Professional Societies and the Faculty Scholar mono6x.htm

The Chinese use the same character, wei ji, for the words "chaos" and "opportunity." This character would aptly describe the climate and crisis in science education in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s.

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published the report, A Nation at Risk [1], describing the lack of quality, accountability, and effectiveness in our public education system. In 1989, President Bush established Goals 2000, an initiative to make American children first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.

The scientific community responded to the science education crisis with several initiatives. In 1984, the National Research Council created the Board on Biology. Although created initially in response to the controversy surrounding evolution in the school curriculum, this board broadened its scope to additional concerns about how failure to learn in high-school science was contingent upon students' academic preparation at the elementary-school level. In 1989, the American Chemical Society, which represents 150,000 chemists, chemical engineers, and chemical technicians, released Education Policies for National Survival: A Blueprint for Improving Science Education [2]. This report described how chemistry should be taught at all educational levels from elementary schools through college and beyond. In 1989, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), representing 40,000 microbiologists in education, research, and industry, joined this reform movement, nurturing a small group of mission-driven life science leaders, who later founded the Coalition for Education in Life Science Education or more simply, "CELS."

In 1989, Sharon Zablotney was chair-person of the ASM's Board of Education and Training, the operating arm of a society responsible for national leadership in life science education at all levels. She was a woman with a vision for undergraduate biology education, and she was in a position to realize her vision. She explained to the ASM governing board in that year, "Due to the heterogeneity of the life sciences, both academic departments and professional societies have emerged independently. This heterogeneity and subsequent independence have made it virtually impossible for the life science community to establish a leadership position in science education. The need for the life sciences community to work collectively and collaboratively to influence science education is critical."

In March 1990, Zablotney convened a group of leaders at the society's headquarters in Washington, D.C., with the goal of developing a scheme for the scientific community to address deficiencies in life science education. While this may have been an ordinary goal at the time, the approach for achieving it was extraordinary. Instead of bemoaning the problems in science education, Zablotney encouraged participants to put aside their professional turf concerns and personal egos to address a greater purpose. "No one life science organization with limited resources and expertise can resolve the national problem in science education, but many groups working together have infinite potential. The challenge we face is to convince the research-rich societies to rethink national priorities, reallocate precious resources, and assume a sustained and leading role in undergraduate life science education," stated Zablotney.

Ms. Amy L. Chang is the Staff Director for Education at the American Society for Microbiology. She is now part of
a team organizing an undergraduate microbiology telecourse and the Microbiology Literacy Collaborative, a public communication project. From 1991 through 1993, the American Society for Microbiology provided the administrative home for CELS, and Ms. Chang served as CELS Program Director.

Less than 12 months later and at the encouragement of the S.C. Johnson Foundation, a national forum was held at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, to share ideas in life science education and develop an action plan. "Life science societies take up the gauntlet," reported Teresa Herring, science writer and participant at the landmark meeting of life science educators. Delegates from 30 life sciences societies, representing 250,000 scientists, embarked on a grueling schedule over the first weekend in February 1991 to prepare a plan and put into action strategies to solve challenges facing life scientists. The participants identified a number of strategic goals [3]:

One year later, in February 1992, another group of 30 representatives of life science professional organizations reached consensus on a set of vital recommendations [4]. Reproduced in the section, "Issues-Based Framework for Bio 101," on pp. 62-66, these "guiding principles" were envisioned as the crucial means for overhauling the entire system of life science education. The principles called for 20% of the under-graduate curriculum to be science courses and for students to have at least one year's study of the life sciences, including inquiry-driven laboratory or field experiences. They challenged scientists, policy makers, and higher-education leaders into new thinking about allocating resources and recognizing and rewarding teaching faculty.

CELS would lead the life science community to establish a clearinghouse of resources to support excellence in life science education. To accomplish this, conferences and workshops were planned to highlight "best practices" in life science education. "s a result, creative and diligent faculty members have identified innovative ways to teach core concepts in the life sciences. Their efforts have moved us forward in an era of increasingly diverse academic and cultural needs of students, increased use of information technology and distributed learning, minimal resources for inquiry-based laboratory and field experiences, and widespread downsizing in higher education.

The 1992 Conference identified global, societal issues providing a context for student learning. Today, as much as in 1992, CELS encourages life scientists and their professional societies to discuss and act upon these issues. What students learn, how they learn these important concepts, and the effectiveness of that learning toward developing lifelong thinking skills are questions for the future.

The Origins of CELS