"What Color's Your Spaceship?" The problem with science education

Science is the future.  In case you haven't noticed.  Just this last week we've seen people set up an interplanetary internet, merge nanotech with brain tissue and release plans for a space elevator.  The only thing we really know about the future is that we don't know what the hell it's going to be like, outside of "incredible."  So why are we preparing our kids for the past?

For a new generation of graduate students the internet is an invaluable resource, a telephone, newsreel and the biggest reference in the world all in one.  But in many schools, where the internet is acknowledged at all it is painted as an evil source of cheating and laziness.  The problem is that kids are smart: for all its problems the internet is the greatest informational archive ever created, and if you tell a kid that using it is wrong then that kid is going to file you under "lying or stupid" and ignore everything you say.

The internet presents a problem because much "education" is based around rote learning and the scoring thereof.  We all know it.  Grades, entrance exams, SATs IQs and bell curves - the fundamental assumption that there's a right, a wrong, and anything outside of the syllabus is useless to you.  How can you be tested if you can just pull up the "right" answer with a keyboard?

The problem is doubly false because most of the stuff you learn in the syllabus is going to be useless anyway.  We asked a 100% representative cross-section of "people we met" how often they used the half-angle formula last week, and the results weren't great. (And those who did admitted to googling it.)

We're not dismissing the basic physics, maths and other essentials instilled in the young in schools around the country.  Those things are necessary for anyone wanting to proceed in the sciences, but the method in which they're taught leaves students hideously unprepared for what comes after.  High scoring students are often high scoring because they've excelled in the rote learning, cramming and the application of set formula which the school system encourages.  They then find themselves in a research lab being presented with a bunch of equipment and notes with the instructions "Do something with that." and sink or swim.  Many make it, but we submit that they survive and develop independent ability despite their high school training, not because of it.

You could argue that the battery of education and tests forces the children to learn to think and work.  Which is true as far as it goes, but you have to remember that the young are wonderfully adaptive and will indeed work to surmount the challenges you've placed before them - not necessarily the challenge you meant to set.  We all remember discussing which subjects would come up on the exam, which problem sheets were worth marks and which exercises could be skipped.  And which were those?  Anything creative, anything without a set answer or anything termed "extra reading" had a bonus mark or two at most - while 100% marks could be obtained by applying theformulae from page seventy-six.

For all its repression of individuality, this isn't an evil Big Brother system designed to thwart creativity.  Far from it.  Some science teachers do whatever they can to foster the sparks of soul inside the institution, but the fact remains its a massive task which is woefully underfunded.  Students are graded because that's the only way one teacher can deal with hundreds of students.  Exams are enforced because we need to scale the education some way, and essay-type creative questions take longer to mark than the teaching assistants are paid for.  Bell curves are enforced to prevent people complaining - so to avoid accusations of unfairness, we enforce an unfair weighting.

Some people call for a radical redesign of the educational institution, which is nice, and while we're at it we'd like to call for a cure to cancer and if everyone could stop fighting too that'd be just super.  Such work is vital, incredibly so, and a proper education overhaul could lead to a renaissance of an entire culture - but those in power simply won't be here in fifty years to feel the benefits, which is why education is often the first to fall when the budget cut axe comes crashing down.  San Diego calculus teacher Tom Farber has been forced to place ads on exams to cover their printing costs - how can anyone educate without a budget?

What can we do?  That's what we'd like to ask you, the Galaxy readers.  How can creativity be fostered in the next generation, while still providing a useful education?  What is a useful education, anyway - is it the ability to recite formulae, or the ability to understand a new one?  How can one learn enough science to proceed to Professor status while maintaining enough creativity to be useful once you do?

Posted by Luke McKinney

Kathy Sierra on American science education

Sir Ken Robinson on creativity and education, and how they're often not related

Ads on tests

Comments

[Jeremy K]

To be honest with you I think the best way to move education forward is to make the entire process of educating children more holistic. Why are all subjects taught in a classroom? What's so special about boring white walls and flickering neon lights? When you're being taught history, would it not be more fascinating and inspiring taught from a museum? I realise that funds for school outtings are hard to come by, but if real partnerships were made between education providers and organizations of the outside world, there would be benefits for all sides. Speaking as some one who works for a museum, I know that it's written into our very charter that engagement with school children is a priority. Thus, any partnerships of this variety are not only welcomed by us (as part of what we're for), but are something which we would be willing to stretch ourselves a bit to accomodate. And I think, if schools made an honest appeal to outside organizations to create such partnerships, you would see a great deal of interest.

[penny]

As a math prof with thirty years teaching and research experience:
We used to require a lot more than rote memorization--we required creative thinking and elegance for an A grade. Proofs that were not seen before were assigned to work out on tests etc.
This meant that most people did very poorly in math, but that the top 1/10 of one percent got well educated. It is from a far smaller fraction of the students than that that ALL progress in math and science and even engineering comes. The rest are actually--sad to have to say--dead weight: for whom math education above elementary arithmetic is a waste of their time and ours.

When did we do this--try 1965--when our public school education in math and science was the best in the world. What went wrong?
Well, we knuckled under to various pressures:

The liberals were upset that the "self-esteem" of students would be hurt.

The blacks were upset that very few black kids from the slums got into honors classes based on absolute criteria.

The universities adopted the worst management ideas from
industry--and, in particular, STUDENTS were allowed to evaluate professors. Thus, any professor with guts and standards never got to tenure, and those who did got few raises unless they pandered to the students.

The universities started having lots of courses taught by low paid part time adjuncts, who had no power at all to resist the pressures on them.

Most importantly, we started with a new "politically correct" system in which "Serving all students" was the goal--and this
got rid of teaching the gifted well--the only people who are responsible for ALL progress.

Even the "gifted classes" became a travesty, as the upper-middle class---ever seeking unfair advantage---started to find ways to undermine the system and flood gifted classes with
students who were not really intellectually gifted.

Teaching at the elementary level had most of these same problems and an even lower salary--and most new teachers were
intellectual clods--and, they lowered educational standards even more--so that the universities had to do the same.

Now, some comments about your article:
If you can't derive the half angle formulae in your head, then you don't really understand trig. They are very basic.

The interplanetary internet and the space elevator are NOT science--but engineering. It is a defect of our educational system that most people have no CLUE what science is, and confuse science with engineering. That is part of the problem.

We know how to educate future talent and have done it for centuries, but to do it we need to accept the unpleasant reality that all people are not equally talented, that talent in math is largely genetic ( though it also development), and that most people are actually just to STUPID to get a proper education in either math or science.

We need to concentrate again on finding the top kid in each thousand--and making sure she is give the most intense and theoretical education in math or science that we can give.
The others will benefit--as they have in better times--from
the discoveries that are made ( such as cures for disease).

We haven't seen the full effect yet of our miserable modern educational system because we still have the well-educated baby boomers in the system. Just wait!

" The wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind with infinite fineness."--Thucylides ( later Lord Acton).

You think our ecomomy is bad now....

[NeuroTeacher]

What neuroscience tells us is that the brain was designed just like every other part of the body--parts that are used get stronger, parts that are not will atrophy. We should think of school as a way to strengthen parts of the brain like athletes train their muscles. Yes, doing 100 push-ups or running 10K is boring and rote, but it is not possible to win a race without doing it. It is true that with technology, a runner could get to the other end of the track much faster, but it is doing his body a disservice to take the car.

Students will complain about reading books, doing math, writing reports and having to walk to school when movie adaptations, calculators, wikipedia and mom's car are available, but it would be a poor parent or teacher that would listen to this whining.

Our students will either be the creators of knowledge or the consumers of someone else's inventiveness and skill. In strengthening your body, there is no gain without pain. In improving your brain, your brain does not actually absorb the material until at has done it over and over again to the point of dreaming about it. (This is metaphorical, this is actually how the brain works.) Forcing a child to something painful and boring now will make life easier and more productive later. If they only learn to find the answer on the Internet, then they will forever be dependent upon the better trained students of the world.

Asking "when will I ever use this again" is like asking a boxer when he will ever be running 10 miles in the ring. He won't. But he couldn't win without it. You may never use the half-angle formula ever again, but you will use those very same neurons when solving other problems in the future. Yes, foster 'creativity'. But also foster discipline, and writing skills, and proper grammar, and rote memorization, and oratory, and music, and each of the other parts of the brain that make up the individual.

Students do NOT have natural talent. Students are not inherently stupid. The army has learned to take any man or woman and make them a soldier through years of pain and suffering. If we accept the fact that learning is HARD and force students to do the work, we can make everyone that much better later in life.

[Roy Hayward]

As a promoter of home schooling, I am one of the first to level criticisms at out public school system. Public classroom teaching teaches students about the schools system more than it does about the class topic. But I think the perspective of this article goes a bit too far.

Even in the home, we have to teach something. I liked the boxer running as training analogy by Neuro Teacher above. There is a level of learning that is achieved from repetition. There is another level that is achieved by pitting your intellect against something. (Boxer analogy, punching bag or other boxer) Most of this kind of my 'education' I received from my Father and Mother, sitting around the dinner table as a group discussion took place. When I home school my children, I try to replicate this experience.

Example:
We pause TV (thank you DVR) during almost any programming, and have a discussion of (what happened/is happening/ what we think might happen) to the point where my kids try to keep me from having the remote. And the program doesn't continue until I am satisfied that learning has taken place in all of their skulls.

But whether it is a test, or a discussion with Dad, there needs to be some way to observe that a student can use their own brain to solve a problem. And it should never be enough to provide the right answer, unless one can explain why it is the right answer.

[Jonathan Hughes]

I may be a bit biased, having a degree in physics, but I really think that physics should be taught earlier, at least the concepts. You obviously can't teach physics with calculus to freshmen, but you CAN teach them the concepts so that later, when they are seniors and have had the math, they will have a better grasp.

However, teaching physics by simply presenting formulae (which is how it's done a lot) is counterproductive. you need to teach the derivation and the underlying principles that lead to these formulae.

[some guy]

Some people (like my brother) can go to school, pay attention in class, do the reading, do the homework, test well, get good grades, take AP clases, complete 4 year bachelor propgrams in 3 years at prestigious schools, get a masters in 1 year, and do extremely well in the real world. Other people (like myself) can go to school stoned and tired, pay attention sometimes in class, read a book occassionally, test well when necessary, take ap classes, drop out after 4 years of college with 1 credit to go, and still do extremely well in the real world. And, there are those people that do everything exactly as above, except they fail miserably in the real world, or do everything opposite as above, and still do extremely well in the real world. Unfortunately, it's not the school system's fault; it is the one standing in your shoes that is responsible for your education. And the sooner this is realized, education will take care of itself. (at least once you are a teenager)

[Tony]

To respond to the person who said "the gifted well--the only people who are responsible for ALL progress." We all need to work together as a community so we all make progress together. Someone who has a hard time learning isn't dead weight they just have a harder time learning the language of whatever it is that is difficult for them. Math is a language, science is a language, art is a language and many people need a helping hand to climb up so they can see the next level. It's not talking down to the dumb people to try new methods and ways of teaching it's speaking the language of someone else so they can learn it and teach you something from their experience in the language you taught them. And to the last person who said it's everyone's individual fault for their life. That is the person blame approach which I've learned as a sociologist is an inaccurate way to view the world. There are patterns of inequality amongst certain groups of people such as African Americans and Hispanic Americans and their skin color doesn't make them failures. Groups with lower socioeconomic status, again, African Americans and Hispanic Americans, do poorly in school than whites and it isn't because their skin color. There have been studies where Black babies living in neglected urban areas are adopted by suburban families and they perform better than the urban child. There isn't one solution to the problem and there isn't one cause, but one thing is sure we all need to look at the failures of others as our challenge because what holds them back holds us all back as a human race. We need to work together and stay positive.

[Jason Livesay]

I think the first skill we should provide students with is the ability to learn what to learn. In other words, teach them how to locate, evaluate and utilize sources of information in order to solve problems or know which problems to solve rather than assuming we know all the answers and putting them in passive mode to absorb it. As with all of my suggestions, I assume this is in practice today, to a certain degree. However, what I am suggesting is a shift to emphasize these approaches rather than occasionally applying them.

Another improvement would be to start students thinking about and pursuing occupations very early. Along with this we should use effective objective assessments for ability and psychological characteristics to advise and hopefully direct their choices. I believe that since expertise takes so long to develop it is a critical failure of our system to assume that it is best for children to take their own leisurely time deciding upon an occupation.

I also think that technology can help us to personalize education so that students can progress at an optimal rate in their chosen paths. Simply dividing children into gifted and non-gifted groups isn't very helpful because there is a wide range of particular talents and interests in each group. So I think computer software and teachers should be able to tailor the level and type of material based on interest, ability and chosen career path for each particular student and subject.

[Chanda]

I also may be biased having a math and physics degrees but we should not wait to teach algebra to 8th graders--they can learn algebra as they learn the lower math. Hand and hand. Algebra shouldn't even be a subject. It should be mixed completely with arithmetic such that you can't distinguish them. And then apply whatever they have learned to the physics they learn at the same time. Taken in small bites all of our college level course can be taught MUCH earlier.

My 8 yr old (homeschooled) can carry on conversations about quantum physics, Old English literature, ancient Egyptians/Greek/Romans/etc., geological events, evolution, space/time travel, photovoltaic cells, art from the Renaissance, the etymology of lots and lots of English words, the challenges in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/China/N. Korea, the (im)morality of abortions, the usefulness of ham radio operators during emergencies. I think I'll stop here. The point is we talk. We talk a lot. I answer his questions. AND we don't watch TV. Ok, maybe *some* Dr. Who and Nova.

I don't want to paint it all roses. He and I have had heated battles about how important it is that he learn his multiplication tables. But for the most part he is HUNGRY to learn about his world.

But the kicker here is that he can't write a sentence to save his life. (But he can diagram a sentence!) Why? He is dyslexic and dysgraphic. And really stinking smart. But he'd be failed completely by our schools. Thankfully I have the resources to push his talents and pull his weaknesses.

We are asking way too much of our school system. We need to diversify our approach. And we need to let the kids lead the learning more. Of course they don't get to completely take over but they need to learn to follow THEIR CURIOSITY. We need to HAVE the time to give them to answer THEIR questions, on their terms. Let them fall in love with SOMETHING. ANYTHING. How many kids today think Sir Gwain and the Green Knight was a rocking cool story? It is a rocking cool story if not blah'ed to death. Just ask my son. He'll debate the coolness of the Green Knight against Grendel all day.

The wonderful fascinating world around them is BORING. We are BORING them to death. Kids don't like sitting in classrooms!!! DUH. Ok maybe girls do but we need more flexibility here. More creativity. More trust in our kids to find knowledge where ever they look.

Turn off the (explicative) TV. Just turn the blasted thing off. No excuses. Read a book TO YOUR CHILD. Start with Contact by Carl Sagan. Take the time to let their world and your world collide and then step back and watch them suck the knowledge right out of it.

Knowledge doesn't come from schools. Thinking is rarely taught. Our techniques are largely just standing in the way. Let go! Let them grow!

Knowledge isn't something to be engineered to a solution. Knowledge IS love. And we are killing it. We are flat out trying too hard. Micromanaging extraordinaire. BAH!

[penny]

Some guy:
Math is NOT a language--math CONTAINS a language.
Dumb people are of zero utility in creating new math.
That is a fact--get used to it. It is the very concepts
that you express--that have become the basis of our school system"--and that have destroyed it.

Jason:
You beat me to it. I was going to say that we could teach algebra to second graders, along with arithmetic. For the bright it works. The non-bright don't matter--for the creation of innovation in math and science--which is the focus of this
thread.

For the REALLY bright: Well, Terry Tao ( one of last year's Field's medalists in math) only got a 760 on his math SAT, but
then he was ......eight years old.

By the way, Jason--In the famous study by Jack Hadamard ( a first rate mathematician) on the first few Field's medalists
dyslexia was quite common. Of course, many Field's medalists
since then don't have dysexlia, but it was still notable that dyslexics could achieve such a high level of success in math.

[Steve]

Penny is so right it hurts.

[maudyfish]

It is all a matter of how the subject is presented!! An enthusiastic teacher will make it exciting to be in class. It's like telling a story in a way that kids want to ask questions.

Not all parents have the ability to teach their kids the basics. But, like Dr. Suzuki and the "Mother Tongue Method" all kids are capable of learning. Whether it is music or math. It's the light bulb that needs turning on.

I had two teachers in my life that did just that. One was a typing teacher (typing can be an awful boring class) but this lady knew how to challenge us and make it fun to be there. The other was a history teacher who taught American History; the man never used a book, he told us a story that was so enthralling that we were pinned to the edge of our seats! He left room for the students to challenge him and present their own ideas.

It's all about the teacher!!!!!

[Harry, Los Angeles]

If it's all about the teacher, we're sunk.

Any student can learn to think at the level required in today's secondary education. Whether they can go on to greater things in a field such as math or science depends on too many factors to be distilled into a single word like "dumb."

There should be more language skill and math development in science courses -- to take one example of integrating currculum. A sense of history in science would help too.

Most Americans have no clue about the difference between engineering and science. Many don't understand that math and science don't really belong in a single category either.

All of these problems and those mentioned by others will not be fixed until schools (and parents) help student learn to think instead of learning to memorize and to game the system (a limited form of thinking).

Unfortunately, thinking is hard work for those not used to it. Their thinking neurons haven't kept in shape. Fortunately, thinking becomes really fun once you're used to it.

Of the many different classes you may take, different forms of thinking emerge. Mathematical thinking is different than creative writing thinking. I believe that scientific thinking is the one type that most students just don't have a chance to learn in school. That's a crime.

Carl Sagan pointed out that scientists (as a result of learning to think scientifically) get a "baloney detection kit." Just think about how useful that is in everyday life.

I've created a new way to put the thinking back into science courses through online science labs that use prerecorded real experiments. See www.smartscience.net.

We should have more such initiatives. Unfortunately, the funding authorities (government, venture capitalists, angel investors, and foundations) are out to lunch on helping out. Unless you have a love of living on beans for ten or more years, a modest nest egg you're willing to tap out, and the patience of Job, don't even think of trying to do the same sort of thing.

Incidentally, my little idea is now being used by eight state online schools, Apex Learning, K12.com, and a slew of others. With just a bit more resources, it could be something really great!

[maudyfish]

Excuse me.........but doesn't that make you a teacher??????? I Think it does!!!

[René - Oscar]

So, I've read all your comments.
I go to a Gymnasium in Estonia, I'm in the 11th grade, one more to go.
The concept of science has been facinating me since the start of 9th grade, when I got a hold of my physics book, the only thing I was intrested in was the theory of The Big Bang and supernovas, etc.
I've been reading all about it by myself for about 3 years now, that's what lead me to this site also.
So I'll give you my point of view about the aricle, I've never been a great student, I don't study for grades, learning all those dates for history lessons and the facts in biology - I'll probably wash all those teachings away when I finish school, with vodka and tequila,so why bother?
To be honest, 80% Don't even kknow HOW TO STUDY, they don't teach it at school. So 50% of the class, don't do homework, because we are intelligent enough to pass our semesters.
My math teacher teaches in two schools, the other one is in a College, so when he teaches us, he assumes that we are so bright and blah blah, which is not true, we don't get math, one third of the class barely passes, why do we have to go through all of that? Wasting our time going to class 8 in the morning. I know, math evolves your brain, but how would I be able to evolve, it the subject does not intrest me in any way, oh, and that boxing idea - Boxers WANT to win, I'm an athlete myself, I work out 5-7 times a week, because I WANT TO, as for the math lessons etc, there's no eagerness in that. So you can't draw a line between evolving your muscles and evolving your brain ''muscles''.
The other thing, education doesn'y care about, is the ''morale'' of the students - yes we do have that. I mean, we are not some ants who work all the day and act like we got no choice, school is too strict, we are people too and in order to keep us studying we need to have some intrest and the eagerness, alot of that is bound to our morale.
Also, my best subjects are English Language and Geography, they intrest me the most, but I score average in them, because the teacher is too dull and I dot pay attention in the classes, so I get a bad grade, that draws down my average. that's too common.
The education system is a FAIL. And I would still agree to the article, glad I'm not the only one to think that.
It's not all that I would have to say, but this comment is getting too long anyway. :)

[penny]

maudyfish:
If you really want to understand cosmology--the big bank ect., then you had better learn a LOT of math--because without the mathematics of general relativity, you will never get anymore than a gloss on this subject.

Start by learning CALCULUS--which is essential for any understanding of physics.

Here is a quote from Steven Weinberg, the author of the popular book " The First Three Minutes".
When asked " How much math must a young theoretical physicist know?", by a student, Weinberg replied:
" MORE!"

[penny]

maudyfish:
If you really want to understand cosmology--the big bank ect., then you had better learn a LOT of math--because without the mathematics of general relativity, you will never get anymore than a gloss on this subject.

Start by learning CALCULUS--which is essential for any understanding of physics.

Here is a quote from Steven Weinberg, the author of the popular book " The First Three Minutes".
When asked " How much math must a young theoretical physicist know?", by a student, Weinberg replied:
" MORE!"