Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 29, NUMBER 2, 2012-2013

ENHANCING SUCCESS WITH IOWA CHAUTAUQUA WHEN CONSIDERING DISTRIBUTED SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: HOW IT HELPS AND HINDERS STUDENT LEARNING!
Robert E. Yager University of Iowa Stuart O. Yager Western Illinois University

ABSTRACT
School principals are often leaders who control budgets, interact with Boards of Education, and coordinate the curriculum. Teachers are often lonely and in charge only of their own classrooms and students. This is a study to illustrate how collaboration involving teachers and principals can improve schools and result in student use of personal and societal issues which can be used to improve student learning. It ties research from Connecting Learning Assures successful Students (CLASS) to results with reforms in science arising from Iowa Chautauqua. Teaching outcomes change and encourage growth of programs that illustrate real science and identify problems and work toward solving them. Schools and communities benefit.

Introduction

onnecting Learning Assures Successful Students (CLASS) is a comprehensive instructional model for meeting reform efforts involving teachers, administrators, students, community leaders, and others. It was founded and conceived by Barbara Pedersen, a teacher and professional development provider in Indiana (2005). The CLASS Model provides a philosophy for improving teaching and learning arising from standards-based programs that characterize success with curriculum development that match specific goals. This is done using research-based teaching strategies which use constructs of brain-based learning that also
4

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

illustrate constructivist conceptions of learning. Brain-based learning is a dynamic multi-disciplinary approach to learning that is grounded in neuro-scientific research. It includes a set of principles and a base of knowledge and skills that assist educators in making sound decisions about the use and alignment of their teaching practices. These should be directly connected to the latest research on how the human brain functions. Such philosophy is enhanced and central to CLASS efforts; of utmost importance is the central belief that all students can learn. Further, given the proper environment and academic program, both teachers and students can strive for academic excellence in partnerships that can include all factions of the instructional and administrative staff of any district (Pedersen, 2005; NSDC, 2011; JSD, 2010). The involvement and support of school principals who experience CLASS in exemplary schools and classrooms have been compared to outcomes in schools where the model was not so successful. The importance of CLASS learning, when conducted in ways intended, indicate its potential, especially when investigating schools where it was found to be least successful compared with the ones which were most successful. It is possible to learn what went wrong and how solutions could be tried to correct the problems (Pedersen, Yager, S., Yager R. E., 2010; Yager, S., Pedersen, Yager, R. E., 2010). CLASS operated first in Indiana as well as in several other Midwestern States, including Iowa, where PD efforts have been carried out over multiple years as new efforts were funded and coordinated by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). One of the largest ten year-long Chautauqua effort was first offered and administered in Iowa at one of several states selected by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1989, 1990, 1993). It operated as a way to improve and update college science teaching. Several hundred schools and teachers have been involved across the whole nation with CLASS efforts. Similarly, Iowa Chautauqua has operated in several other states with funding from the National Science Foundation, Utilities Associations, and the U.S. Department of Education. Iowa Chautauqua has often served over 150 K-12 teachers per year in Iowa. Iowa

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

was one of five other states included in major funding by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (1983-1993) to offer Chautauquas for K-12 teachers across the State. New work is now underway to study the efforts resulting from the involvement of principals of the schools where Iowa Chautauqua workshops were offered, funded, and evaluated. Key Teacher Leaders who have become active in National reforms have worked for over a decade with NSTA Professional Development (PD) efforts simply called Iowa Chautauqua to designate the nature of the new national efforts and to note continuing efforts in Iowa 1990 to 2011 (Dass, 2011). Both CLASS and Chautauqua have expanded greatly and successfully in Iowa. Studying the degree of collaboration among teachers and principals has been a new development in the Iowa efforts which have enjoyed NSF funding with a variety of funding periods since 1981-- over 30 years of financial support. Chautauqua has involved science teachers in Iowa in successful ways of meeting the reforms outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES [NRC]) as finally published in 1996, after a decade of work and debate. Many in Iowa contributed to the development of the Science Standards which were designed to relate to the Mathematics Standards which were developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) earlier without any financial support from the governments. This study is an attempt to use the work and support of building principals for realizing even more successes in science programs in schools because of informed and successful school principals. Differences in the successes of science teachers enrolled in Chautauqua efforts without involvement or enthusiastic support of principals are compared with teacher teams in schools who have been successfully involved in reform programs for all teachers and other teaching staff for a whole district. In some instances where school principals functioned as key members and supporters for specific improvement efforts the research indicating successes was central to specific research and evaluation of CLASS. In 1995 Griffin reported on significant research which was used to consider problem areas and to indicate how CLASS eased or resolved them. These areas of concern identified by Griffin were related to results of CLASS efforts (Pedersen, Yager, S., & Yager, R.E. 2010; Yager, S., Pedersen, &

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Yager, R. E., 2010). Griffins report focused on changes needing attention and further study as CLASS efforts were undertaken. These changes became objectives for evaluation of CLASS efforts. Teacher Beliefs about Their own Competence Teachers often do not question their own pedagogical expertise. Results indicate that the teachers involved in an evaluation of CLASS do well in their interactions with their students, even though none of the teachers who were interviewed over the course of three years had any intimate knowledge of what occurs in specific classrooms. The Persistence of the Culture of Isolation Teachers cite the privacy of practice as a reason for not analyzing pedagogy as an aspect of shared decision-making. The culture is often described as one of isolation, where the principal, teacher leaders, and teachers do not inquire about what occurs in the individual classrooms due to respect for each other and the understanding that individual professionalism should not be questioned. Politesse Prevails Teachers are often uneasy to discuss teaching practices with colleagues because of the perception of hurt feelings or unwanted tensions among the staff. Griffin (1995) suggested that this action can be taken to stand for an absence of attention to what good teaching is or might be. Uncertainty about Excellence Teachers believe there are no grounded teaching models better than others. Further, teachers rarely discuss actual teaching methods -- meaning that there is no consensus concerning good teaching. They do not believe that some teaching practices could/should be considered better than others. Information and Decision-Making Overload Teachers believe that they are working at the limit of their time and

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

available enthusiasm. Taking on more school-wide issues and other decisionmaking duties are thought to require too much for them to function effectively. Griffin (1995) observed that little thought and attention has been given by teachers toward the effects of shared decision-making and collaborative efforts in furthering personal and professional growth regarding their instruction. Griffin suggested that the school culture plays a critical role in how effectively and efficiently school improvements can occur. As CLASS efforts were evaluated in terms of the problems identified by Griffin, procedures for differing results were identified both as ways of gaining more success with CLASS but also as ways of widening data collection plans. Although the Iowa Chautauqua Programs have operated on a continuing basis, an annual sequence of events describes the basic features which have been proposed as a model for use elsewhere (Brunkhorst, 2011, Chapter 14). The sequence of events for the Chautauqua Program includes: 1. A two-week leadership conference for 30 of the most successful teachers from previous years who become an essential part of the instructional team for summer workshops that result in as many as five specific workshops across the entire State each year;

2. Four week summer workshops offered in as many as five new sites each enrolling 30 new teachers electing to develop and willing to try new modules and strategies; the workshops provide experience with new instructional strategies where participating teachers are students. Time to plan at least one five-day mini-unit to be used with students in the fall after school opens is a major efforts; 3. Use of a five-day mini-unit that was planned in the summer for use in the classroom during September or early October; 4. The three day fall short course for 30-50 teachers (including the 30 enrolled at varying sites during the summer); the focus is upon developing a month long module and more extensive and varied assessment plans;

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

5. A series of interim communications with central staff, teacher leaders, and fellow participants, including a newsletter, special memoranda, monthly telephone contacts, and school/classroom visits; and 6. A three-day spring short course for the same 30-50 teachers who participated in the fall; this session focuses upon reports by participants concerning their experiences and the results of the assessment program which includes multiple Action Research projects often conceived and planned by the teachers and their students. Also, of importance, is a discussion of how whole courses for the enrolled teachers can change for the next academic year. Assessment of Iowa Chautauqua Successes in Six Domains of Science Learning The Chautauqua domains are goals for student learning which also become the domains for Assessment. Multiple assessments in each domain have been used in a variety of settings; some have been validated and published. Some have been identified by teachers as appropriate indicators of real learning by their own students. The assessments have been reported in many reports to the funding agencies over the years, including many to NSF (Blunck & Yager, 1996; Grawemeyer, 2003; Yager, Blunck, & Dunkel, 1994; Yager & McCormack, 1989, 2010). When looked at as an aggregated whole as in the bar graph (see Figure 1), successes are striking in all domains. But they are rarely attained in typical school science classrooms. It is evident that in each of the domains of science learning that the learning of students in the reformed classrooms excelled those in the parallel traditional classrooms; the one exception is the domain of Concept Mastery. One study done by fifteen 4th, 5th, and 6th grade experienced Chautauqua teachers from five school districts in Iowa was based on each teacher teaching one science section with traditional textbook approaches and the other section with the reform approach emphasizing science inquiry. Recognizing the potential effects influencing of the teachers behaviors favoring reform and perhaps a lingering Hawthorne effect, the combined results indicate obvious positive differences for inquiry classrooms in terms of all domains except concepts (Myers, 1992,

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

10

1996; Yager & Weld, 1999). Another study showed significant gains in content acquisition with the inquiry approach (Brunkhorst, 1992). Traditional teaching is known to have declining effects on the domains in which the reforms have shown strong results; areas of political and national concern affecting student choices to continue science studies and career development (Yager, Choi, Yager, Akcay, 2009; Ali, Yager, Haciemenoglu, & Caliskan, Under review).

Figure 1. Comparison of relative student growth in the six assessment domains for students in traditional (textbook-dominated) and reform-based sections. The school culture is certainly affected by the support and involvement of building principals which occurs with most Professional Development projects. However, little has been done in Iowa to investigate the effects of administrative support and/or the support and involvement of the whole faculty, parents, and community members where students are considered as vital partners in the reforms outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES). Some of the most successful teachers in Iowa Chautauqua (among the 15 to 20 Teacher Leaders active each year) work in as many as five sites across Iowa. They have been videotaped and are involved in

11

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

evaluating the whole Professional Development effort. However, while CLASS has been more commonly operating in many schools, little research has been undertaken, including that which focuses on the Iowa Chautauqua Teacher Leaders working together with the central administrative and districtwide staff. These new developments, however, come at a time when many Chautauqua Teacher Leaders have retired and/or have moved from Iowa or resigned completely from teaching careers. Some of these Teacher Leaders involved since 1981 have declined further involvement in Chautauqua because of some administrative staff trying to follow the No Child Left Behind legislation which focuses almost entirely on results on standardized tests. A study was recently undertaken in two of the most successful Chautauqua efforts which have new principals who have failed to support the reforms advocated in the National Science Education Standards (NSES). One recently had moved from a large textbook adoption state where the complete focus had been meeting the effects of specific content with virtually no support for the NSES goals, or emphases on teaching, and none regarding assessment as it relates to meeting NSES goals. Little is done to assure that every student has the experience of doing real science. In the case of one of these schools, one of the most noted Chautauqua teachers has moved to a position of teaching biology at a small college; another is looking for new employment. Iowa Chautauqua has taken seriously the reforms (More Emphasis Conditions) (NRC, 1996) concerning goals for teaching science, facets of reform teaching and professional development, and more specific assessment efforts all of concern Before tackling content areas and curriculum structures. These features for the needed reforms elaborated in the Standards include: 1) Teaching: 1) Understanding and responding to individual students interests, strengths, experiences, and needs; 2) Selecting and adapting curriculum; 3) Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes; 4) Guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiries; 5) Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students; 6) Continuously assessing student understanding (and

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

12

involving students in the process); 7) Sharing responsibility for learning with students; 8) Supporting a classroom community with cooperating, shared responsibility, and respect; and 9) Working with other teachers to enhance the science program (NRC, 1996, p. 27). 2) Professional Development: 1) Inquiry into teaching and learning; 2) Learning science through investigation and inquiry; 3) Integration of science and teaching knowledge; 4) Integration of theory and practice in school settings; 5) Collegial and collaborative learning; 6) Long-term coherent plans; 7) A variety of continuing professional development activities; 8) Mix of internal and external expertise; 9) Staff developers as facilitators, consultants, and planners; 10) Teacher as intellectual, reflective practitioner; 11) Teacher as producer of knowledge about teaching; 12) Teacher as leader; 13) Teacher as a member of a collegial professional community; and 14) Teacher as source and facilitator of change (NRC, 1996, p. 55). 3) Assessment: 1) Assessing what is most highly valued; 2) Assessing rich, well-structured knowledge; 3) Assessing scientific understanding and reasoning; 4) Assessing to learn what students do understand; 5) Assessing achievement and opportunities to learn; 6) Students engaged in ongoing assessments of their work and that of others; and 7) Teachers involved in the development of external assessments (NRC, 1996, p. 75). 4) Inquiry: For many, inquiry is another word for science itself. A supplement for the Standards focuses solely on inquiry. It defines inquiry as occurring when the: Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions; 2) Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions; 3) Learner formulates explanations from evidence; 4) Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge; 5) Learner communicates and justifies explanations (NRC, 2000, p. 29). 5) Programs: Science is part of the total program. The Standards indicate the following desirable features: 1) Coordinating the

13

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

development of the K-12 science program across grade levels; 2) Aligning curriculum, teaching, and assessment; 3) Allocating resources necessary for hands-on inquiry teaching aligned with the Standards; 4) Curriculum that supports the Standards, and includes a variety of components, such as laboratories emphasizing inquiry and field trips; 5) Curriculum that includes natural phenomena and science-related social issues that students encounter in everyday life; 6) Connecting science to other school subjects, such as mathematics and social students; 7) Providing challenging opportunities for all students to learn science; 8) Involving successful teachers of science in the hiring process; 9) Treating teachers as professionals whose work requires opportunities for continual learning and networking; 10) Promoting collegiality among teachers as a team to improve the school; and 11) Teachers as decision makers (NRC, 1996, p 209). Some recent experiences with the success of Iowa Chautauqua in nine schools illustrate problems between reforms in one facet of the whole school offerings (i.e., science) as they relate to school leadership as exemplified by nine principals how they differ in terms of support which advocates and defines reform teaching. The stories are meant to reinforce CLASS findings while suggesting ways of assuring more success in terms of student learning of science resulting from Chautauqua experiences. Iowa Stories for Reforms in Science Teaching and their Relationship to Distributed Leadership 1) Elementary Schools Joan is a creative teacher where students are number one. She and her students look for student questions, solutions, and issues that can be used to illustrate science (i.e., looking for examples of happenings in the lives of students). Instead of stopping a student who was late to class with his excuse being a clogged toilet, she used the problem with the whole class as a way to get to pollution, waste management, and the environment. She and her students planned experiments with a toilet mounted in the classroom and tested over 30 brands of toilet paper. She even had a visit from her new

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

14

school superintendent who came to see her students enthusiasm. Her initial problem was the science coordinator from the district who was used to centrally plan the curriculum and supervising all that went on. Joan is known all over the State as a Chautauqua teacher in terms of many and a wide variety of student-centered units. Some include hair, tooth brushing, and industrial waste. She even became the editor for a national journal, Science & Children, one of the major publications for the National Science Teachers Association. A second example of success (John) came from a small school in Western Iowa where he was but a 6 th grade teacher who was in charge and anxious to find local and current problems to use with students. Students were invited to locate and to plan cooperatively with other students while also working to engage in whole class projects. He was well received and encouraged by the principal, other middle school teachers, as well as the involvement of parents, other teachers, and community leaders. He even was used by the high school principal to help change his own old high school science teacher who generally followed the textbook closely. Student reports at school, in the town, in the whole county grew as Johns continued interest in his home town were used as indicators of his successes with students and their school and community projects. It was as if science determined school incentives and improvements. Another example was Kathy who was an important part of a large city district in getting all teachers in the building to work together. The principal was a CLASS-typeanxious to develop a Distributed Leadership Model. In many ways it was ideal the last year before the principal resigned. The problem arose with a new principal who was supportive of the Distributed Leadership efforts but did not want to be known as a follower of his predecessor. The science program continues but many of the teacher participants have transferred from the building and many of the projects were dropped even though they were well known and supported by parents. There remains but a few follow-up efforts; the curriculum continues but it is not the show place it was initially with Kathys work and leadership.

15

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

2) Middle Schools Jenny was a key planner in one of the large urban districts that was a part of a large National Science Teachers Association project. She was the leader of teachers and the one who exhibited all the desired traits that marked the teaching features of the NSES. Family considerations caused her to move out of state which meant that another teacher leader was needed to take her place. The other science teachers did not step forward and the principals influence was used to encourage and gain other project leaders. In this case one leader teacher was the focus who was not replaced; instead the program continues without the exciting examples it had at the beginning. But, the principals support was vital for continuing involvement in the statewide improvement efforts. It remains interesting to note the differences made with the departure of but one respected Teacher Leader! Another successful center near the State Capital experienced an opposite kind of problem. There, too, were two reform projects which influenced the science program and had the support and encouragement and involvement of the principal. However, in this case the principal left and was replaced by a principal from another larger state where state control of the curriculum and the teaching was controlled and prescribed. Almost immediately there were problems with the science program. The principal wanted no part and did as much as he could to discourage the teachers two of whom had great support among other Iowa Chautauqua leaders who had been involved in science programs across Iowa and nationally for several years. The model program continues to suffer from a principal who does not seem to have anything to do with Distributed Leadership and the efforts defining CLASS. A third Middle School story regarding teachers and their successes involved Jennifer and her science classroom. Most middle school teaching philosophies emphasize cooperation and involvement of all teachers in development of the curriculum. In Jennifers school the principal urged teachers to lead the instruction and encouraged all the teachers to work in teams. But, the teams were cross-disciplinary with teams of teachers involved with the same group of 6, 7, or 8 th students. The individual teacher did not even know or work with other science teachers. The program has many strengths but the science basically did not work well with other Iowa

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

16

Chautauqua efforts which focused on science learning per se and as but a part of the total science program. The program was most interactive; science teachers from Chautauqua learned much and had general support from other science leaders; it added another focus to successful collaborative efforts. Jennifer became a stronger teacher and saw and experienced two kinds of collaboration with much intrigue and support. 3) High Schools The chemistry teacher (Lois) at a large district in Western Iowa was a natural teacher and was used by the administration to head all reform efforts in science. The school superintendent was later named the head of the State Department of Education. Lois was respected by other teachers, especially among teachers in one even larger high school. She was active in the American Chemical Society and all their reform efforts. Other science teachers were influenced and involved but it was an operation where one teacher leader was a leader respected by all. When the superintendent left for statewide employment, there was little support for the reform ideas accept through the new principal. Lois was ready to work simply on the chemistry and physics courses of the high school. In many ways teachers were preparing modules that matched what the national reforms advocated. But, with the changes with a new principal, little was done with Distributed Leadership at least in terms of leadership or personal leadership of the principal and the department staff. Pete was the science department head for a large high school in Northern Iowa. He was the physics teacher but was anxious not to focus only on college preparation and sought new ideas. He was respected by all science teachers but was not good at sharing leadership. He was liked and supported by the principal but even though he was involved with Iowa Chautauqua there were few truly innovative facets of the science program. Teachers were engaged with Action Research projects but none attracted statewide interest or support or were they published. The program needed a CLASS effort with Distributed Leadership and a new team of leaders. Pete retired a few years later and tells friends and successors about his experiences as a reformer and teacher. Mostly he talks about unique students he nurtured and followed in colleges and beyond.

17

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Sally was the major focus for high school science in an Eastern Iowa district. She was involved in national reform efforts and was loved by her students. She was a model of inquiry and students were engaged with their own projects many of national importance. However, many of the inquiry experiences were envisioned first by Sally rarely ever were they ideas of her students. Sally was very much in control! Even though the State is large and employed many teachers, Sally was the spokesperson and one most anxious to share her expertise and her work collaboratively for all who would follow her plans. She proceeded with a PhD and works now in an Area Education Agency promoting change among other teachers. This school could have been a great CLASS experience with Distributed Leadership but it remained largely independent of the principal and the ways Sally touched and influenced other teachers. Instead the principal was not interested or particularly supportive of science. Nor did he promote collaboration among all teachers. Sally was invited but did not openly assist other teachers. Implications CLASS and Iowa Chautauqua have much in common. Both promote real student learning learning with understanding and its use outside of school. Most of the Iowa Chautauqua teachers and their students were aware of and involved with meeting the More Emphasis conditions of the National Standards as outlined initially. Certainly both provide pathways to accomplishing real reforms in schools, especially as related to science. Principals can and do play a valuable role in providing meaningful and dedicated teachers who demonstrate meeting the four goals for K-12 science programs comprising the National Standards. These include students who can on their own: 1) experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world; 2) use appropriate scientific processes and principles in making personal decisions; 3) engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and technological concern; and 4) increase their economic productivity through the use of the knowledge, understandings, and skills of the scientifically literate person in their careers. Teachers are vital if success in meeting all four goals is to be achieved! Teachers and administrators must work in concert and collaboratively to provide even greater success than either alone. CLASS efforts encourage Distributed Leadership and improved learning among students, teachers, and

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

18

concerned citizens. CLASS can improve Chautauqua successes. Efforts to improve administrative leadership can include and deepen changes in teachers and teaching. Students are then the winners! It is too easy to deal with only small support provided by the role(s) of principals for students to experience one aspect of reform teaching. It is important to consider the whole and especially how principals can become more effective leaders. This can mean Sharing leadership! Conclusions Success with improving student learning is enhanced by the Iowa Chautauqua year- long (often three years) sequence as experienced and evaluated by enrolled teachers. The reforms offered by the National Standards are complex and include reforms (in terms of importance and use) related to teaching, continued growth of teachers, assessment, and finally specific to content and the total curriculum. Connecting Learning Assures Successful Students (CLASS) is an effective model for assessing success with leadership and continued development of not only principals but teachers and students too! In fact, collaboration often succeeds in improving the whole school, the community, and the whole state. The results with CLASS efforts are seen as exciting and important. So far, consistent and major changes are only beginning to be noted and studied as described by science teachers, principals, students, and entire communities. When teachers are partners with principals, their influence with students and their use in resolving real problems in student lives, in school, and in community are all seen as important and as an example of science in action as opposed to it being a focus on special vocabulary and a matter of following teacher and textbook directions closely. The results from CLASS illustrate vividly the importance of principals and other administrators in affecting the lives of students and citizens of a whole town or community. Principals, teachers, and students all succeed better when they work diligently and together. In fact, students may need to

19

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

want to learn in order for them to learn. Principals, teachers, and parents can and should work together in getting all students to want to learn. This would accomplish the reforms and the learning that all want!

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

20

REFERENCES Ali, M.M., Yager, R. E., Haciemenoglu, E., & Caliskan, I. (2011). Changes in student perceptions of their school science experiences in Grades 3, 7, and 11 over a twenty-five year interim. School Science and Mathematics (Under review). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blunck, S.M., & Yager, R.E. (1996). The Iowa Chautauqua program: A proven in-service model for introducing STS in K-12 classrooms. In R.E. Yager (Ed), Science/technology/society as reform in science education: Evidence that reform occurs with STS (pp. 298-306). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brunkhorst, B. (2011). The Iowa Chautauqua program: A proven effective professional development model. In A. Binadja (Ed). Improving Science Learning. Semarang State University Press, Universitas Negeri Semarang Unnes Press. Brunkhorst, B. J. (1992, August). A study of student outcomes and teacher characteristics in exemplary middle and junior high science programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Wiley, New York. Dass, P. (2011). NSF funded Science and Mathematics Integration for Literacy Enhancement Project (SMILE). Pradeep Dass Project Director, Boone, NC: Appalachian State University. Grawemeyer (2003) The Iowa Chautauqua Program: An Exemplary Staff Development Program for Improving K-12 Science Teaching. Presented at The Eight Annual Science and Math Teachers Conference, American University of Beirut, Lebanon. Griffin, G. A. (1995). Influences of shared decision-making on school and classroom activity: Conversations with five teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 29.

21

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Myers, L. H. (1996). Mastery of basic concepts. In R. E. Yager (ed.), Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education (pp. 5358). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Myers, L. H. (1992). STS and science concepts. In R. E. Yager (ed.), The status of science-Technology-society reform efforts around the world: ICASE Yearbook 1992 (pp. 76-80). Hong Kong, China: International Council of Associations for Science Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Staff Development Council. (2011). The learning principal. Learning Forward. Retrieved from www.learningforward.org New ideas must replace the old (2010). Journal of the National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from www.nsdc.org Pedersen, B. (2005). The joy of C.L.A.S.S.; A journey toward exemplary school extraordinary educators and successful students. Indianapolis, IN: C.L.A.S.S. Pedersen, J., Yager, S., & Yager, R. E. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership Online Journal, 8(3). Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Yager, R.E., Blunck, S.M., & Dunkel, J. (1994). Assessment results with the science/technology/society approach. Science and Children, 32(2): 34-37. Yager, R.E., Choi, A., Yager, S.O., & Akcay, H. (2009) Comparing science learning among 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students: STS versus textbookbased instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2). Document and Publication Services, Western Illinois University. Yager, R., & McCormack, A. (1989, 2010, March). A View of the importance of six domains for teaching and assessing science learning. NSTA Reports, 21(7). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Robert Yager & Stuart Yager

22

Yager, S., Pedersen, J., & Yager, R. E. (2010). Impact of variations in distributed leadership frameworks on implementing a professional development initiate. Academic Leadership Online Journal, 8(4). Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D. (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa Project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169-194.

23

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

About the Authors Dr. Robert Yager, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Science Education at The University of Iowa. He earned his Ph.D. in Plant Physiology from The University of Iowa in 1957 and has directed over 100 National Science Foundation projects and has served as chair for nearly 130 doctoral students. Dr. Yager has served as president for seven national professional organizations. He has been involved internationally with special ongoing projects in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Turkey, and Estonia. Dr. Yagers research interests and teaching are involved with science, technology, and society (STS), especially in terms of it as an instructional reform effort and the other visions outlined in the National Science Education Standards. He continues to identify Exemplary Science Programs across the world. Dr. Stuart Yager, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Western Illinois University. He has worked as an elementary teacher, elementary principal, middle school principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent. Dr. Yager has also served as an educational consultant and mediator. He has consulted is in the area of school board governance and applying current brain research to classroom instruction and has considerable experience with facilitating labor negotiations.

Permission is granted to reprint this article for distribution as long as it is used for academic purposes. Credit must be given to NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, 17603 Bending Post Drive, Houston, Texas 77095 Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, editor-in-chief.