Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, July 3, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Science is thrilling - except in our schools

by Johann Hari

Reposted from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-science-is-thrilling-ndash-except-in-our-schools-859056.html

In a moment, I am going to say some words, and I want to know if you begin to drift into a coma. The periodic table. Bunsen burner. Photosynthesis. Eyelids heavy yet? Teat pipette. Petri dishes of mould. Magnezzzzzzzium.

Wake up! It is exactly 150 years since a British scientist published perhaps the greatest insight of any human so far: you, me and everyone we know are sophisticated apes, thrown up by millennia of blind evolution. Armed only with his grey matter, Darwin forced us to rethink everything we thought we knew. It is still thrilling, and strange, and stunning. Yet today, potential little Darwins and Hawkings and Dawkins across Britain - and most of the rich world - are being bored out of science.

In British universities, more than 31 per cent of all places in chemistry and 40 per cent of all places in physics have been dumped in just a decade. The pool of science teachers is drying up: every year, we lose 26 per cent more physics teachers than we recruit. And it gets worse. The way science is served up – icy and lifeless – by the teachers who remain suffocates all interest in the subject. Ofsted recently warned: "Science is a fascinating subject, yet many pupils are becoming bored and demotivated because of the way it is taught."

I know: it happened to me. At primary school I found science – exploring how things work and mix and grow – fascinating. But at secondary school, I banged my head into a subject dominated by the rote-memorising of decontextualised information. I could have been reciting the winners of the Eurovision Song Contest for all I knew. I began to associate this choking boredom with all science. It was only much later, taking some papers in experimental psychology at university, that I discovered science can be an adrenaline-surging attempt to answer the great questions: How did we get here? Why is the world the way it is? Where are we going?

You can glimpse how badly science is taught if we look at two of the throbbing scientific questions of this decade – and compare them in your mind to what you learned at school.

Human beings have always wanted to discover what happened at the start of the universe. In a few weeks, we will know. Deep beneath the suburbs of Switzerland, an international band of scientists has constructed a Big Bang machine. It is called the Large Hadron Collider, and inside its reinforced walls they are going to recreate the forces that erupted 14 billion years ago, a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. It will blast open everything we think about physics.

By going back to when there were only a few simple forces in the universe, the Hadron scientists believe they will be able to separate out the basic building blocks of existence – and find out what it is made of. They have no idea what will be there. Some think they will discover new dimensions. Others believe they will unlock vast carbon-free sources of energy. Some even think the world will end. We will only know when the universe's baby pictures come through this summer. Now, isn't that more exciting than a teat pipette?

If how the universe began doesn't stir your interest, how about cracking open your own head to see how it works? Every day, neuroscientists are revealing who you are and how you function. They have shown that if I electrically stimulated a few millimetres of grey flesh in your mind-meat, I could make you experience love, forget your wife, or think you were talking to God.

But it gets weirder. In the West, we all believe there is one coherent person dominating our brains, directing us as we wander through life. There is You, whole and complete. But we are wrong. The different parts of our brains are locked in a constant electrical war. None of them is in charge. As the neurosphysician Paul Broks puts it: "We are all divided and discontinuous. The mental processes underlying our sense of self – feelings, thoughts, memories – are scattered through different zones of the brain. There is no special point of convergence. No cockpit of the soul. No soul-pilot."

This is why we feel inner conflict all the time. Your amygdyla tells you to run away from the exam; your frontal lobes tell you to stay or you won't get into university. Decode this brain-science and you decode yourself. Now, isn't that more exciting than a petri dish of mould?

So why is there such a swollen gap between this – the thrilling science you can find in any bookshop – and the sludge you were force-fed at school?

There are a range of explanations coursing through this Education-Boredom Collider. Today, our schools focus exclusively on one part of science – which happens to be the dullest. Professor Brian Greene of Columbia University says: "We continually fail to reveal the rich vistas opened up by science, and instead focus on the need to gain competency with science's underlying technical details. It squanders the opportunity to make students sit up in their chairs and say, 'Wow – that's science?'" The internal mechanics matter – but they are only part of the story. It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting by Caravaggio.

But we also have a schools system scarred by the need for instantly measurable results – when inspiration can't be measured by SATs. A friend of mine who teaches physics explains, "It's impossible to be inspiring when you are always teaching from a checklist." This is a reason why the best science teachers are dropping out: half of all teachers qualifying in science quit within five years. A study by Sheffield Hallam University found the main reason was "frustration over lack of professional autonomy and ability to be creative in work". When the best teachers go, the kids lose interest.

This is a disaster for our economy. Science jobs are due to grow by 20 per cent in the next decade, and to fill this we have been relying on importing Chinese and Indian scientists. But as their countries develop, they will find jobs at home, and we will be left with a science-vacuum.

But that's not all. Having a scientifically illiterate population is dangerous in a democracy, because it can't assess risks properly. Measles has now become endemic and deadly again because so few of us were able to see the anti-MMR hysteria for the unscientific sham it was. We weren't taught to ask: was it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where are the control groups? Worse still, a majority are still falling for the oil industry claims that there is a serious scientific dispute about whether global warming is caused by man. This is a brake on the life-saving action we need to take today.

And it is, finally, an aesthetic disaster. The great questions of life are being answered all around us – in glorious Technicolor – and most of us can't follow it, even as awed spectators. Now could you pass the periodic table and the Bunsen burner please?

j.hari@independent.co.uk

Comments 1 - 50 of 60 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #203565 by HourglassMemory on July 3, 2008 at 6:57 am

Hear, hear!!!

Being 18, I have it fresh in my mind, and I couldn't agree more.
I have an issue with Educational System. With Schooling, not Education. I have an issue with the actual way children and teenagers are taught things.
The system we have is from the 19th century if I'm not mistaken. No wonder it doesn't work with the young minds of the 21st century.

There are so many people having to learn that the only way society has found to have them learn some general things about the world is to make them sit in rows of chairs.
And there are so many people, that the only way to understand how they're doing, is by industrial-like testing.

Through the years it has been sliding down, now only caring about how people do in exams and behave in a classroom. It's sad and frustrating to be in such a system, to be a student and find so many flaws( being a student you feel them first hand) and yet you have to go with the crowd. It's so limiting.
No wonder it kills creativity.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

The fact that many great thinkers had issues with school, said something critical of traditional schooling, or are actual drop outs, should tell us something.
Just type "Schooling Quotes" on Google and just read what Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein have to say about it.

I can bet you that more than half the people in a school, especially the students, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Education and Schooling.
But they're such totally different things!!!

I feel that everybody has something to say about their current educational system, a criticism, and yet only a few stand up to point out its flaws.

Here's a quote of mine when I was 14.
"Every time I want to learn, I find myself stuck in school."
And another
"If I learn something in school, it's because it sporadically hits my interests."
And another one
"School gives students a paranoid fear for being unsuccessful."

This last quote is relevant to science.
Imagine scientists being afraid of failing!!!!
How can you have scientifically minded people if you instil this fear in them?

School never instilled in me this passion I now have for Science. I might have had it since very young, but things at home were totally different from things at school.
At home I have my father asking me interesting questions and presentig me with paradoxes and I have the Internet. My god! wher eI would be without the internet. God bless Tim Berners Lee.

This passion was only born with watching Carl Sagan's lectures on Youtube at 4 o'clock in the morning and receiving "Cosmos" during Christmas, and reading Dawkins' books.
Before that, Science to me was a subject in school. It was "you have to know this, you have to know that. Anaphases, Krebs cycles and genes, geological strata, time periods and radiometric datings. And the Test is in a week."
I don't blame the teachers... It's the system.
I feel like it's putting the tracks in front of the train, as it's moving miles per hour already. And so teachers find themselves having to do only the essential (spurt out the facts and test the kids to see if they remember). There's no time to breathe, to be natural, to let it flow as the heads of kids demand.
Outside of school, I can take my time to learn things.
Also, I can't remember a single time where Sagan or Dawkins saying "Remember this, you have to know it."
There's no need for that. Your mind remembers what it desires to remember, it glues knowledge together with meaning, with reasons to being there, and the more you learn for why things are the way they are (Science helps you with this tremendously) the better the glue is the harder it is to let go of that knowledge.

And this system makes kids decide what they want to do with their lives TOO early. How can a person at 14/15 know what they want to be when they grow up? Even at 18?
The majority doesn't know.


I've written something similar commenting on Brian Greene's article a week ago or so.
School never gave me that BIGNESS behind all those facts. It never gave me a meaning to those facts. To which I could make it relevant. There were no shelves where I could put all those facts. I had to carry them all out with me, in my hands and arms. No wonder things fell off.

It was just heartless trivia. The only thing that is relevant about these facts now is that they might be the answer in a test.

How many teenagers today actually go home from school and check for updates on NASA's missions to Mars? Actually thrilled by the advancements those missions can give the human race! ?

How many REALLY have gone through a "Pale Blue Dot" moment?
How many think scientifically about things? How many are skeptic's
the vast majority of schools don't create thinkers, they create memorizers of thinkers' achievements.

And yet I was, and AM, one of those who quickens up his pace when he remembers taht he hasn't checked Nature's or NASA's official website, and I wasn't the brightest according to tests. The only thing I was good at was English, and that to me, is a foreign language.

Kids with a passion really don't care if things are hard to grasp. Interest just jumps over difficulty. Difficulty makes them smile and provocates them. If kids were taught the principles of scientific thinking, they would deal with knowledge in such a different way!

It's a shame that our systems for educating people has been hijacked by an innocent need to take hold of the large numbers of new minds pouring in every year, and thus, in the confusion non-stop flow of minds, forget the reason why aqcuiring new Knowledge is interesting in the first place.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

2. Comment #203571 by Edouard Pernod on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 am

 avatarScience is taught backwards in the US. It should start with Newtonian Mechanics based physics, as that has easily observable real world macro aspects. Then go from that to macro-level biology, and teach chemistry last ( which is the tiny parts that make biology happen).

That being said, I think it is foolish to represent science as easy or entertaining. Science is really hard, and kids should know it is hard, and that the work ethic involved in making big discoveries is tremendous, but the values of the discoveries help the entire planet.

Science is war against ignorance. I think if it were framed as a battle against our own limitations and a battle against misconceptins about reality, I think kids would love it. I think shows like Mythbusters are showing kids how cool and illuminating even really simple science can be.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

3. Comment #203573 by Allan on July 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

Well said Johann! Science was poorly taught and dull at my school, since I left I've enjoyed reading about quantum mechanics, astronomy and of course evolution. It appeared that all the wonder and spectacle was taken out of science as soon as you hit secondary school.

Other Comments by Allan

4. Comment #203575 by bugaboo on July 3, 2008 at 7:31 am

In secondary school when the science teacher threw some sodium into a jar of water or burned some Mg that woke the class up. I dont think this sort of thing is allowed anymore (HSE). A crying shame!

Other Comments by bugaboo

5. Comment #203578 by Dhamma on July 3, 2008 at 7:38 am

 avatarShouldn't say it's definitely school, but virtually everything I've taught myself I've done outside of school(or so it feels like, at least). School generally made me uninterested in most courses. Reading about WWII or the rise of communism in Russia was utterly boring in school. However, when I wasn't forced to read it, I realized I was absolutely thrilled to learn about it on my own.

The school should be redesigned into making science, history and maths exciting and fun. I'm positive it's possible to accomplish this, and I think they should put lots of money and energy into it. We can't afford having our children uninterested in how the world works.

Other Comments by Dhamma

6. Comment #203581 by pwl on July 3, 2008 at 7:46 am

As a science teacher can I assure you that sodium into water is still allowed (with a few precautions) as are many other exciting experiments.

One thing the government could do to help us teach science well and encourage creativity is not to change everything all the time and all at once. Last year in the UK we had a new science curriculum at keystage 4(age 14-16) which I agree with in it's approach. Next year we are hit with changing both the KS3 (11 - 14) and KS5 (16-18 A-levels)
It would have helped if we could have started this now unified approach from the bottom up rather than starting in the middle and then having to do the top and the bottom at the same time!

Hopefully all these new initiatives will help but after this it needs to be allowed to settle for a while. This will allow science teachers to develop and improve their teaching without thinking that everything will be turned on it's head again

sorry for the rant

ps good science teaching is going on but with the shortage of science teachers (especially in the south east) and the varying quality of them it can be patchy.

Other Comments by pwl

7. Comment #203585 by DavidSJA on July 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

I'm thinking about becoming a Physician Assistant once I graduate with a BSc (Hons) in Life Sciences from the Open University next year, but I also think it would be cool to qualify as a teacher and spend a day a week teaching biology and chemistry to secondary school students to inspire the next generations.

I wonder how the NHS would take a 4 days a week employee :-|

Other Comments by DavidSJA

8. Comment #203588 by bugaboo on July 3, 2008 at 7:53 am

6. Comment #203581 by pwl
As a science teacher can I assure you that sodium into water is still allowed (with a few precautions) as are many other exciting experiments.




Thanks pwl. Apologies, I have been misinformed.

Other Comments by bugaboo

9. Comment #203589 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 3, 2008 at 7:55 am

 avatarA few months back I helped my 11-year old stepson with his science homework. He was supposed to answer questions about magnets and their properties. When I asked him to think about the experiments they had done in science class, he answered that they hadn't done any! His teacher somehow thought it was a good idea to learn about magnets by reading about them in a book. If that's representative of how science is taught, then no wonder that so many people can't tell the difference between superstition and science.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

10. Comment #203597 by Ygern on July 3, 2008 at 8:04 am

I had two completely different experiences with science teachers. In Junior High, we had a wonderful, deeply committed science teacher who not only did experiments as often as possible, but encouraged us to reproduce them too (in the lab, of course!). He is partially responsible for my life-long fascination with the subjects of physics and chemistry, even though I am purely a 'layman'. My senior high school science teacher was a disgrace to his profession. He never did experiments, was largely unprepared for class, teaching consisted of reading verbatim out of a textbook. How he managed to not be kicked out of his job is still a source of bemusement to me. Who knows how many children had to endure his classes and left school in complete ignorance as a result?

Other Comments by Ygern

11. Comment #203599 by bujin on July 3, 2008 at 8:12 am

Good article!

I think we need some sort of petition to change the way science is taught in school. But it probably wouldn't do any good anyway!

I work in the education sector (albeit at further education (16 ) level, and on the admin support side), and I can understand the frustrations of the teachers. There is definitely more of a goal to get good inspection grades than to actually engage the students with interesting teaching methods and subjects.

Other Comments by bujin

12. Comment #203600 by TeraBrat on July 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

That being said, I think it is foolish to represent science as easy or entertaining. Science is really hard


To me everything except physics is fun and entertaining and easy (biology, chemistry, calculus). Physics is hard and fun.

Just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't be fun.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

13. Comment #203603 by bugaboo on July 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

9. Comment #203589 by Oystein Elgaroy

How much effort is involved in getting a piece of paper and some iron filings to give a visually stunning demonstration of lines of force? get DNA from a vegetable with washing up liquid and alcohol etc etc Even the schools that are really strapped for cash or equipment could come up with some fab hands-on experiments.

Other Comments by bugaboo

14. Comment #203606 by bugaboo on July 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

TeraBrat
Just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't be fun.


Couldnt agree more Tera

Other Comments by bugaboo

15. Comment #203608 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

 avatarComment #203603 by bugaboo

I agree. Part of the problem here in Norway is that a general 3-year teaching degree allows qualifies you to teach all subjects in elementary school. You can end up as a science teacher without having taken a single science course since your first year in high school.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

16. Comment #203609 by Styrer- on July 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Of course this article is absolutely spot on, to a degree that it seemed to me as if it was simply 'stating the bleeding obvious'. My reaction only reinforces, of course, the powerful message of crisis Hari is making and that needs to be taken on board.

Recalling my own 'science lessons' at my bog-standard comprehensive school some 20 odd years ago is not exactly pleasant. My lack of native scientific talent aside, there was never any attempt to bring the disparately taught parts - physics, chemistry, biology - together as features of a whole, to explain these disciplines as simply constituent parts of an integral, exciting, all-encompassing enterprise. A couple of lessons at the start, in the middle and in summary at the end of the year, explaining how they all fit together, might have added a much needed spark of interest.

Above all, what shocks me now - coming to Richard's books late, in only the last few years - is remembering that my biology classes were more a test of my equally non-existent artistic skills, as we all sat there, at the arguably intellectually receptive age of 12-14, colouring in our most atrocious renderings of a stamen, or a stick-insect. And not one single mention of Darwin, of evolution, of natural selection whatsoever, which would surely have raised the whole subject to heady new heights of fascination and importance.

The crowning glory was that I didn't even get to dissect a frog, which was commonly anticipated as the most exciting lesson, for which I was bloody well off sick.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

17. Comment #203610 by Mr. Flibble on July 3, 2008 at 8:33 am

 avatarThis article is dead on. In highschool I thought Chemistry was really fascinating. Then I had to rote memorize the periodic table for exams... and here is the problem. I could not understand why we were using one on a big wall poster, or in our books, and then at a certain point, we had to do all our tests and formulas without access to the periodic table. Everything had to be from memory for a good proportion of the tests from beyond a certain point.

This frustrated me to no end as I am pathetic at rote memorization. I actually failed chemistry to my chagrin, and had to retake it.

When taking Chemistry in College, my instructor announced that the periodic table at the front of the class would always be available for any exam and that the highschool idea of memorizing the table is worthless. Then in the labs, the lab instructor started off by announcing the exact same thing, she stated, "If you need the table over here on the wall, get up and use it, don't try to pull it from memory if you don't know."

I asked my chem prof about this, and his response was that he had most of the table memorized, but this was because he used it every day, and that he just got to memorize it by constant use. But then he also admitted that for certain elements he used rarely he always had to look up the values. Then he added that to try to do a real experiment from memory was absolutely foolish, and he would likely have a negative effect on the experiment by mixing incorrect values. Thus his opinion on the highschool requirement for memorizing the periodic table was in his words: "Bullshit".

I still don't know why I had to memorize the periodic table and do all my exams from memory of the table in highschool chem.

Other Comments by Mr. Flibble

18. Comment #203613 by ~manic-depressive on July 3, 2008 at 8:35 am

 avatarWhat a fantastic article! So much to comment on but I'll stick with this:-

"In the West, we all believe there is one coherent person dominating our brains, directing us as we wander through life. There is You, whole and complete. But we are wrong. The different parts of our brains are locked in a constant electrical war. None of them is in charge. As the neurosphysician Paul Broks puts it: "We are all divided and discontinuous. The mental processes underlying our sense of self �" feelings, thoughts, memories �" are scattered through different zones of the brain. There is no special point of convergence. No cockpit of the soul. No soul-pilot."

This is something we know with enough certainty to be able to say (like we say of evolution): this is true. It is also of such vast significance and if it were not for the monoto-theisms we would have realized a long, long time ago. I found it rather impressive that it wasn't a neuroscientist but a mathematician, the fantastic John Allen Paulos, who pointed to this in the Edge Question for 2006:

"The self is a conceptual chimera

Doubt that a supernatural being exists is banal, but the more radical doubt that we exist, at least as anything more than nominal, marginally integrated entities having convenient labels like "Myrtle" and "Oscar," is my candidate for Dangerous Idea. This is, of course, Hume's idea �" and Buddha's as well �" that the self is an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that it is not an essential and persistent entity, but rather a conceptual chimera. If this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt throughout a society �" whether because of advances in neurobiology, cognitive science, philosophical insights, or whatever �" its effects on that society would be incalculable. (Or so this assemblage of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes sometimes thinks.)"

Indeed, "if this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt... its effects on that society would be incalculable." And just like any belief that faithfully represents reality, the effects would be positive.

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

19. Comment #203626 by DamnDirtyApe on July 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

 avatar

Thus his opinion on the highschool requirement for memorizing the periodic table was in his words: "Bullshit".


Hmm... on the subject of odd memorisings...

I gather in a lot of Islamic schools students are taught to memorise the entire quran.

I suspect the same type of bad logic is being abused by idiots with no understanding of teaching.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

20. Comment #203630 by Elles on July 3, 2008 at 9:16 am

 avatarLast year I took a Chemistry class in high school. It was boring and extraordinarily difficult. I didn't like it.

Yesterday I calculated the amount of energy it would take to make a piece of popcorn pop. It was fun.

Other Comments by Elles

21. Comment #203634 by Epinephrine on July 3, 2008 at 9:19 am

 avatarWell, I have to say that like many here I am passionate about science. My father worked to spark my interest in chemistry when I was young, and taught me a lot of basics before I hit high school; in high school I had a mediocre set of science teachers over all, but there was one fabulous teacher - unfortunately, I didn't get his class.

He was so good that I would often attend his class on my spare. He didn't just get kids to memorise, he got them thinking. I loved it! I remember one project was to identify the rock he had placed on each student's desk; he kept the lab open every lunch hour and for an hour after school, and had a book full of tests that could be performed. He was a devoted teacher, and he wanted the kids to apply what they were learning. Fabulous.

Now, guess which teacher got the most complaints? Who was told off for breaking from curriculum, for grading too hard, for not being fun? The really dedicated teacher! The mediocre teacher who would participate in school activities like carnivals and such was popular, graded fairly leniently, and taught us very little was highly praised. The teacher trying to get kids to think, challenging them, and introducing real science was disliked by the vast majority of students and hence parents.

Now, I happen to love teaching. I seriously debated whether to teach - I know I like it, I worked in science education for several years with the Canada Science and Technology Museum, through learning centres, and as a TA in university. I think I'd probably be exactly what some kids need to get interested in science, and that I have plenty of ideas on how to educate them while keeping it fun and challenging them to think through problems.

I also realised that I could never do it within the school system, that dealing with parents who felt that their little princess/prince couldn't possibly deserve to fail would drive me up the wall, limiting the course to approved standards and curricula would be stifling. When someone like myself, who loves teaching science and is enthusiastic about it isn't willing to do so, I have to wonder who they end up with.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

22. Comment #203636 by Edouard Pernod on July 3, 2008 at 9:24 am

 avatarFor an example of fantastic science teaching, everyone should watch Eric Lander's lectures on MIT's open course ware site (they're part of Biology 7.012). He's constantly making the students figure out HOW scientists discovered what they discovered, whereas most teachers merely focus only on what the discoveries were. Everybody is usually taught only what Mendel discovered, almost never are they taught how to think like Mendel and how to design rigorous and error-resistant experiments. The Physics lectures on MIT's site are also fantastic, if you fell asleep during those you'd have to be dead.

Of course science is a lot more than just listening to and comprehending a lecture. Hands on lab work is key to really understanding and retaining the stuff, but without the excellent lectures to explain how to think like a scientist, the lab work would be impossible, all you'd end up doing in lab is just following instructions, you wouldn't learn anything. Science teachers should all really be actual practitioners of science. MIT's staff are mostly highly accomplished researchers. Lander was a key part of the human genome project, and Eric Weinberg has done a lot of work in cancer research. If your science teacher hasn't ever actually done Science, then they probably can't teach it very well, since applied science is far more dependent upon discipline, attention to detail and an ability to design experiments than it has anything to do with memorizing information in a textbook. Anybody can memorize that Kinesin transports ATP across microtubules. Very few can tell you HOW that was discovered or the significance of that information.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

23. Comment #203661 by manicstreetpreacher on July 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

 avatarI think it was Albert Einstein who said, "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education".

Case in point.

Other Comments by manicstreetpreacher

24. Comment #203677 by sidfaiwu on July 3, 2008 at 10:55 am

 avatarI've had a very different experience of school. I loved it. I found the lecture-test format is optimum for learning for myself and rewarding. It used to annoy and bore me when education became 'hands on'. So I can't knock the traditional education method.

That being said, the mistake is not recognizing that different people learn best in different ways. The lecture-test format is treated as 'one size fits all'. It's not right for everybody.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

25. Comment #203683 by Quine on July 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

 avatarComment #203613 by ~manic-depressive

Nice observation. I think of it as its own electrochemical evolutionary context in which patterns of activation are fighting it out for survival and propagation through selfishly gathering neuron resources. Patterns that keep that high correlation firing going, last longer and condition more neurons. Who you are at any time just depends on what patterns are currently winning (expressing a high frequency in the population of patterns of neuron firing).

Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #203686 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

 avatarStyrer-

The crowning glory was that I didn't even get to dissect a frog, which was commonly anticipated as the most exciting lesson, for which I was bloody well off sick.


Just a frog? When I did biology we did frog, worm, and dogfish. I had to dissect a dogfish for my A-level practical exam. I was told by the examiner that it was the best dissection they had even seen, but the worst accompanying labelled drawing they had ever seen.

I hated dissection so much that when I went on to do my B.Sc. biochemistry degree I stuck with plants and microbes. But then my practical project required calibrating the enzyme assay using ... rat livers. I used to hang around the lab asking "any dead rats today?"

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #203693 by Border Collie on July 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

This is nothing new. When Ronald Reagan was first elected president and proceeded to tell Americans 'to not worry about education, we'll teach you everything you need to know', things really started to go to hell in a handbasket. Welcome to this brave new world of superstition, celebrity worship and pure intellectual laziness.

Other Comments by Border Collie

28. Comment #203696 by Faithhead on July 3, 2008 at 11:30 am

 avatar
The crowning glory was that I didn't even get to dissect a frog, which was commonly anticipated as the most exciting lesson, for which I was bloody well off sick


BSE ruined our Biology syllabus. I live in Ireland and, at the teachers discretion, she used to bring in heart, lungs, brain, tongue and anything else she could get at the butcher. When I reached leaving cert(British Alevels) all we got to watch-whilst previous years used to preform-was a dissection-of a Cow's heart.

Currently studying science in college, I had to replace my scalpal twice in one year I used it so much. I dont think there is an appreciation for the truly facinating aspects of Science.

Other Comments by Faithhead

29. Comment #203697 by mordacious1 on July 3, 2008 at 11:32 am

My daughter has had a couple of really good science teachers so far, but I feel that does not relinquish my responsibility to "teach" science every day at our house. Most of the time, my kids don't even know that we are doing "science", just their dumb old dad asking what they think about how weed seeds get transported around the property so easily. Or having snakes and other critters in the house and having them ponder the similarities to other organisms.

Parents who know little of science and refuse to learn something to teach their kids in a fun way are doing their kids a disservice. Science, as in all education, should start at home.

Bragging again: My daughter is 2 years advanced in science and really smacked the rest of her class this year (again), with extra credit she was off the charts on grading (118%), hee hee. The best part is, she feels little pressure, because science is just something one does. It is all around us, it is life itself....enough of my lecture, but you get the point.

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #203709 by Funnyguts on July 3, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Why does no one in school administration (as well as the legislators that keep pushing the obsessive checklist system) read these kinds of things? The sentiments expressed about science can just as easily be applied to the rest of the subjects schools fail to make exciting and worthwhile.

Other Comments by Funnyguts

31. Comment #203737 by Diocletian on July 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Children begin life as scientists - they experiment all the time (psychological experiments mostly). As Hari points out, schools manage to kill the natural love of science. I disagree, however, with Edouard Pernod's idea of starting out with Newtonian physics and making certain that kids know science is HARD. It is precisely this sort of attitude toward science education that will kill the love of science.

Science for a 6 year old is much different than science for a 16 year old. And while most adolescents have no intention of becoming scientists, they can still learn about science in a way that will help them through their lives. Imagine if more adults had had even the most basic understanding of the MMR vaccine scare - the newspapers could never have gotten off with pandering to their fears!

We need a society that is science literate, not necessarily more and more scientists. Yes, being a scientist is hard work, so it being a skilled carpenter, musician, or a great historian. Why pick on science as the 'really hard' discipline? Why segregate it from other areas of knowledge in terms of telling students it is hard work to succeed?

By all means, let's make science literacy interesting and for those students who want to go on to a career in science - they can go on a separate educational track. What has harmed us as a society is that only a fraction of the population is science literate, which is why the Discovery Institute et al get away with so much.

Other Comments by Diocletian

32. Comment #203762 by saraswati on July 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Wow, I guess I must've been lucky... I took IGSCEs and A-levels, and I thought all my science teachers and classes were fantastic. They hold a large part of the responsibility for instilling my interest in science.

There was a lot of memorising, but it didn't seem like just a bunch of disconnected factoids, it was always part of some greater system or process, which I was fascinated to learn about and understand.

I do have to agree with sidwafu, though - I found much of the "hands on" stuff pretty boring. It may be important in order to learn about the scientific method and to get introduced to experimental techniques, but for me the experiments did not contribute at all to developing interest in science. Measuring the period of a pendulum or watching potato slices expand seemed hopelessly mundane compared to the things that we were learning about in the "theory" section of class.

Other Comments by saraswati

33. Comment #203767 by Lord Zero on July 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

 avatarGreat post, im totally agreed with it...
the serious danger of scientific illiterate
people really make me lost sleep.
Democracy fails when people doesnt understand
the issues what they are voting too.
For that i distrust politicians.

Anyway, its better for me than the local
scientists numbers are decreasing... i would
really like to have a personal office
in a UK university. ^^

Other Comments by Lord Zero

34. Comment #203768 by MelM on July 3, 2008 at 2:23 pm

It took years to understand that I'd learned (in effect) a bunch of science as dogma. I've not taken this course but it sure seems to be a solution to the problem. I'd wanted this for (too many) years: maybe I'll buy the course yet although it's way way too late to do much with it--other than having a fun time.
From the ad:
The same thing happened when I "learned" about atoms. In first grade, I was shown a model and some pretty pictures of atoms, told that they had things called a nucleus, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and told that everything in the world was made up of them. How did scientists know about these complex things that I couldn't see? I had no idea--just the teacher's say-so. I was not learning--I was parroting. And I was parroting when I "learned" the periodic table, the nature of light, electricity, magnetism, and the other fundamentals of science. They were presented as random bolts from the blue--to be accepted blindly.

Is it any wonder that with this kind of "teaching," most of us spend our years in science class bored and confused, and emerge with virtually no valuable knowledge?
From the ad:
Mr. Harriman's course is unlike any other because for every principle of science he teaches, he gives you the evidence that scientists themselves used to discover it.


Course link: Fundamentals of Physical Science: A Historical, Inductive Approach

Course outline link: Course outline

Edit: BTW, both Harriman and VanDamme are, philosophically, Objectivists.

Other Comments by MelM

35. Comment #203773 by Lemniscate on July 3, 2008 at 2:32 pm

 avatarGood article. I think we need to be cautious, though, not to degrade science lessons to whatever is most fun. Sexing up science lessons could easily be done wrong; some of the boring bits are necessary, and concentrating too much on grandiose and exciting areas of science, without being able to understand specific areas and the fundamentals in depth, wouldn't prepare one well for university or employment.

However, laborious memorisation of inert facts should be minimised. Chemistry was terrible for that; what's the point in memorising the colours of ligand substitution reactions? I never found it difficult, just frustratingly pointless.

I think that a general background of each science could be taught, detailing its greatest achievements and achievers, and why they matter. This could be used to introduce the understanding of the scientific method, too. Have this on the cirriculum but not on the public exams - let the teachers concentrate on what they're passionate about from their subject for a bit. It'd be healthy for both the teachers and the pupils.

They could easily improve biology education by actually teaching evolution, the most fundamental theory in biology, properly. I went through 6 years of secondary school biology, and the only thing I can remember to do with evolution was the changing colours of moths example of natural selection. I had no idea about its power as a theory, and the light treatment it was given implied to me that it was not on an equal footing with the rest of what I was learning.

This article could have given a mention to mathematics education, which is in a pretty dire state too, although not as bad at university, because a mathematics course costs a lot less than a science course. However, maths makes science look cool, and the way it's taught reduces one to the functions of a computer algebra package. This needs serious attention, too, for the sake of science as well as maths.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

36. Comment #203789 by Funnyguts on July 3, 2008 at 3:25 pm

@Saraswati: That hands-on stuff you mention does sound pretty boring. Projects where the outcome is already guaranteed are lousy. There are definitely plenty of hands-on activities that would be both more fun and more educational. I personally recommend (especially in the higher levels) that students be encouraged to create their own experiments, which a)gives them autonomy, b)helps them master the scientific method and the way real scientists think as the actual facts are reinforced, and c)requires them to be creative and thoughtful as they design their experiments.

@Diocletian: I agree with you on not starting with Newtonian physics. I would personally start in the earlier grades (and at home) by trying to identify what the students find puzzling about the world and using that to launch into scientific inquiry.

Other Comments by Funnyguts

37. Comment #203795 by Jenny Taylier on July 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Great article! It's well known that the best way to learn something is by DOING it, so the requirement to conduct experiments in science should mean that kids generally do better in this subject. The fact that they don't seems to indicate teachers are missing this opportunity.

Science is also at risk of becoming a victim of what I call the 'missing generation syndrome'. Once a skill - such as teaching science well - is skipped by a generation then the knowledge chain is broken. One missing generation of good science teachers means the next generation fails to get inspired and the subject goes into rapid decline, as indicated in the article.

Other Comments by Jenny Taylier

38. Comment #203803 by Rational_G on July 3, 2008 at 4:18 pm

 avatarScience may be fun - depending upon your teacher, the curriculum, and your own interests. However, the requirement isn't for it to be fun. The requirement is for it to be fundamental.

Do we hear the same whining about literature or history? Everybody is going to find some subject boring.

The problem is poor education, not inadequate entertainment value.

Teenagers think lots of school subjects are boring. Too bad.

Teach the fundamentals well and you will have produced clear thinking citizens.

Quality education, not pandering entertainment.

It's a two way street. The students have to apply themselves and the schools have to produce quality teachers and curriculum.

Unfortunately, our society doesn't place a lot of worth on quality education and well paid teachers. Celebrities in rehab seem to be more worth our attention. It's a problem of setting priorities, not a problem of style.

Making it "fun, fun, fun" is not the answer.

Other Comments by Rational_G

39. Comment #203811 by Lightnin on July 3, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I normally resist polemics against the current standard of teaching, because, quite frankly they are most often given by people who have no direct contact with schools and teaching (politicians/journalists etc)., and their opinions/suggestions are unhelpful or unrealistic.

I suppose I'm also pissed off because this author had the gall to knock pipettes and Petri dishes, titrating and plating is among the most fun you can have in chemistry/biology. Just recently our chemistry department had a titration competition. Fun for all!

Nonetheless, you don't really have to memorize (the first 20 or so elements I assume) of the periodic table in the UK do you? In high school and university in Australia, a periodic table always comes attached to exams. What the hell was the point of Mendeleev arranging all the elements into useful periods in an easier to follow fashion if people are just expected memorise it verbatim? He might as well have left it as a list, and spent his time marrying one of his lovers.

Other Comments by Lightnin

40. Comment #203816 by MrPinz on July 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm

 avatarScience was soooooo boring in my school, I can't even remember a single lesson!

Other Comments by MrPinz

41. Comment #203817 by TeraBrat on July 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Titrating is "yawn" boring, unless you have an automatic titrater that you can set up and walk away from and come back to a printout of the results.

I totally agree about the memorization being a waste. School should be about learn skills like problem solving and analyzing. Memorizing for a test is a waste of time.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

42. Comment #203819 by Lemniscate on July 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm

 avatarI don't think you can blithely throw memorisation out of the window.

If someone did an A Level, I'd expect them to have gained knowledge as well as skills. Some of this knowledge will inevitably have to be memorised and tested. For example, I'd be disappointed if no exams required one to know the laws of thermodynamics during the course of a physics education.

The problem occurs when memorisation takes the place of understanding. When memorisation is essential to understanding - e.g. memorising the laws of thermodynamics being essential to understand a physics course - then it is justified. On the other hand, memorising the colour changes from one co-ordinate compound to another doesn't add to the understanding; the explanation of the colour change is what should be tested. The bad sort of memorisation leads to unwarranted marks in exams, marks that do not reflect your understanding of the subject.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

43. Comment #203832 by justaperson on July 3, 2008 at 6:54 pm

 avatarIt's really been that way for the past half century at least. The school system isn't geared toward the Richard Feynman types--but maybe we'd have a few more of them if there was less emphasis on method and more on discovery.

Other Comments by justaperson

44. Comment #203835 by moderndaythomas on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 pm

 avatar
It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting by Caravaggio.


It's more than that. One must not forget that Caravaggio, Monet, or Michael Angelo all started out as clumsy novices awkwardly holding their brushes, bits of graphite or coal.
The human need to discover is what's missing from the classrooms.

My daughter wants to become a marine biologist. She's not inspired by what she reads from a text book. She's inspired by reading about the people that slip into the Amazon and swim with the pink dolphins.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

45. Comment #203852 by King of NH on July 3, 2008 at 8:38 pm

 avatarI became an English major because I love the sizzle of a freshly flipped burger.

But I love science, mostly because of my university experience with core classes. I had a two hour break between my biology class and my world lit, and would hang out with my professor for most of it digging deeper into how the Kreb's cycle works, how much energy is locked in ATP... The was excitement in seeing real science and having such fundemental questions answered, questions I could only take wild guesses at before higher education. High school education alone left so many gaps of understanding between the memorized facts that I didn't know 'science' at all.

I have often thought of changing my major to science, but I am still fascinated by the history, structure, and origin of language; a subject explored by the science end but rarely approached from the other, liberal arts end. I hope my passion for both will help me bridge the entire subject in my graduate studies.

Other Comments by King of NH

46. Comment #203853 by debaser71 on July 3, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I dunno my science education was pretty good and fairly interesting. More interesting than the other courses I had to take in school.

Anyway IMO it's more the medias fault for why science is seen as stuffy and hard to understand. Ever watch a news person talk about science? Firstly they act as if they don't know anything, then act like it's perfectly acceptable to be ignorant, then after the scientist is done speaking the news person acts as if they are stunned by big words.

Blaming the educators is IMO sort of placing the blame in the wrong spot and placing the blame on the very people who are trying the hardest. Seems unfair.

eta: also want to say that I teach my children science and science appriciation. They are still young but I encourage questions and I can usually come up with an intersting answer...it's great being a dad! I do not leave my children's education and upbringing to the school. The school is just a part of it. Again, to blame schools, teachers, and educators is unfair. IMO.

Other Comments by debaser71

47. Comment #203857 by Goldy on July 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Personally, I loved science. It's why I continued along that avenue rather than history and English. I did chemistry for A level because of the benzene ring :-)
What was the alternative? Ummm...maybe something like this http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm (Friday jokes ;-))

Other Comments by Goldy

48. Comment #203859 by T4Baxter on July 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm

 avatarSeems to me the 'science' children are likely to grasp and enjoy, is the process of discovering answers to simple questions. Simple questions in this reality, within which we spend most of our time, never have simple answers. At the most fundamental depths of understanding almost everything including psychological questions 'boil down' to physics and as such a child's mind can wind through avenues of thought for many years over the answers. My father would ask me "Which is more loving? to love out of obligation, or to love because you can't help it?". Where does a baby learn how to cry? When the present time becomes the past, where does it 'go'? They seem silly at first but inspire years of pondering up to the moment where you discover that the answers are being churned out by science on a daily basis. I believe that a stream of good questions prepares the brain for the answers, when your old enough to comprehend (ish) them. Also this way there is a deep feeling of appreciation and joy when the answers finally present themselves, often enough, raising brand new questions to which no one yet knows the answers. What an astonishingly awesome place (Britain) and time (now) to be alive in. I just hope the human race doesn't squander the efforts so far.

Other Comments by T4Baxter

49. Comment #203864 by mordacious1 on July 3, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Goldy

Hey, don't laugh. The one guy got to visit Mt. St. Helens with Steve Austin, who I think is the 6 million dollar man.

Other Comments by mordacious1

50. Comment #203866 by Goldy on July 3, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Well, bugger me, you're right! That would make climbing easier! *Sound of Steve's bionic legs making their tsh tsh tsh noise*

Other Comments by Goldy
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE