Guest post: On improving science education

Jack Randall was a science instructor for 25 years, including 14 years at Interlochen Arts Academy in Interlochen, MI. There he was notable for identifying the radioactive “Cheetos” isotope, endangering students’ lives as coach of varsity cafeteria-tray luge, and enriching them immeasurably as a teacher and a friend. He currently works for Vernier Software & Technology.

First, a brief word of introduction. Joey and I studied chemistry together in high school. On paper, Joey was the student and I was the teacher, but we both did a fair amount of learning and there were many instances of role reversal. Joey was a terrific student and, more importantly, a great person with whom it was my very good fortune to have worked. That was a number of years ago. I have since left the teaching profession, pursuing an alternate career in science. Joey is no longer a teenage kid who completed the massive load of homework I offered for her consideration.

In recent times we have kept in touch via e-mail. One of Joey’s many projects has afforded her the opportunity to give me a homework assignment. Joey and I looked at a few topics and we decided to tackle science education, in particular the notion that science education is poorly delivered in the United States. I’m not sure exactly how our discussion proceeded, but at one point I commented, off the cuff, that science education was not executed well in America. My assignment was to expound on my comment. Why wasn’t science education very good, what was wrong with it, how could it be improved?

The tables now having been turned, I humbly submit my completed assignment. Truth be told, it’s a bit late. But, I have good excuses. My computer lost one draft, other tasks had higher priority, I thought the deadline was next week, and I haven’t been feeling well lately (but I’m all right now).

I think that science education is poorly done because it seems that Americans know very little basic science. I’m not sure what a package labeled “Basic Science Information” would contain, but there are certain fundamental concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics we all need to know. Add to the package a healthy dose of common sense and we would all be wiser consumers, informed citizens, and skeptical readers and listeners. And we wouldn’t have to be science geeks to put this package of basic science information to good use.

Where does this notion of mine come from? It’s kind of backward logic, actually. Rankings of academic achievement in science worldwide normally place the U.S. in the lower half, if not the lower third, of the countries listed. University-level science professors chastise high school teachers for sending them ill-prepared students, high school teachers complain that little or no science is taught in the K-8 grades and the K-8 teachers may or may not respond with a justifiable shoulder shrugging.

Science education takes a drubbing from its own kind, which may be the strongest argument. In my field of study, chemistry, one can peruse the highly regarded Journal of Chemical Education and regularly come across articles decrying poor teaching practices and offering one type of improvement after another. The editorial in the October issue of Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is entitled “Europe Rethinks Education.” The author, Pierre Lena, remarks that “Improving the quality of science education in primary and secondary schools is a challenge faced by nearly all countries.” Dr. Lena further comments about the “…disinterest of European youth in scientific careers and the public’s poor understanding of science….” His editorial describes programs in Europe to meet this challenge.

Thus, without a greater mass of evidence, here’s my thesis: science education has never been up to snuff. It’s not that once upon a time we got it right and somehow over the years we lost it. We’ve never, ever taught science properly, effectively, efficiently. We haven’t taken the time to figure out how to do it right, and now here we are, where we’ve always been, stumbling around taking stabs at teaching science and most of the time missing the mark.

How do we improve? Here are a few ideas. As Joey will attest (I hope) I like to toss out ideas, hear what others think, try some things, and see what happens. Subliminal scientific method, if you will.

Part One: Things the Teacher Can Do While We’re Figuring Out the Best Way to Teach Science

1. Stop lecturing. At the very least, restrict giving a lecture to no more than once a month. A lecture guarantees only that a student will learn how to take notes rapidly. No content is learned during a lecture; that happens afterward if it happens at all.
2. Give students hands-on activities every time the class meets. This isn’t as difficult as it sounds, but it does require some work, in case you thought teaching science is an easy job. If you’re doing it right you’re spending more time cleaning glassware and prepping activities than lecturing. My lab rats (Joey was one, ask her) learned more stoichiometry from helping me mix solutions for upcoming lab experiments than listening to me ramble on about it in a classroom “talk.”
3. Show your excitement for science every day and work hard to convince every kid in your school that science is the best discipline to study. In my teaching days, I never passed up a chance to talk about chemistry with any student. Think of students as reluctant consumers shopping for subjects to learn. One of the teachers at Joey’s high school, who was revered by us all, taught a class on Shakespeare. I asked him how on earth he convinced kids to take a class devoted to reading barely intelligible English chopped and shaped into sonnets and quatrains and iambs and the like. He smiled and said, “I’m a good salesman.”
4. Quit whining about budgets and support and standardized testing and any other perceived obstacles to doing what you think is best for your students. Work with what you have.
5. Think of your students as apprentices. You are giving them their first lessons in practicing to become scientists.
6. Look at how other courses are taught and steal their best practices. Learn more about how chefs are trained, how members of a jazz band work together, how athletic teams prepare, how kids study Macbeth, anywhere young people are learning. Learning science is no different, and if you think it is, you need to find a new job.

Part Two: Things To Be Done as a Nation to Really Figure Out How to Teach Science

Start with this premise: we don’t know what we’re doing, but we do know it’s not working very well, so it’s time to start over.

1. Gather up a thousand or more science teachers from around the country in the summer and tell them they have two days to redo science education in the United States. Big groups, small groups, constant brainstorming, nothing sacred, anything goes, all ideas are equally valuable. On Day Three, share ideas and send everyone off with a plan. Let them teach for a year, bring them all back together the next summer, and share experiences. Do more brainstorming and make plans for the next school year. Write up everything for the science teachers of the country to read. It might take 2 or 3 years for things to take shape, but it will be time well spent.
2. Drop science from all standardized testing of any kind – national, state, local. The science questions on standardized tests generally don’t cover concepts that matter too much outside of some narrow applications of specific disciplines. It’s critical that all people understand some basic science, but we need to push science teachers to do a better job in a different way than prepping kids to take standardized tests.
3. Oblige schools to establish a core science curriculum: biology, chemistry, and physics. Drop all survey science courses (“Science for Dummies,” “Science for Artists”) that are offered for the sole purpose of satisfying a student’s graduation requirement. Special topics in science can be offered (such as ecology, geology, and anatomy & physiology) but they should be serious, upper level courses, not watered-down survey junk.
4. Make sure that science teachers themselves know their subjects. All chemistry majors do not make good teachers, but a person who has taken only one college chemistry course will have an extremely difficult time teaching high school chemistry.
5. Aggressively recruit people who have had a science career to become teachers. They’ve practiced science, they have a valuable perspective, and they are generally passionate about their science. They may need some help figuring out how to teach, but oftentimes that is easier than learning subject matter.

Science involves experimentation. Scientists consider themselves to be skilled problem-solvers, careful workers, imaginative thinkers, open-minded, intelligent people. How about combining those traits and making a concerted effort to improve teaching science? It seems to me that it would be an extraordinarily interesting and important experiment.