I've written before that teaching good science is really my utmost concern. This gets to the heart of the anti-evolution movement, the AIDS denialists, the vaccine/autism "controversy", the abortion-breast cancer "connection", and probably a dozen other topics in science that are largely misunderstood by the general public. Having a population better educated in science, who understand the scientific method, evidence, hypothesis generation and testing, and theory formulation would be a nice start.
When I wrote about this Time article, I missed this one in the same issue, discussing the way we teach science to our students--and what can be done about it.
Many of this country's naturally gifted scientists--its most inquisitive, observant, persistent citizens--share a handicap: they can't read yet. They also can't play with matches, focus microscopes or see over lab tables. "Children love to explore the natural world. They love to make sense out of it," says Carlo Parravano, director of the Merck Institute for Science Education, which trains teachers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. "By fourth grade, we squash that curiosity with the way we teach science."
The science role models most students know best are their teachers. But science teachers who are both passionate and prepared are scarce. U.S. high school students have just a 40% chance of studying chemistry with a teacher who majored in the subject, according to a 2005 report from the National Academy of Sciences. By contrast, they have a 70% likelihood of studying English with an English major. Often, educators at the elementary level never liked science in the first place. That's in part because science enthusiasts, who start at about $32,000 in a public school teaching job, are lured to careers in the business world. "Corporate America is eating its feed corn," says Wheeler. Women who excel in science today, he says, have career options that weren't open to them in the Sputnik era, a victory for equality but a loss for schools. "Teachers are so frightened of these subjects that they transmit the fear to the children," says former Merck CEO P. Roy Vagelos. "These kids are afraid of science."
The article isn't just criticizing teachers--there are some highlights showing what some innovative teachers have done to get kids interested in science as well. I'd also be interested in hearing from grade or high school teachers out there too. I've been thinking about maybe setting up a summer program to get kids into my lab--maybe freshmen or sophomores in high school. Have a week-long intensive course in microbiology and molecular biology--they'd learn to grow the microbes, do some DNA extractions, PCR, gene sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis (with lectures describing all this stuff to go along with the lab work), just so they get an idea of how to do these things, and what they mean in the big picture. I know this sounds kind of dry, but that's just the outline--I'd have more fun stuff planned that take the lab work and show how it applies to the "real world". Too boring? Too much for kids that young? Think it would spark any interest? I've never taught kids that age and I wasn't exactly normal myself at 14-15ish, so I never know if what appeals to me would actually be interesting to anyone else or not.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
U Maryland has a program for high school seniors, where they can spend afternoons working in a lab instead of taking more classes at their school. You might want to look into a partnership like that.
Hmmm.... I have run into the first three categories, but not the fourth. Sounds like a US phenomenom. Much like two of the other three.
I don't think the problem is only the lack of good science education. it also has something to do with the political climate in the US - there is a clear political agenda in much of this.
I've worked with high school kids in the lab (sophomores-seniors). I recommend it highly. It won't be for everyone, but I think some kids will really like it.
I think it's a great idea, but I also think the real problem isn't that there aren't opportunities. Students that are motivated enough to go to a summer program would end up being fine anyway - we've still got plenty of brilliant, well-educated scientists being turned out by our education system. The real problem is with students who couldn't care less and only receive the bare minimum exposure to the sciences. The problem is making sure the bare minimum includes a good foundation, which it probably doesn't in most cases.
I think your idea is great (I would have loved it), but...
Are you already too late by the time they reach high-school? The article said that by 4th grade many have lost interest.
Could you talk to the schools/teachers about having some 3rd - 5th graders take a field trip to the lab. Show them the cool stuff you do. Let them look in a microscope etc. Enough cool stuff to keep them interested for a while longer.
I think another issue we need to confront is the tendency of educators (read school boards and administrators) to infuse their political dogma into the science curriculae. Down here in Texas, we have a state board of education with people who make public statements such as "I haven't seen a rock become a human being yet...." They also pander to the booboisie constantly with no thought to real harm they're doing to people. They don't seem understand that people get hurt when public policies decisions are made in absence of adequate scientific knowledge.
If we could take the politics out of our public schools' science classrooms, we could go a long way towards cultivating the nations budding scientific talent.
What are we afraid of?
For the last couple of years, I've had high school students working in my lab during the summers. Yet, those kids are already in thier way to be scientists. The vast majority is lost by the time they reach junior high. This is much worse in inner city school, and poor school districts in general. And this is not a strick black/latino/minority issue. I volunteer in a program called "Speakers for Science", and a couple of years ago I was at a rural school outside St. Louis. The school didn't have a full time science teacher, mostly because no one had applied for the position. One of the math teachers was taking a biology course so she can take over. The general feeling I got was that given that their kids mostly don't go on to college, and certainly not into science, there wasn't much of a need.
A few comments--I agree it's not only about lack of opportunities, but this would be at least a chance to mentor some potentially interested kids before they go to college and further lose interest in science. As for younger kids, I'll have to see about that. Since I work with a pediatric pathogen in the lab, it makes me a bit nervous to think about bringing kiddos in there, especially a group of them. (Plus, my lab's pretty small). So I don't think a field trip would be the way to go, but I may be able to come up with something safe and age-appropriate.
Having a population better educated in science, who understand the scientific method, evidence, hypothesis generation and testing, and theory formulation would be a nice start.
This would be a great start, but another important topic is basic statistics. Until more people understand the difference between correlation and causation, it's difficult to discredit "connections" like those that you mention.
Even among scientists, more rigorous stats training wouldn't go amiss. I meet lots of scientists who are uncomfortable with anything much more sophisticated than conducting a t-test.
That section of the article doesn't attack teachers, but rather bemoans the lack of interest of talented undergraduates in teaching science. For full disclosure, I am one of those students (though in physics). Much is made of the salary gap, but I believe a greater influence is what the job entails. Each profession offers its downsides, but at the core, would an ethusiastic science major find more enjoyment doing research or teaching? More often then not students will chose the former due to its vast opportunities to pick and chose what little corner of the natural world you would like to learn about. Teaching science in junior high or high school seems too restrictive and lacking in intellectual stimulation, at least to me.
I clearly am part of the problem. I admit it. I also never had any inspiring science teachers until I got to college, which sadly is more the norm then it should be.
What the focus of this discussion should be is how to get more science students infused with that notion of civic duty and interested in teaching. Losing the "blame teacher first" attitude, respect for educators, and a decent wage are starts. But one still has to overcome the lure of the laboratory, which is quite a hurdle especially for a lab junkie such as myself.
I just got my M.A. in teaching and will be (hopefully) teaching high school science in the next month or so. I have been a bench rat for the last fifteen years in biotech and achedemia in various virus labs. The BSCS approach was popular in the 60's and 70's, but then we shifted to the "teach the test". I highly recommend that you look at that method. You cannot "teach" science, It must be discovered and put into a personal perspective by the students. The challenge is to provide them the activities to do that.
www.bscs.org can help, and it will be in my classroom from the start.
Disclaimer: I am a high school chemistry teacher.
I teach at a science and math magnet school. I am fortunate to work with students who, for the most part, really dig science. I have experience chaperoning the type of summer programs Tara is talking about and I can tell you they are usually a huge successes. Absolutely give it a go.
The following comments should only be applied to secondary schools. Elementary education is another animal that I do not know well. As for kids not being taught by scientists...The problem stems from the fact that too many public schools don't care about teacher quality in general, not just in the sciences. Public schools are staffed by teachers who have worthless degrees in education. They are run by administrators who have even more worthless degrees in school administration. For what it's worth, I have a B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemistry. Again, I am fortunate because my school values my expertise and is willing to pay a bit extra to get teachers with advanced degrees. The overwhelming majority of high schools avoid advanced degrees because of the extra cost. I have also completed the courses required to be a supervisor in New Jersey. Let me tell you, these classes are an absolute joke. The majority of folks taking these classes are gym teachers who want to make more money by moving over on the pay scale. The majority of people teaching these classes are folks who haven't been in a real classroom for decades. The point is this: it's about the people. The people running our schools are the same mental midgets who majored in education 25 years ago. To keep their positions of authority and their six figure salaries they hire more mental midgets. Until we eliminate the influence of schools of education on secondary education things will never improve. I know this sounds harsh, but the reality is what it is. I love teaching. I love working at my school. But if we keep throwing money at this program or that program without change the people running the system, public education will remain mediocre.
We just had a Girls Math and Science day here in the Lansing, MI area over the weekend. It was designed for 6th grade girls. They got to attend 2 45 minute sessions where they did hands on science-y things, and they got to choose from 30 of them. Each session was led by women who actually are active in these fields, and programs ranged from archaeology to blood sugar analysis to the folks from the vet school who brought it a live goat and took x-rays.
It's tough because I love to visit classes and talk about what I do as an archaeologist, but teachers are forced to teach-to-the-test, so they don't always have time for extra speakers.
Megan,
That sounds like a very cool idea. I'll keep that in mind--I'm still rather new here and don't know a lot of the faculty in other departments, but I bet there'd be interest in something like that.
Tara,
I've found the easiest way to get programs going is to hop on bandwagons, there are usually folks around who've already made contacts and found money to support programs. Here are two of the major youth education program organizers at U of Iowa: The Belin Blank Center for Gifted Education: http://www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblankThe Opportunity at Iowa Program: http://www.uiowa.edu/~provost/oiThey have serval other outreach programs listed here: http://www.uiowa.edu/homepage/resources/k-12.html
High schools and community college biotech programs are always looking for reseachers who are willing to have student interns in their laboratories.
There are four community colleges in Iowa with biotechnology programs:
1. Des Moines Area Community College, Ankeny, IA
2. Ellsworth College, Iowa Falls, IA
3. Indian Hills Community College, Ottumwa, IA
4. Kirkwood Community College, Cedar Rapids, IA
They might be able to put you in touch with high schools that have student internship programs. This is one of the best ways to have students work in your lab, because the school can help you learn what you need to do for insurance and complying with your state's labor laws.
Your goals are admirable. you may want to check out this page at CIRES Rescipe. Keep us posted.
"Many of this country's naturally gifted scientists--its most inquisitive, observant, persistent citizens--share a handicap: they can't read yet."
Reminds me of taking my 2-year old to the Academy of Sciences in SF. He wanted to see down the microscope, so I put him on the chair, he peered in (there was a seahorse on the slide, and giggled. Kept peering and looking, and giggling. Loved it. Wonder how one could keep the curiousity and joy in learning about the world into adulthood.
"U.S. high school students have just a 40% chance of studying chemistry with a teacher who majored in the subject, according to a 2005 report from the National Academy of Sciences. By contrast, they have a 70% likelihood of studying English with an English major. "
Err, you can do a lot more things other than teach with a chemistry degree than with an English degree.
We have two college seniors working in our lab right now, although they are kept away from the fly sex.
Sorry, that was meant to be "high-school" seniors.
I teach high school physics. Offering lab experience to even a handful of interested students would be terrific. If you've never done something like this before, start small and build from there. I would suggest piloting the program with one or two of the nearby high schools. Your own admissions department would love an opportunity like this to spread the word about UI, so be sure to recruit their help. They might also have some suggestions about schools to team up with.
I concur with the observations others have made about getting younger kids into university labs. This job is a bigger one, especially if you can't have them traipsing through a pathogens lab. You'd have to convince the science depts at the university to sponsor Science Days or open houses, something to bring kids in. The University of Louisville Speed School here sponsors a week-long engineers week, culminating in an egg-drop contest. The student engineers society organizes the events, which include visits to Speed School labs, talks with profs, etc. You have a science honors society there, like Sigma Pi Sigma? Recruit them too.
Kids in grades 6-8 are a squirrelly bunch, but given a serious task ("drop this test tube and you will unleash a pathogen that will wipe out Coralville!") they are usually very capable. Kids this age want to be treated like adults, but rarely get that treatment in school. Science for them is a series of meaningless terms to memorize and reams of papers to hand in. If you have a younger crowd, telling them in no uncertain terms what will happen if they FUBAR will keep them in line. Get some undergrads and grad students to serve as mentors and you'll be fine.
I will bet good money that there are other faculty at UI who have contemplated something similar to what you're proposing, but have not got it off the ground. Teaming up with someone of like mind can take a lot of the time pressure off. It looks like you've got the energy to pull it off, Tara, so beat the bushes, get some assistance, and get it in gear soon! A lot of kids (well, their parents mostly) have their summers scheduled by mid-March, so the sooner you can publicize a pilot program the better.
Good luck!
Hogeb: That CIRES Rescipe website is really cool!
When I was an undergraduate, we had a mentoring program with a local middle school. My friend had 6th graders in the lab running gels and they loved it. Even though they might not 100% understand what's going on, if you have enthusiastic mentors, nothing is a dry subject.
Penn State University's college of science department has a series of programs for elementary- and middle-schoolers in the summer. They are enormously successful - the kids have a great time and tend to learn quite a lot. They have CSI- and Harry Potter-themed ones, among other topics. You might find their site helpful in getting your own program off the ground. I'm sure the faculty organizing these programs would be happy to share their opinions on age-appropriateness of material.
http://www.sciencecamps.psu.edu/What_Is_Action_Potential.htm
Based on what I know of those programs, and what I would have loved to do as a high school student (I'm currently a grad student in chemistry, and disliked bio for many years), I think your idea for high schoolers is age-appropriate. The only part of my high school bio class I liked was the micro/biochem part, which was the first three weeks! (Taking the class with a bunch of meatheads didn't help.)
You may also want to check if your university has a MRSEC program http://www.mrsec.org/home/ (NSF-funded, oriented at chemistry and materials) or other school outreach programs. Local people will be able to give you the scoop on problems specific to your city and the science backfround students will likely be coming from. Your university may already have funds to support outreach like what you describe; if not, the NSF gives out grants for these efforts too.
As for the elemetary school kids, I agree that it is key to show them real science when they're so young. You might be able to get a teaching lab space with microscopes for a day and some harmless bugs, either in your department or in biology. You could lead some activities about the spread of disease, or how germs work in the body, since those are topics they'd be able to grasp but are not generally taught in school. That would still get them learning about the science, but keep them far from the harmful bugs in your lab. Perhaps you could show them pictures, though, and explain why they can't go inside until they're older. Alternately, a colleague who works with "less dangerous" bugs might be convinced to allow a walk-through of his/her space.
Addendum, about my personal background: I am in grad school in chemistry with the explicit goal of teaching at the college level. I would not teach in this country at the high school level because it is generally such a toxic environment, on social and academic levels. My experiences with high school administration and politics as a student, and my discussions with teachers on the subject, give me the strong impression that I would have a terrible time navigating the cronyism and lack of discipline among both my students and my superiors. I agree with Todd Crane above that the administrative end of schooling needs a huge overhaul.