s instructional time. This crowded curriculum, in turn, leads to real-time constraints
that limit instruction in other areas, such as science, social studies, health, and the arts.
Teachers at King Elementary typically reported teaching science 1 day each week for
30–60 minutes. While some teachers have recognized the need to blend science into the
languageartscurriculum,manyadmittedthatthisisnotalwaysfeasible,basedondiscon-
tinuity between language arts themes and science standards for a particular grade. One
teacherexplained,
It’sreallybeenkindofastretch[linkingtostandards]becausethesolarsystemdoesn’thave
toomuchofalinktotheaquarium.Theydiddoalunarcyclethingontides.Withenergy
therewasabigstretchtoo,Imeanit’sreallyhardtolink3rdgrade[science]curriculumto
theaquariumobjectives.(Teacher11,Year2)
Nearlyalloftheteachersinterviewed(90%)indicatedthatcurriculumdemandsandsub-
sequent time constraints limited their ability to teach science. The lack of time only ex-
acerbated the challenges of teaching science, as hands-on approaches require extra time
for preparation or even reviewing the content in cases in which the subject matter is less
familiar.Somefelttheaquariumlessonsreducedthetimepressure:
Ithinkit[theclassroomlessons]releasedalotofmytimefromhavingtopreparedifferent
experimentsordodifferentthings.SothathourIwasabletospendteachingcontent,and
shekindoflikedidtheapplicationorfollow-uppiece.(Teacher13,Year2)
Nevertheless, when asked about how the aquarium-led science sessions fit into their cur-
riculum,manyoftheteacherssawthemasadditionsorenhancementstotheircurriculum.
Theprimaryresponsibilityforinstructioninscience(aswithallothersubjects)remained
withtheteacher:
As the teachers, we will provide the majority of the instruction, or at least give the stu-
dentsahandfulofbackgroundinformation.Bythetimetheygettothatclassroom,it’sa
reallygoodchancetoreviewandreinforcethoseideas.Andthenallowthemtoapplyit.
(Teacher3,Year2)
OverviewofAquariumCommunity. As mentioned, each instructor was assigned to
a different grade level at King Elementary and worked with those particular teachers to
developanddeliverrelevantsciencelessons.Understandingthedynamicsofthepartnership
thereforerequiresunderstandingthecharacteristicsoftheaquariuminstructors’community
ofpractice.
Theseaquariuminstructorsareinvolvedinavarietyofactivitiesandprojectsfromday
to day and have been trained to lead many different educational programs. All regularly
teacheducationalprogramsattheaquariumdevelopedforvisitingschoolgroupsthattake
place in a special classroom or the aquarium auditorium. Instructors make use of many
artifacts, biological specimens, models, and other objects to engage students and deliver
marinesciencecontent.Mostoftheinteractionsthattheinstructorshavewithstudentsand
teachersattheaquariumarelimitedtoone-timeoccurrences:classescomeinfora30-to
50-minutepresentation,theinstructordeliversthelesson,andtheclassleaves.Thesesame
activities will be presented to many other groups, so unlike elementary schoolteachers,
ScienceEducation
EXPLORINGASCHOOL–AQUARIUMCOLLABORATION 103
whomaypresentthesamelessonfromyeartoyear,theinstructorsrepeatthesamelessons
numerous times, within the span of months or weeks. This repetition allows them to
refinethelessonandlearnhowtoadaptittoaudiencesoflearners.However,itmayalso
preclude them from developing instructional sequences that allows for reinforcement of
thoseconceptswithagroupoflearnersovertime.
Like the elementary schoolteachers, the aquarium instructors face time constraints, as
the same small group of instructors who lead school programs also oversee educational
programs for the general public and assist with the training of education volunteers. The
partnershipwithKingElementary,whichincludedthedevelopmentofnewgrade-specific
lessons,addedtothisalreadycrowdedlistofmultipleresponsibilitiesthatwasnotsignifi-
cantlyalteredtoaccommodatethechanges:
Wearealreadydoingsomuchhere.Couldtheyjustcometotheaquariumanddoclasses
here? The lack of feedback made it seem that the efforts weren’t appreciated.... Other
responsibilitiesdefinitelysuffered.Ihaven’thadanytimetoworkonanewschoolprogram
duenextfall.Theprogramwasanadditionalstrain,ontopofeverythingelse.(Aquarium
Instructor2,Year1)
Other instructors indicated that although the new partnership did take time away from
developmentormaintenanceofotherprograms,itdidprovideanotheroutletfornewand
creativeinstructionalapproaches.
Unliketheelementaryschoolteachers,theinstructorsjoinedtheaquariumwithavariety
ofbackgrounds.Allhavestrongscience(biologyormarinebiology)backgrounds,although
theyoftenhadlimitedformaleducationaltraining.Nevertheless,theseinstructorsrecognize
the importance of teaching and communicating positive attitudes toward science and the
environment.Oneinstructorcommentedthatsheliked“gettingkidsexcited.Ienjoymost
the look on their face when they learn something new, amazing, unbelievable. I like to
shock and excite the kids with this new information” (Aquarium Instructor 8, Year 1).
Anotherinstructorremarkedthatshewantedto“helpstudentstobecomestewardsofthe
ocean. I have a passion for the ocean, and I want to tell everyone about it, to help them
see its importance, and the importance of caring for it” (Aquarium Instructor 5, Year 1).
Suchaffectiveobjectivesareanimportantpartoftheaquariuminstructors’motivationfor
teaching—working in a nonschool setting may allow these objectives to occupy a more
prominentplaceintheirpractice.
Indescribingthiscommunityofaquariuminstructors,itisimportanttonotethatmuchof
theirpracticeinvolvesprovidingformalpresentationstoschoolgroupsorgeneralvisitors.
Thesepresentations,whetherconductedinschool-likesettingssuchastheaquariumclass-
roomorauditorium,orontheaquariumfloor,asmini-lectures,orone-on-onediscussions,
followasomewhatdefinedstructure.Thus,althoughthecontextisquitedifferentthanthe
typicalclassroom,thepracticeofthiscommunityofaquariuminstructorsismoreakinto
formalinstructionratherthaninformalorfree-choicelearning.Screven(1986)categorizes
informallearningastypicallyself-paced,voluntary,andexploratory.Informallearningis
alwayslearner-centered—thelearnerchoosestoobserve,discuss,orparticipateinwhatever
wayheorsheseesfit.FalkandDierking(2000)typicallyrefersuchlearningasfree-choice
learning, emphasizing the importance of the individual’s interest and motivation in this
learning context. These aquarium instructors are not really promoting learner choice, as
studentsarepresentedaparticulartopicanddonotreallyhavetheabilitytochoosewhether
ornottheywillbeapartoftheaudienceoflearners.Thisdoesnotdevaluethepracticeof
theaquariuminstructorsbutsimplyclarifieswhatitisthattheydo.Acomparisonofthese
differentcommunitiesofpracticeissummarizedinTable1.
ScienceEducation
104 KISIEL
TABLE1
CharacteristicsoftheTwoCommunitiesofPractice
ElementaryTeachers AquariumInstructors
Pressuresofaccountability,test-driven Contentguidesinstruction,desiretoinspire
curriculum orexcitestudents
Faceacrowded,multisubjectcurriculum, Conductonlyscienceinstruction,
emphasisonreading,languagearts,and object-basedapproaches
mathematics
Teachavarietyofsubjects,mayormaynot Comfortableandexcitedaboutteaching
becomfortableteachingscience science;mostcomefromascience
backgroundbuthavelimitededucational
training
Workwithsamestudentsoverthecourseof Workwithstudentsandteachersona
ayear limitedbasis,typicallyaone-shot
encounter
Responsibilitiesarefocusedonaspecific Responsibilitiesaresplitamongmultiple
groupoflearnerswithspecificdesired programsforavarietyoflearners
outcomes
Newaquarium-ledlessonsareanaddition Partnershipactivitiesaddedtoalready
totheirsciencecurriculum heavyloadofresponsibilitiesforasmall
groupofinstructors
ChallengesofCollaboration
CommunicationBetweenCommunities. Both aquarium instructors and teachers fre-
quently cited communication difficulties when asked about challenges or weaknesses of
differentaspectsofthepartnership.Infact,morethantwothirdsoftheteachers(interviewed
in Year 2) suggested that communication was a critical piece necessary for collaboration
success.Fortunately,andperhapsnotsurprisingly,thesecommunicationissuesdiminished
asthepartnershipgrew.
Attheendofthefirstyear,teachersindicatedthattheyfrequentlywerenotsureofwhatto
expectduringtheschool-basedaquariumlessons,especiallyduringthefirstyear.However,
mostwerepleasedwiththelessonsthatwereconducted.Onecommented,“Ireallyhadno
cluewhattoexpect.Ijustwantedtowaitandsee—Iwaspleasantlysurprised”(Teacher9,
Year1).
Teachers often expressed concern over not receiving a fleshed out lesson plan prior to
the session, as this would have allowed them to preteach or address potentially difficult
vocabularyaheadoftime:
Iwouldhavelikedtohavegoneoverthelessonbefore[thevisit],tomakesurethatstudents
knowthevocabularyandbasicideas.IfI’dbeenabletoseetheplans,Iwouldhavebeen
abletoreviewitbefore.(Teacher13,Year1)
Weoftengetourlessonslate.Andlikeeveryoneelse’sscheduleisbusy,Iknowandtheirs
aswell.ButifwegetanemailonFriday,and[theinstructoris]goingtoteachitonTuesday,
itdoesn’tgiveusenoughtimetogivefeedback....Ifwewanttoreadthem,digestit,make
changes, give it back to [the instructor] to make changes, you’re looking at a two-week
cycle.(Teacher18,Year2)
Althoughascheduleoftopicswasprovidedtotheaquariuminstructorsearlyintheyearas
theydevelopedlessonsfortheclasses,thistimingofthetopicsdidnotalwaysmatchthe
timingofthecurriculum,whichdecreasedthepotentialimpactofthelessons.
ScienceEducation