WHY THE U.S. BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS SECONDARY COURSE PROGRESSION (BUT NOT GEOSCIENCES)? PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS, FUTURE TEACHERS, AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Although knowledge of Earth science is important in understanding many currently important issues, most of the U.S. public has attended secondary schools in which the standard science progression, especially for college-bound students, includes biology, chemistry, and physics (BCP), but has omitted geosciences. With this background, what perceptions do U.S. citizens hold about the earth sciences, especially those citizens who might go into the earth sciences as a career, who might teach future geoscientists, or who might eventually be policy-makers? This study explores that question and attempts to initiate a dialogue concerning what the geoscience community might do to respond to misguided beliefs and assumptions.

The history of the BCP progression is traced, and procedures of the mixed-methods study are described. A qualitative questionnaire was first employed in order to not suggest possible responses to subjects. Answers to this open-ended question were then used to write test items for a quantitative test.

The original essay question in Part 1 of the study was administered over six years to over 350 preservice teachers attending a Midwestern university. The quantitative survey was administered to different subjects, including practicing teachers, students in both rigorous and less-rigorous geology courses, pre-service teacher earth science students, and community college students, with approximately 700 subjects taking the quantitative test.

Results showed subjects held many negative views of the earth sciences in comparison to BCP sciences, including many unfounded assumptions. The most common reasoning offered by subjects was that sufficient earth science is taught in elementary school, and therefore the discipline does not need to be taught at higher levels. Ironically, research shows that often a lack of science teaching of any topic is a more common situation in elementary schools. Some subjects felt that earth sciences, compared to the BCP sciences, are not as difficult, as challenging, or as useful, and do not use as much math, are not found in state standards, are not taken at the college level, and are required for few jobs.

Various suggestions to remedy misconceptions are discussed. Methods suggested to modify the standard BCP progression are also offered.