nnovationsInnovations in Science Teacher EducationThe Practitioner Journal of the Association for Science Teacher Education

During her AERA Presidential Address, Ladson-Billings (2006) used an analogy to compare the achievement gap to the national deficit. The achievement gap is usually presented as a snapshot in time, identifying differences in measures including test scores, dropout rates, and enrollment in advanced placement courses. These data have consistently shown gaps between White students and students of color, particularly Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations.  Although there have been years in which the gaps have narrowed, notably in the 1980s, the narrowing has not continued as a persistent trend (Lee, 2002).

After years of research, causes of the gap remain complex and difficult to untangle, but race, ethnicity, and socio-economic levels continue to serve as predictors for K-12 achievement (Lee, 2002). In 2019, Asian (93 percent) and White students (89 percent) had the highest graduation rates, while Black (80 percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native[1] (74 percent) students had the lowest (US Department of Education, 2020). Standardized test scores in science and mathematics in 2019 show Asian and White students scoring higher than Black and American Indian/Alaska Native students (US Department of Education, 2020). Gender differences are less pronounced than in the past, but they are still evident in STEM fields.  In 2015, a greater percentage of male students (26 percent) expected to have a STEM career than did female students (7 percent) (US Department of Education, 2020).

But Ladson-Billings’ central thesis in her presidential address (2006) was not to simply remind us of the ongoing achievement gap, but instead to extend the budget analogy to the educational debt, whereby in the same way that we view the deficit as a single year manifestation of a deeper national debt condition, we analogously view annual data about the achievement gap as a single year manifestation of a historical educational debt. In financial terms, we realize that even when the President balances the budget and has no operating deficit, the national debt still influences the programs and progress that can be made. Currently, the national debt exceeds 28 trillion dollars, with an average interest bill of approximately 800,000,000 dollars per day (Peterson Foundation, 2020). Just as a short-term fix of the deficit is not a solution for the massive national debt, there does not exist a short-term fix through which to overcome a history of inequality. To understand why it is so difficult to close the achievement gap, we must consider the systemic racism and the pattern of discrimination that have created this deep educational debt.

Historical policies that excluded enslaved people from education, created segregated schools, and supported boarding schools in which American Indians were expected to assimilate have yielded an educational system in which we still have de facto segregation, funding disparities among urban, rural, and suburban school districts (Ladson-Billings, 2006), and fewer high-quality resources at schools with greater numbers of minority students (Parsons, 2014).

I would argue that the educational, economic, and health situations during the previous 16 months, March 2020-June 2021, have contributed to both the achievement gap and the long-term educational debt. This year has highlighted and deepened inequities that will have long-lasting implications. For example, my own neighborhood is a microcosm of the consequences of the pandemic. I live in a neighborhood with a diverse population, including Black (13%), White (14%), and Latinx (52%) neighbors. Immigrants from southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America make up 40% of the population (City Data, 2020).  I have a neighbor whose five grandchildren have spent this year at her house because her daughters are essential workers.  Figuring out how to get the children logged onto the variety of platforms using various devices for their online schooling was too burdensome and, after the first month, she stopped trying. Another neighbor, a nurse, left her younger children in the care of her 16-year old daughter.  The older sister was adept at helping her younger siblings with their schooling, but she rarely had time to pay attention to her own classes, even though she logged on to maintain a positive attendance record.  On the other side of the street, a neighbor and her partner were both able to work from home. They connected with some other families from their children’s charter school and hired a recent graduate from my university to tutor their “pod” of children five mornings a week.

The sheer numbers of students affected make this educational emergency unlike any past educational disruption (Bozkurt et al., 2020), but even smaller scale interruptions, such as Hurricane Katrina, resulted in long term consequences for education (Hill & Hannaway, 2006). The COVID-19 pandemic has created an interruption of instruction for more than 1.6 billion students globally, nearly 90% of all enrolled students around the world (UNICEF Data, 2020), but it has not affected all students equally. Often the differing impacts fall along patterns of race and socio-economic status. For example, access to resources such as high-speed internet and a quiet place to study made a critical difference this year. Most students (95% in 2019) in the United States have access to the internet, but this still means that 1 out of 20 students do not have access.  Furthermore, of the fortunate 95%, nearly one-fifth of those children whose parents did not finish high school must rely on a smartphone, often shared, for internet access (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).

Students have experienced trauma this year that will not be resolved simply by a physical return to school buildings. But so too, have teachers. We must recognize that teachers need support as they prepare for an even wider range of background experiences than usual. Furthermore, novice and student teachers who have only had minimal experience with in-person instruction will need mentoring. Many K-5 teachers placed science instruction on hold and will need guidance and encouragement to bring it back into the curriculum. As science educators, we cannot assume things will go back to normal next year. Perhaps this provides us an opportunity, given the educational debt and the pandemic’s contribution to it, to set our goal to do better than a return to the status quo.

[1] This terminology is being used to remain consistent with the Department of Education terminology.

References

Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Olcott, D. Jr., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. Jr.,Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., Shahadu, S., et al. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126. http://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462

City Data (n.d.).  City Heights Neighborhood of San Diego.  Advameg.  Retrieved May 16, 2020 from https://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/City-Heights-San-Diego-CA.html

Hill, P. & Hannaway, J. (2020).  The future of public education in New Orleans. After Katrina: Rebuilding Opportunity and Equity into the ‘New’ New Orleans. The Urban Institute. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490922

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools, Educational Researcher 35 (7), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

Lee, J. (2002).  Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031001003

Parsons, E.C. (2014). Unpacking and critically synthesizing the literature on race and ethnicity in science education. In N.G. Lederman & S.K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 167-185). Routledge.

Peterson Foundation. (n.d.).  The national debt. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved May 18, 2020 from https://www.pgpf.org/national-debt-clock

UNICEF Data (2020). COVID-19 and Children: UNICEF data hub. UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/covid-19-and-children/

U.S. Department of Education (2020).  Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.  https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/current_tables.

Throughout the past year, public responses to current events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and wildfires in the western United States, have demonstrated a continued need to foster scientific literacy in society. In early 2021, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine announced that they have appointed an ad-hoc committee to author a national Call to Action for Science Education, which you may have heard about from our ASTE leadership. The overarching goal of this call is to “prepare students to face the global challenges of the future, both as engaged participants in society and as future science professionals.” As the committee does their important work over the coming months, it is important for us, as science teacher educators, to consider key questions so that we may be prepared to respond to the call and lend our collective expertise to action. This editorial explores questions intended to prompt reflection about how we might better prepare science teachers for teaching “students [how] to face the global challenges of the future.”

One such question is: How might we prepare science teachers to convincingly articulate the importance of science education to parents, fellow teachers, administrators, and, most importantly, students? As we know, engaging in argument from evidence is a complex skillset, and teachers’ positionality among fellow educators and the general public ideally situates them to adapt that skill set to multiple, diverse audiences. Furthermore, although the importance of science education is a no-brainer for science teacher educators, perspectives in society at-large include a decreasing trust in science as we fully enter the “post-truth” era (Iyengar & Massey, 2019). Are the science teachers that we are training prepared to justify teaching science to parents and community members who do not value it? If not, how might we prepare them not only to justify the teaching of our discipline but also to foster support for robust science education for all students? And finally, how can we help science teachers emotionally cope with the ever-increasing doubt within our society that our discipline is worth teaching?

As scientific topics become more and more politicized, another question worthy of consideration is: To what extent are we, as science teacher educators, willing to embrace the notion of science education as and for sociopolitical action so that we can prepare science teachers and science students to be scientifically literate in a society that politicizes science? Scholars have long recognized that education is a form of sociopolitical action that has the potential to perpetuate societal systems or break the cycles that lead to injustice and oppression across generations (Dewey, 1909; Hodson, 1999; Roth & Désautels, 2002; Swain, 2005). We often feel an implicit pressure to “not make it political” when it comes to teaching science; but, what about when the scientific content is political, not by our doing but due to societal forces beyond the classroom? We are accustomed to the notion of making science relevant to students’ lives, but how do we remain committed to this ideal as the science relevant to students’ lives becomes politized? Further, how might we prepare science teachers for these new challenges?

I apologize for posing such questions and not providing any answers, but I am confident that our community of science teacher educators has important insights for tackling these new challenges. I am hopeful that future issues of Innovations in Science Teacher Education will explore these topics by providing novel, innovative ways to enable science teachers to effectively teach science as society’s relationship with science changes.

References

Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Riverside Press.

Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83(6), 775–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<775::AID-SCE8>3.0.CO;2-8

Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2019). Scientific communication in a post-truth society. PNAS, 116(16), 7656–7661. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805868115

Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (Eds). (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. Peter Lang Publishing.

Swain, A. (Ed.). (2005). Education as social action: Knowledge, identity and power. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505605

It is our pleasure and honor to be writing this today to introduce ourselves to you as the new editors of Innovations.  We are excited by this opportunity to contribute and advance science teacher education through this journal and to serve ASTE in this capacity. We are grateful for the successful launch and establishment of the journal that founding editors Ron and Rommel lead over the last 5 years. We pick up in a place of strength and promise and will continue where they left off.  Who wouldn’t be excited to take the reins when the previous editors said:

“We have gotten to know a lot of great people through this journal and we will miss the daily interactions with authors and reviewers. …The quality of manuscripts continue to be impressive and the thoughtfulness of reviews continue to encourage us about the willingness of our peers to support one another in their scholarly endeavors.”

ASTE and the founding editors have established Innovations as a strong resource for science teacher educators to share their teacher education work, grounded in research, and improving the professional. Innovations provides ASTE members with insights and suggestions which they can use in their practice, along with the opportunity to expand their impact on the profession. As the quote from Ron and Rommel above states, the reviewers and authors continue to work together to strengthen the value of Innovations to science teacher educators and science education in general.

We are eager to continue to build and expand the reputation of the journal that Drs. Miranda and Hermann have firmly established. Our vision for Innovations is to broaden its audience, increase its visibility, and build its reputation as the “go-to” resource for new ideas and conversations related to science teacher education. As our society grapples with difficult challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and our nation’s continued struggle against racial injustice and systemic racism, Innovations is well positioned to provide science teacher educators with tools to empower their students to contribute to scientific solutions to societal problems. We are considering calls for special issues related to these topics, and welcome ideas from authors, reviewers, and ASTE members. Innovations has provided ASTE and science teacher educators with some solutions for science education in some context, but we still have work to do and we should, and will, be leading the way to improve science teacher education to improve science education for all students.

For a bit more about us: We are science educators and science teacher educators at Illinois State University. A faculty member in the School of Biological Science, Rebekka is currently serving as the Director of the Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology (CeMaST). Sarah is a faculty member in the Department of Chemistry, serving as the Director of Chemistry Education for their undergraduate and graduate chemistry teacher programs. Illinois State University prides itself on its teacher education programs to which we contribute through our work and education of P-20 science educators, specialist and generalist, preservice and inservice. We have a passion for science education and science teacher education and find this opportunity as the new editors of Innovations to support our passion and contribute to improving science education for all students.

As we embark on this journey and continue the work begun by Ron and Rommel and to promote the mission of ASTE, we welcome questions, ideas, and feedback. Please contact us at ISTEjournal@ilstu.edu.

Sarah Boesdorfer & Rebekka Darner

We first heard about a new journal to be published through ASTE at the beginning of 2015. We were excited to hear that there was a group of ASTE members working on developing a practitioner journal to accompany ASTE’s other journals, Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE) and Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE). We enthusiastically developed and submitted our application materials in the Fall of 2015 and underwent a few rounds of interviews before being offered the position. We fondly remember signing the contract at the beginning of December 2015 indicating that our term would begin on January 1, 2016, though we felt like we had already been at work on the journal for several months as we developed our vision and timeline of the journal for our application materials. A few days after our official start as editors, we were tasked with talking about Innovations in Science Teacher Education on January 7 at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education Conference in Reno, Nevada. We described our vision of the journal to full room of ASTE members. We received a lot of specific questions about the journal and had to remind the audience we had really only been on the job for 7 days, but we heard some great ideas and given the size of the audience we were reassured there was great interest in a practitioner journal for science teacher educators.

Six months later, after receiving a fair number of submissions, the inaugural issue of Innovations in Science Teacher Education was published on July 1, 2016. Looking back on our time as editors we are proud of what we accomplished considering that when we signed the contract, the Innovations journal was just an idea. We worked with John Rhea to build the Innovations journal website and submission and review portals. We developed and disseminated calls for both reviewers and authors. Over time, we developed a more concrete description of what an Innovations article is and what it is not. And we’ve tried, through editorials and in-person discussions, to convey our philosophy of what encompasses a practitioner article for science educators.

We have had absolutely fantastic editorial review boards for the last five years. These dedicated ASTE members have provided solid reviews and submitted them in a timely manner. Moreover, the editorial review board members continue to express that they genuinely enjoy reading the manuscripts they receive. Many of our reviewers are also published authors in Innovations providing an even greater level of understanding of the journal and the review process. As a result, our reviewers provide informative feedback to enhance submissions and facilitate author revisions.

Likewise, the authors have been impressive with their approaches to science education and the innovative manuscripts they submit have piqued the interest of reviewers and ultimately Innovations readers. We have had the pleasure of hearing so many stories from science educators about how they adapted or modified their instruction after reading a particular article. Indeed, we had felt and done the same. It has been rewarding to hear how the journal has influenced people’s instructional decision making over the last five years.

In some ways, the journal is just getting started and there are so many opportunities ahead to add additional features. But, alas, our time as co-editors is coming to a close and this is the final editorial before the new editor(s) transition into the role. So, we want to once again thank everyone: the ASTE members who had the vision and initiative to develop and launch the journal, the ASTE boards who have supported the journal, the authors, reviewers, and readers. We could not have done it without the guidance of the ASTE publication committee and John Rhea, the ASTE Director of Electronic Services.

In the words of Winnie the Pooh, we are “lucky to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.” While we are sad to be stepping down from the role of Innovations editors, we are glad to be able to help the next editor’s transition into the role. Over the last five years we have put a lot of time and energy into the journal and have had countless conversations about all aspects of the journal. We have gotten to know a lot of great people through this journal and we will miss the daily interactions with authors and reviewers.

We leave the journal in a good place. Submissions continue to increase and the number of articles per issue is on the rise. The quality of manuscripts continue to be impressive and the thoughtfulness of reviews continue to encourage us about the willingness of our peers to support one another in their scholarly endeavors.

It has truly been our honor and our pleasure serving the ASTE community as co-editors and we wish the next editor(s) that are selected all the best and continued success.

Sincerely,

Ron Hermann & Rommel Miranda

As editors of the Innovations in Science Teacher Education journal, we stand united with the Minneapolis community and with individuals across our nation calling for accountability and justice. We also echo the sentiments of the ASTE presidential team toward the need to disrupt systemic racism, to promote social justice, and to increase our organization’s commitment and focus on equity (https://theaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Letter-from-ASTE-Presidential-Team.pdf).

As a community of science teacher educators, we hold a special responsibility to condemn the violence against people of color and other marginalized groups. It is up to all of us to lead, to model civility and respect, and to hold true to our values of equity, diversity and inclusion that support our community to thrive. Together as agents of change, we can help to address systemic/institutional racism by preparing and providing preservice and inservice teachers with opportunities to integrate social justice into the curriculum so that we can collectively help to create a more humane and equitable world.

In support the ASTE’s commitment and focus on equity, we invite and encourage you to share your expertise with our community by submitting manuscripts that provide detailed descriptions of how to address systemic/institutional racism in science teacher education and how to integrate social justice into the curriculum of inservice teacher preparation course or inservice teacher professional development programs. We also encourage members to submit manuscripts that describe resources and tools that they have created and/or used that have been valuable in their efforts to address historical and social inequities in your work as a teacher of science.

As a reference, the following links are articles in the Innovations journal that center on inclusive science teacher education, the preparation of teachers for diverse classrooms, the integration of culturally relevant practices, and the preparation of English language learners:

https://innovations.theaste.org/innovative-inclusive-science-teacher-education/

https://innovations.theaste.org/science-units-of-study-with-a-language-lens-preparing-teachers-for-diverse-classrooms/

https://innovations.theaste.org/food-pedagogy-as-an-instructional-resource-in-a-science-methods-course/

https://innovations.theaste.org/preparation-of-teachers-of-science-for-english-language-learners/

We look forward to receiving your innovative work on social justice! For more information about how to submit a manuscript to the Innovations in Science Teacher Education journal, please visit our website: https://innovations.theaste.org/about/

It has been almost a daily occurrence lately that we have been asked to submit a manuscript to an unfamiliar journal or join their editorial review board. We are sure you receive similar requests. You know, the one where they recite your title and abstract and tell you that based on that work you would be qualified to publish in, or review for, the journal whose content is not even distantly related to your article. On occasion curiosity has gotten the best of us and we’ve played along. We read the request and look for any signs that this could be a legitimate outlet for our scholarly work. We conduct a search for the editor’s name, if one is supplied in the email. We have clicked on the list of reviewers to see if we knew any by name or at least the institution with whom they are associated. Some of these requests may be legitimate, but with the concerns over predatorial journals growing, we are thankful that the field of science education has a wealth of reputable journals. We’d like to believe that the temptation to submit manuscripts or agree to review for questionable journals is lower among science educators than our colleagues in other fields.

It is nice to know that most of the journals we are familiar with are led by an editorial staff with whom we are familiar. Moreover, we are pleased to know the reviewers are also our colleagues and that we can count on seeing them at conferences and other events. Many we know personally, and we rest well knowing that the peer review process for science education rests upon a firm foundation of science educators. Sadly, that must not be true for all disciplines, resulting in the temptation to publish in, and review for, less reputable journals (Van Noorden, 2020).

For a more complete discussion of why defining predatory publishing can be difficult to define and what makes a journal reputable see Grudniewicz et al. (2019). They developed the following definition:

“Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.”

Thankfully, the majority of journals we know of in the field are linked to an organization like the ASTE whose primary interest is in its’ members and science educators at large. What is different for Innovations and a few other science education journals, is that we are not linked to a publishing company. That has created some benefits and some challenges. When it comes to overseeing the journal, we can’t rely on support from a publishing company and we may come close to being confused with a predatory journal as Innovations could be defined as an under-resourced journal (Van Noorden, 2020). Without the funding support generated by a publishing company we rely completely on in-house resources. With the help of our amazing reviewers, it’s us, Ron and Rommel, who receive submissions, screen submissions, assign submissions to reviewers, read and collate reviews, solicit editorial review board members, edit manuscripts for publication, and the list goes on.

So, when we saw this meme on a popular social media page, we couldn’t help but laugh – not for the intended purpose, but because it could not be further from the reality of Innovations. We don’t have submission portal – it is us – we receive every email and inquiry. We read and reply to every email and we try to do so quickly. We can tell you the exact status of your manuscript at any point in time. We don’t laugh when you contact us, but we are concerned when you do. We try our best to have external reviews back in 4-6 weeks and decision letters out to authors soon after we receive the last review. And we have done a great job of doing so to this point. But we continue to need your help. Innovations truly is a journal by ASTE for ASTE and we need ASTE members to join the Editorial Review Board to ensure high quality manuscript are published. You, the ASTE member, that is the resource that helps establish Innovations as a legitimate, impactful journal for science educators.

We can think of no better way to thwart the proliferation of predatory journals than to ensure that journals like Innovations are supported by the community who benefits most from them. With a thriving membership with the willingness to serve as reviewers and editors, we can ensure that authors and reviewers have a positive experience. When quality, innovative manuscripts are submitted, reviewers enjoy reading those manuscripts and providing their insights to make the submissions even stronger. Likewise, authors benefit from quality reviews that enhance their work and when reviews are submitted in a timely fashion, authors can count on having a decision within 2 months of their submission. As we prepare to step down as editors of Innovations in Science Teacher Education, we hope ASTE members will consider serving the organization by serving as editorial review board members and apply for the editor position. We are proud of the work we have done to get Innovations up and running and to establish the journal as a well-regarded and impactful venue for science educators to share their work.  We are not a predatorial journal, but we will borrow from their practices and send out frequent, but targeted requests to serve as ERB members, and soon as editors. Who knows, maybe this tactic so haphazardly used by predatorial journals may actually work and we will be a stronger journal as a result.

References

Grudnieicz A. et al. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature 576, 210-212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y

Van Noorden. (2020). Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals. Nature. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00709-x

Happy New Year! According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2019) (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp), the percentage of public school students in the United States who were English Language Learners (ELL) was higher in 2016 (9.6 percent, or 4.9 million students) than in 2000 (8.1 percent, or 3.8 million students). The percentage of students who were ELLs was higher for school districts in more urbanized areas than for those in less urbanized areas, and based on locale, ELLs constituted an average of 14.0 percent of total public school enrollment in cities, 9.3 percent in suburban areas, 6.5 percent in towns, and 3.8 percent in rural areas. Regarding science performance (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cne.asp), the average science scores for ELLs in grade 4, grade 8, and grade 12 were lower than their non-ELLs peers’ scores, with an achievement gap between non-ELLs and ELLs of 36 points, 46 points, and 152 points, respectively (NCES, 2017).

In light of these statistics, schools, districts, and states are challenged to deliver high-quality instruction to ELLs (NSF, 2006). It is also essential that educators who teach science are prepared to ensure that all students, including ELLs, have opportunities to learn and excel in science. Additionally, the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Standards (2006) promote academic language proficiency in science and supports pedagogical approaches for integrating language acquisition and science learning. Moreover, research has shown that effective teacher preparation and professional development results in positive change in teachers’ beliefs and practices in integrating science and literacy for ELLs (Buck, Mast, Ehlers, & Franklin, 2005; Hart & Lee 2003; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002).

Accordingly, the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) recommends in their Position Statement on Science for ELLs that teacher preparation and professional development programs focus on science content and pedagogy for ELLs and help teachers (https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ell.aspx):

• recognize and build on ELL students’ “funds of knowledge” (i.e., knowledge students gain from their family and cultural backgrounds) as a foundation for learning scientific ideas and practices;
• recognize that students who are learning English or who are from cultural and linguistic backgrounds different from the teachers’ background may express what they know in ways that are unfamiliar to their teachers;
• use instructional strategies that simultaneously promote science learning and English proficiency for ELLs; and
• meet regularly with fellow teachers to share ideas, experiences, tasks, and materials that are effective in teaching science to ELLs.

The Innovations journal is continuously in need of fresh new perspectives on preservice science teacher education and professional development programs that focus on science for ELLs. The Innovations journal provides a place for science teacher educators to share detailed descriptions of how their science for ELL programs or professional development programming is conducted. Innovative science for ELLs activities are also essential for science teacher educators and classroom teachers, as both attempt to improve science teaching and learning. Thus, we encourage science teacher educators, scientists, science coordinators and supervisors, and informal science educators who prepare and provide professional development for teachers of science at all grade levels to share their innovative ideas with our international science education community through the Innovations journal.

Innovations is the official peer-reviewed online practitioner journal of the ASTE that serves as a forum for disseminating effective instructional practices that are innovative and inspirational. So, take some time right now to reflect back on the innovative aspects of your science for ELL programs for science teachers. Do you have an innovative idea to share with your colleagues? Consider sharing your ideas and lessons learned with colleagues by submitting a manuscript describing your outstanding work with preservice and inservice science teachers!

Also, be sure to check out our website to learn more about publishing in Innovations in Science Teacher Education by using the following link: https://innovations.theaste.org. Please be sure to review the instructions for authors section prior to submitting to ensure that your manuscript adheres to format guidelines and addresses each criterion. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and want to thank everyone who is, and will be, participating in the submission and review of manuscripts. We hope that you have an amazing 2020!

References

Buck, G. A., Mast, C., Ehlers, N., & Franklin, E. (2005). Preparing teachers to create a mainstream science classroom conducive to the needs of English language learners: A feminist action research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1013–1031.

Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475–501.

Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., and Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664–687.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). English language learners in public schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). Science performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cne.asp

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation

National Science Teaching Association. (2019). Position statement: Science for English language learners. https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ell.aspx

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2006). PreK–12 English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

The university-affiliated morning radio hosts recently interviewed the proprietors of a local distillery. Among the questions the hosts asked their guests was how they choose what category within a given type of spirit to distill. Their answer was something that resonated with us, and something we often hear from Innovations reviewers. They choose to distill the spirits that they enjoy consuming the most. Similarly, we certainly enjoy receiving all of the manuscripts that are submitted to Innovations, but especially those that are most pertinent to our particular setting. We do our best to match manuscripts to reviewers with expertise in the subject and, for that reason, the vast majority of the feedback that we receive from reviewers is that they also enjoy the manuscripts they review.

So, one of the things we have been thinking a lot about lately, is something we would also really enjoy hearing more about from other science educators. Admittedly, our university does not use the most innovative approaches to one of the most critical aspects of secondary preservice teacher education – clinical experiences. Regardless of the terms used over the years to describe the full-time experiences preservice teachers receive by working with a mentor teacher every school day for several weeks in a semester, this experience can have profound and lasting effects on preservice teachers, both positive and negative. We have been a UTeach replication site for quite a few years now and our students receive more time in the classroom than they ever have before. However, we continue to hear feedback from students that regardless of the amount of time they spend in schools prior to student teaching, nothing prepares them for the rigors of full-time student teaching. We wonder how other institutions prepare interns for full-time student teaching and whether interns spend more than one semester working daily with mentor teachers.

Our institution is one of the few universities nationwide to have a significant number of education faculty housed in its science content departments. While our university has a Center for Professional Practice (CPP) that oversees the placement and coordination of the over 400 K-12 student teachers across all disciplines each academic year, science education faculty serve as supervisors of secondary science education majors. At our institution the CPP places each student with a middle school and a high school mentor teachers and the university supervisor or the student’s academic advisor is not really involved in the process. Other institutions employ a more purposeful pairing of intern to mentor teacher based on feedback and insight from numerous people who interact with the intern. It has recently become more apparent the extent to which our approaches to supporting student teachers varies across our university from department to department and across colleges within the university. Despite those variances, the approaches are fairly traditional in the sense that we are certain the majority of universities use similar approaches.

On the other hand, our preservice early childhood and elementary education internship and methodology courses consist of a broad array of innovations, which include switching focus to the NGSS science and engineering practices (and modifying them, if necessary, for early childhood), creating new field placement lessons, weekly teaching of science and/or engineering lessons, coaching from the classroom mentor teacher, lesson planning under the supervision of the course instructor, and methods/content discussions and activities. We also know that some of our colleagues have implemented more innovative approaches to clinical experiences, such as remote observations using the latest audio and visual technology, pairing two interns with one mentor teacher, requiring interns to teach less so they can devote more time to planning, and likely a host of approaches we have yet to hear about. Some of our colleagues observe entire lessons from start to finish whether the class is 45 minutes or 90 minutes long. Others observe more frequently for shorter periods of time, often with a specific aspect of the lesson as the focus of the observation.

If you read many of these editorials, by now you know where we are going with this. We feel science educators will be responsive to hearing about innovative approaches and we urge those of you implementing such approaches to share them with our colleagues through Innovations in Science Teacher Education. It’s not that we don’t want to implement innovative approaches at our institution, so much as it is that we know there are a lot of barriers to change, both internally and externally. Thus, those who have worked with colleagues across your campus, local school systems, state departments of education, and/or higher education commissions are in a position to inform others hoping to adopt approaches that may better support either more interns or support interns to a greater extent than more traditional approaches may permit. Perhaps we are alone in our desire to learn more about innovative practices for clinical experience in science education, but if we are not, and your manuscript is shared with colleagues, you just might find someone so thankful they buy you a glass of your favorite spirit or beverage at the next ASTE conference!

Although numerous articles suggest that it is essential for teachers of science to provide students with opportunities to carry out scientific investigations, the potential for student injury is inherent within laboratory-based activities. Teachers of science often carry out scientific investigations in a laboratory, a classroom, or an outdoor setting and are expected to provide a learning environment that is as safe as possible for students. However, teachers of science may be held liable if they do not make their instructional spaces a safe place to learn. Many science educators that we know have often expressed that they only briefly learned about laboratory safety within their content courses, that they are concerned about having outdated or insufficient laboratory facilities, that students might not follow safety directions and harm themselves or others, or that it is challenging to facilitate scientific investigations especially when students have questions requiring their attention. Additionally, school administrators and supervisors often make the assumption that the science teachers that they hire are properly trained in the specialty they are to teach and possess sufficient knowledge to meet their duty of care. Just take a moment right now to reflect upon when you first started to teach laboratory-based activities and think about the following questions: How were you prepared for ensuring laboratory safety in your instructional spaces? Were your adequately prepared to create and maintain a safe learning environment for your students?

To address concerns regarding laboratory safety, the position statements of organizations such as NSTA (Liability of Science Educators for Laboratory Safety), NSELA (Safety Position Statement), and the Council of State Science Supervisors (Science Safety: Making the Connection) provide teachers of science with recommendations for providing and maintaining a learning and working environment for students and staff that is as safe as possible. These organizations suggest that science educators should adhere to better professional practices and legal safety standards, and be proactive in ensuring that school and district leaders know and are adhering to safety expectations. However, the position statements of these organizations further provide declarations that urge science education leaders to help prepare teachers of science to meet their legal duty of care owed to students.

In light of these declarations, the Innovations in Science Teacher Education journal is continuously in need of fresh new perspectives on how we can better prepare teachers of science for laboratory safety. The Innovations journal provides a place for science teacher educators to share detailed descriptions of how their laboratory safety preparation programs or professional development programming is conducted. Laboratory safety is essential for science teacher educators and classroom teachers, as both attempt to improve science teaching and student learning through laboratory-based activities. Thus, we encourage science teacher educators, scientists, science coordinators and supervisors, school administrators and superintendents, and informal science educators who prepare and provide professional development for teachers of science at all grade levels, especially at the elementary level, to share their innovative ideas with our international science education community through the Innovations journal.

Innovations is the official peer-reviewed online practitioner journal of the ASTE that serves as a forum for disseminating effective instructional practices that are innovative and inspirational. So, take some time right now to reflect back on the innovative aspects of your laboratory safety programs for science educators. Do you have an innovative idea to share with your colleagues? Consider sharing your ideas and lessons learned with colleagues by submitting a manuscript describing your outstanding work with preservice and inservice science teachers!

Also, be sure to check out our website to learn more about publishing in Innovations in Science Teacher Education by using the following link: https://innovations.theaste.org. Please be sure to review the instructions for authors section prior to submitting to ensure that your manuscript adheres to format guidelines and addresses each criterion. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and want to thank everyone who is, and will be, participating in the submission and review of manuscripts. We hope that you have an amazing summer!