This is an archived site and is no longer maintained. There will be no further updates to this site.
This is an archived site and is no longer maintained. There will be no further updates to this site.
| Projects | 
Publications | How to Get Involved | Contact Us |
New words are invented to encapsulate a set of concepts in order to give them a simple handle, a shorthand, that corresponds to our mind's ability to chunk ideas together. Science education is no stranger to these inventions, as the terms "concept maps," "inquiry," and "constructivism" attest; each captures an important, complex collection of associations.
New terms are usually not just nonsense sounds, but are derived from existing words in order to incorporate parts of their prior associations. This causes endless confusion as anyone knows who has tried to help students understand the difference between the colloquial meaning of "speed," and "velocity," for instance, and their uses in mechanics where speed and velocity are not the same, and their similarity makes it easy to mis-construe their technical meanings.
Sometimes we hide a concept behind a facade to make it more socially acceptable. Most human biological functions and associated anatomy-defecation, genitalia, birth, and death-are shrouded in a host of circumlocutions like "going to potty," "private parts," "lying in," and "passing on." "Research," of the scientific kind, seems to be a similarly taboo word among science educators. For the practicing scientist, science is synonymous with research, but science education usually ignores research and concentrates on simply conveying its fruits. We don't talk about research, we don't engage students in research, and we don't even talk about it. This shunning of the concept is at the very root of the weakness of science education. If educators were more connected to research-understood it and taught it-science education would not be so divorced from its roots.
The late Lewis Thomas, the master of words and consummate writer, captured the excitement of scientific research and chastised educators for not communicating it:
It is the very strangeness of nature that makes science engrossing, that keeps bright people at it, and that ought to be at the center of science teaching. I believe that the worst thing that has happened to science education is that the great fun has gone out of it...Very few see science as the high adventure it really is, the wildest of all explorations ever taken by human beings, the chance to catch close views of things never seen before, the shrewdest maneuver for discovering how the world works. (Thomas, 1981)
Unfortunately, this wildest of explorations has been squeezed out of most science education. In the rush to put more science content into science education, to prepare students for the next exam, the essence of science has been lost. Science education has developed into a separate entity divorced from science and research. From kindergarten through college, students rarely do science, they seldom see the creative side of science, they do not feel it is open-ended.
By ignoring science research, we not only fail to convey an accurate impression of what science is, we miss out on a teaching strategy that is fun, motivating, inspiring, and educationally sound. But let kids tell you in their own words:
Yeah, building solar houses, it was fun building them, cause we got to design our own and we got to record all like our materials and stuff. We got to use our own imagination... to create. They [the activities] are different, yeah, a lot different, 'cause I mean you have more hands-on and there's no real boundary to what we can do. (Wier, et al, 1992)
The new standards are very clear about the importance of science research in our teaching. The AAAS Benchmarks put student inquiry first and state that students should be able to "frame the question, design the approach, estimate the time and costs involved, calibrate the instruments, conduct trial runs, write a report, and finally, respond to criticism." Fully two-thirds of the benchmarks are related to the skills students need to undertake and understand their own investigations and design projects and only one-third contain traditional science math, technology, and society content such as energy conservation, plate techtonics, and evolution. By place of honor and sheer bulk, the AAAS has elevated student ability to undertake research above acquiring the results of others' research.
Similarly, the draft NRC standards state that "Science as inquiry is a basic and controlling principle in the ultimate organization of ... science education." (NRC Nov. 1994 draft, V-3 ) In other words, we should organize our entire curriculum around student research, providing time for it and making sure that prerequisite skills, attitudes, and knowledge is treated to support this.
Just in case you wonder what "science as inquiry" is, the NRC authors go on to define it much as the AAAS did:
Students at all grade levels and in every domain of science should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with the processes of inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting an investigation, using appropriate tools and techniques, thinking critically and logically about the relationships between evidence and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments. (NRC Nov. 1994 draft, V- 4)
The NRC (and the AAAS) are describing something any scientist would recognize as research.
But note: neither Thomas, the AAAS, nor the NRC come right out and say "research!" It is "exploration," "extended investigations," "scientific inquiry," or "projects," but never "research." Why is this? Is scientific research some private matter we don't talk about in mixed company? Is it dangerous, obscene, or illegal? Of course not. The fundamental problem is that everyone-the general public, the legislators that fund education, and most educators-harbor very inappropriate views of the difficulty of research and kind of people who do it. The general view is that only eccentric and monastic geniuses do research and they are "mad scientists," white jacketed, disheveled nerds, un-cool, square, balding, and white male. If the researchers are students, they must be privileged geniuses in private schools who write those incomprehensible Westinghouse papers, but not our students. We act as though our students cannot do research and we don't really want them to.
But of course this is not the case. We have many cases of students doing significant research; often not the academically recognized students. They have found out previously undiscovered attributes of the world around them such as the level of CO2 in their classrooms or the eutrification of local ponds. Sometimes, by pooling and comparing their data they get hints of more universal findings. Students in one project found high levels of nitrates in lettuce in many parts of the world, and went on to investigate whether this is due to the structure of lettuce, agricultural practices, or other factors. Finally, students regularly contribute to on-going surveys that are gathering crucial data, such as the Global Lab's stratospheric ozone study. All of these activities are accurately described as "research" and all have been done by typical students.
What a strange situation exists in science education: we expect the next generation of practitioners to learn without practicing, the next generation of voters to live in a technological society enriched by the fruits of science without having any appreciation for the creation of new scientific knowledge. This makes our citizens aliens in their own homes. It is like preparing painters by teaching would-be artists only art history or creating great quarterbacks solely by having recruits watch game reruns on TV. Even the audience needs an appreciation that can only be gained through participation.
It is not only possible to bring research into science education, permitting students to explore and giving them a realistic sense of the conduct of science, but this experience is the best teaching, providing understanding and motivation that leads to lifelong learning. Science is an adventure into the unknown that can be exciting and meaningful. Students at all ages can participate in this adventure; in fact, the best way to teach science is to involve students in real science research where the answers are not known and are of obvious importance.
But we have to be practical and understand the political suicide inherent in describing the point of science education as research; no school board would continence it, no bond to fund it would pass. So, we will continue to hide our intentions and use terms like "extended investigations." But just between us, when we are alone together behind closed doors, let's agree that what we really want for our students is to see science as the "high adventure" it truly is, "the chance to catch close views of things never seen before, the shrewdest maneuver for discovering how the world works:" we want them to experience science research.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy New York: Oxford University Press.
National Research Council. (1994). National Science Education Standards: November, 1994 Draft. Washington, DC: NRC.
Thomas, L. (1981). Humanities and science. Presented at the Sloan Foundation's "Conference on new dimensions of liberal education." Key Biscayne, Florida. New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Weir, S. (1992). Electronic Communities of Learners: Fact or Fiction. TERC Working Paper 3-92. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
| Projects | Publications | How to Get Involved | Contact Us |