Science Education: Time for a ground-up reworking?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fiveyearlurker

I’m not suggesting that all PhDs would make good high school teachers. But, even if it’s 5%, shouldn’t we tap that resourse of disgruntled, underpaid, brilliant people?

Talking to a fellow postdoc yesterday, she is trying to get a teaching job, and she would be great at it, but she’s finding it difficult to be considered for such positions, and the salary is not commensurate with what she feels that PhD in her early 30s should be paid. If a transitional system were set up, and she were paid fairly, she would likely take advantage of it. And you would have a teacher of science who would have, you know, done some actual science.

If you want the doctorates to undergo some formal teacher education prior to going into the classroom, then we’re almost in complete agreement.

My one question is whether it’s reasonable or practical to pay Ph.Ds double what other teachers get. Will they really provide twice the value to the students compared to a teacher who has a bachelor’s in teaching with a minor in science? They might, but I’m not convinced that they will. And even if they do, how many school systems do you think will pay out the extra money for the Ph.D. if they can instead hire a bachelor’s teacher at half the cost? Most districts that I know of aren’t exactly looking for something to do with all their extra money; most would much sooner hire the cheaper teacher, given such a difference in pay scale.

I’d suggest that we ought to increase teachers’ salaries enormously (not that I have a vested interest in this suggestion), and then place much greater restrictions on who may become a teacher. Treat the profession like a profession: gaining a teaching license ought to pay slightly less than, and be slightly less difficult than, passing the bar.

Daniel

[Fiveyearlurker]

I think we’re basically sympatico on this, and would be able to work something out. So, which of us should be president and which should be vice?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fiveyearlurker

So, which of us should be president and which should be vice?

I’m all about vice. But only if gluttony’s available.

On-topic, in many states, folks can do exactly what we’re talking about. NC TEACH is North Carolina’s program, whereby folks with degrees (not even master’s are necessary) can take intensive classes over the summer and be in the classroom with a provisional license by the next fall. A friend of mine with her master’s in math called up the Charlotte/Mecklenburg school system and asked what it would take for her to get a job; they said, “When can you start?” and she was teaching within a couple of weeks. Folks with Master’s degrees get an automatic 15% (I think) salary increase over those with bachelor’s degrees. So we’re not talking revolutionary changes here.

I seriously considered doing NC TEACH; but I much prefer teaching at the elementary level, and the program doesn’t cover elementary school. There’s not really a shortfall of people who want to teach at that level, even if (in my humblest of opinions) a lot of them are below-average, intellectually incurious tweakers that shouldn’t be allowed within fifty feet of a kid’s brain.

Daniel

[Snag]

@Loopydude

I don’t dispute the importance of portraying the history all, I just wonder if a “history of science” course might be a better vehicle. Speaking of zeitgeists, who had a greater influence on 20th century thought than Einstein? They wanted him to be the president of Israel for crying out loud. Why, in a typical history curriculum, do we only focus on the contributions of generals and politicians, and virtually ignore their scientist contemporaries, unless they invent a big weapon or something of that nature?

Yes. Science has affected history in enormous ways, scientific breakthroughs of any age usually overshadowed politicians and generals, charting the courses they took. The fundamentals of scientific thought and change should be at the heart of history class in many instances, which would be the best place to teach those concepts.

[Snag]

I have three pet peeves. As others have stated, one most relates to overall curricula. Science class is often taught independent of what kids learn in history class or social studies, which might be independent of what they read in English, and that some of the math they are being taught doesn’t always review or build on what they are learning in science class. Some of the simpler facts and concepts might be best taught to younger students, often starting with older history. Might it not track along to some extent, with each grade towards the present and its more complex science, math, and global view of the world? Some history of science might help make sense of things. In a more a more extensive teaching of history, even some of the most basic experiments might be done in history class followed by explanations about how they changed the world. I think if every teacher were required to work with the others in an overall curricula to teach in unison what concepts are explored for each grade level, all the concepts might be taught in the appropriate class without needing to eliminate some classes to provide additional time for what falls between the cracks now. This might require a more constructavist method as Daniel talked about.

The biggest problem is that we’d probably need to tear down the way we teach in America and rebuild it from scratch so that all students, where ever they might go, would be on the same page. But then, that’s probably the only real solution anyway.

A second point – not trying to hijack, it’s related to the above – is that art classes are considered optional electives. I hold that rather they teach critical thinking in better ways than most of the above subjects. When craft becomes art, you have a high level form of communication on many levels that requires the understanding of multiple disciplines and the skill to turn abstract thought into something concrete for the artist to really flesh out what they want to express. Or those skills are needed for the observer to interpret abstact into concrete ideas to get what the artist is trying to suggest. This requires critical thought related to an understanding of symbolism. I’ve long held that art and language are the parents of mathematics, and that a concurrent long-term education including most arts as related to other subjects makes such a curriculum possible. If we had interrelated art classes required from K-12, we could also teach how one comes up with theory in the first place through a solid understanding of abstraction into symbolism. And at the same time, the actual creation of art is based on usage of science, math, literature, history, constructing things, and so on, in part relating back to those courses.

Thirdly, why don’t we teach quick arithmetic shortcuts, mnemonics strategies for simplifying and expanding memorization, and other such logical “tricks” to help with the basic learning and understanding process in the early grades and build on them?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Snag

Thirdly, why don’t we teach quick arithmetic shortcuts, mnemonics strategies for simplifying and expanding memorization, and other such logical “tricks” to help with the basic learning and understanding process in the early grades and build on them?

My favorite class right now is my math class, in which we’re studying a theory of math education that involves the teacher giving almost no answers to the kids at all. The idea is that the kids have to figure out and justify their own method for everything. And if they figure out a nonstandard way to (for example) add two-digit numbers, that’s fine.

For example, can you do the problem 357+289 in your head? Try it now.

Okay, here’s how I did it.
357+289=
356+290=
346+300=
646.

That’s not at all the traditional algorithm, in which you line up the numbers by decimal place, add the right-hand numbers, “carry” the one, add the middle numbers, “carry” the one, and add the left-hand numbers. Mine is an ad-hoc method for solving the problem. I also could have subtracted 43 from 289 to get 246, added the 43 to 357 to get 400, and proceed from there. I also could have added 500, 130, and 16 (300+200, 50+80, 9+7) to get 646. And I know there are other methods.

The idea, and I haven’t been in classrooms to observe if this is true, is that when students use ad hoc strategies like these, they get the right answer far more often, since they understand what they’re doing. It’s very common for students to make mistakes with the “carrying” algorithm, since many teachers place more emphasis on doing it correctly than on understanding how they do it. When you understand the method you choose, you’re likely to notice any mistakes that you make.

The theory is also that by teaching in this manner, kids will do better on standardized tests, because they can problem-solve. If they approach a type of problem that you’ve not taught them to do yet, they’re already accustomed to approaching unknown problems and figuring out how to deal with them.

It makes sense to me, and is certainly something I’ll be trying when I’m a teacher. I’d be interested in hearing from other teachers how well such methods work.

Daniel

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

The theory is also that by teaching in this manner, kids will do better on standardized tests, because they can problem-solve. If they approach a type of problem that you’ve not taught them to do yet, they’re already accustomed to approaching unknown problems and figuring out how to deal with them.

The only problem with this pedegolical approach is that it takes both time (the teacher has to interact with each student or each group to assess their method and offer guidence) and a teacher who fundamentally understands the subject matter sufficiently to follow variations in method. I remember my algebra teacher becoming frustrated and repeatedly giving me near-flunking grades because I didn’t follow her method. (I’d learned algebra years before from an old text that didn’t have any stepwise “FOIL” nonsense in it.) She just couldn’t follow what I was doing, didn’t want to try, and probably didn’t have time anyway. (She and her husband eventually left teaching and became truck drivers. Yeah!)

With required standardized testing primary and secondary education have been yoked to very standardized curricula from which little variation is tolerated, or at least, this is what I’ve seen in recent years. The idea is that the class teaches to the test–sometimes quite literally–but doesn’t leave a lot of room for teachers to deviate from methods and topics required by the subject curriculum. In some ways, this is good–students all have a standardized body of knowledge to serve as prerequisites for successive classes–but often it is highly restrictive and frustrating for the better and more creative members of the teaching profession.

I don’t dislike your idea–far from it–but it would require a significant retooling of how educational quality is assessed. One of the biggest problems today, aside from the lack of highly motivatied teachers, is that methods of assessment are driving the way subjects are taught rather than obtaining objective information about the efficacy of teaching methods. When you teach to the test, the students learn the test. Whether they learn anything else is incidental.

Stranger

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stranger On A Train

One of the biggest problems today, aside from the lack of highly motivatied teachers, is that methods of assessment are driving the way subjects are taught rather than obtaining objective information about the efficacy of teaching methods. When you teach to the test, the students learn the test. Whether they learn anything else is incidental.

I agree with this–thus my advocacy of the ground-up reworking of teaching and of assessment. Heck, I just got done reading a chapter in a textbook on just this issue, on the tension between education professionals and politicians over the best methods of assessing school and student performance. There’s a definite movement among educators to use different methods of assessment such as portfolios, essay questions, projects, and the like. They cost money and take time and training; but I think they’re worth it.

A lot of my classes are focusing on how to get students to perform well on the test without simply teaching to the test. As I understand it, when you teach to the test, the students end up retaining far less of their education than if you teach the material fully; and that teachers who teach the material in an engaging, interesting fashion end up with students who perform on the test at levels about equal to students who have been taught to the test.

Again, this is all theory for me now; I’ll have much stronger opinions on the subject once I’ve got a few years of testing under my belt. I know that my mom teaches from a project-oriented perspective, and her students do pretty well on the standardized tests.

Daniel

[Saint_Cad]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Compare this to US classrooms, where class typically begins with the teacher explaining a formula for solving a problem, and then students practice this formula on many similar problems. Students end up with an efficient tool that they don’t understand; because they don’t understand the tool, they’re much likelier to make mistakes in its use.

Because the teachers themselves do not understand the concepts. Very few math teachers (and I assume science teachers) in elementary or middle-school have a background in math (science) beyond the most basic classes in college. In math, the teachers know basic algebra and if lucky some geometry but take no classes at the higher i.e. more conceptual levels; talk about the euclidean algorithm or rings, fields, & groups and they have no clue what you’re saying.

[Cervaise]

@Loopydude

I don’t dispute the importance of portraying the history all, I just wonder if a “history of science” course might be a better vehicle.

This might be a sidetrack, and I might be putting too much emphasis on it because of my personal biases, but I think it’s at least tangentially relevant, so:

I definitely believe that humans have a fairly strong bias toward understanding the world in narrative terms. Consider: Every religion of which I’m aware encodes its lessons in stories and parables. Also, note how in the public mind a single well-crafted anecdote “wins” over a mass of organized empirical data. See the power of a moving narrative, as fans adjust their lives to mimic their Jedi, Starfleet, or Middle-Earth heroes. Look at how much money is spent to create and consume movies, television, novels, and so on. And we all know the sound of a six year old begging, Tell me a story.

For better or for worse, we really, really, really like stories.

Even in science, the really good story has more sticking power than the concept it represents, from Newton and the falling apple to Roy Plunkett tinkering with potential refrigerants and accidentally coming up with Teflon. When considering evolution, I’d expect the average person to be unable to describe Darwin’s original work as “observing the differentiation of finches across different environmental niches” without first contextualizing it in the scientifically irrelevant but narratively significant container “he traveled to the Galapagos in a ship called the Beagle.” Ditto Fleming pottering around in his lab and accidentally discovering penicillin, or Mendel in his monk’s robe and tonsure (whether or not he actually had them) fooling about with pea plants.

The point is, I think trying to divorce the stories of science from the concepts is a risky approach, simply because narrative offers such a potent psychological framework for people. As I think about it, there might be more mileage to be gained by combining the two, by recognizing the merits of each and taking advantage of them appropriately. For example, you could start by introducing the concept at which we’ll eventually arrive (evolution by natural selection, say), and then back up and tell the stories that get us there.

Just a thought.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SaintCad

Because the teachers themselves do not understand the concepts. Very few math teachers (and I assume science teachers) in elementary or middle-school have a background in math (science) beyond the most basic classes in college. In math, the teachers know basic algebra and if lucky some geometry but take no classes at the higher i.e. more conceptual levels; talk about the euclidean algorithm or rings, fields, & groups and they have no clue what you’re saying.

What are you basing this off of?

I’ll base my disagreement off the two Theory of Math classes that I took over the summer, in which the Euclidean algorithm was covered, as were rings, fields, and groups. These courses were required courses for getting my teaching license. Unfortunately, the professor was awful, so awful that the department secretary raised her eyebrows in surprise when she found out I’d made an A in both of them.

Granted, it may be that I’m in a forward-looking department; I don’t know how my school compares to others across the country. But at least they’re trying to teach mathematical concepts.

Daniel

[Saint_Cad]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

What are you basing this off of?

I’ll base my disagreement off the two Theory of Math classes that I took over the summer, in which the Euclidean algorithm was covered, as were rings, fields, and groups. These courses were required courses for getting my teaching license. Unfortunately, the professor was awful, so awful that the department secretary raised her eyebrows in surprise when she found out I’d made an A in both of them.

Granted, it may be that I’m in a forward-looking department; I don’t know how my school compares to others across the country. But at least they’re trying to teach mathematical concepts.

Daniel

What state did you do your credential in? Here in California, we’ve had some of the most lenient credentialing system in years taking people with minimal higher education in a field and giving them “supplemental” credentials for high-demand areas (math and science). There is no requirement beyond college algebra (basic - not abstract). I have seen the effect at numerous professional development meeting that I have been at; these teachers do

For hard facts, I’ll point to the fact that Calif. implemented a RICA (Reading Instruction Competency Assessment) to ensure that multiple-subject teachers (elementary and special ed) could teach literacy skills. At the same time they developed a MICA to assess math instruction competency. Due to the high failure rates during testing of the MICA the State of California dropped the math competency requirement.

I know that other states have stricter credentialing requirements than Calif. - maybe that’s why our students score so low.

[II_Gyan_II]

Before reforming science education, introduce a course on causal reasoning.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SaintCad

What state did you do your credential in? Here in California, we’ve had some of the most lenient credentialing system in years taking people with minimal higher education in a field and giving them “supplemental” credentials for high-demand areas (math and science). There is no requirement beyond college algebra (basic - not abstract). I have seen the effect at numerous professional development meeting that I have been at; these teachers do

Ah, okay. I’m working toward an NC license, and it’s possible that it’s stricter than California’s (we had a great education governor a couple cycles back, who brought the state from the bottom of the education pack to somewhere near the middle). I don’t know whether the Theory of Math classes are unique to my school or a feature of my state’s requirements. Certainly I’m not taking a Theory of Science class; nor am I taking the History of Literacy class that I think would be completely sweet.

For hard facts, I’ll point to the fact that Calif. implemented a RICA (Reading Instruction Competency Assessment) to ensure that multiple-subject teachers (elementary and special ed) could teach literacy skills. At the same time they developed a MICA to assess math instruction competency. Due to the high failure rates during testing of the MICA the State of California dropped the math competency requirement.

Yikes. On the one hand, dropping the math requirement is a very stupid solution to the problem. On the other hand, when a huge number of people fail a test, it’s possible that the problem is with the test and not with the people. (I was just reading about a high-school graduation test in New England that asked students to identify the rhyme structure of a poem, without reproducing the poem on the test–how is this anything but idiotic rote memorization of useless facts?)

Whether it’s being done in particular states or not, I think we can agree that teachers should learn about the theories behind math, so that they can better teach the subject.

Daniel