Why we don't have more scientists
Why is interest in science, especially in the pure sciences steadily declining in the schools of today? Why aren't we seeing more Stephen Hawkings or Charles Darwins in an age where the information required to develop minds in such a way is ridiculously easy to access? Why is there more and more funding for developing new technologies, but less and less to try and understand how those technologies actually work? If you disagree with that last sentence and think that a new technology cannot be developed without an understanding of how it works, think again. The very first technology developed by human beings was controllable fire. Do you think the stone-age men knew why wood burns? Or why fire releases heat? Or why water puts out a fire? It took us a good many millennia to answer those questions, and in all that time, we continued to use fire freely and indiscriminately, not really worrying that we didn't know why it happened. Don't get me wrong, I think that discovering and inventing new techniques and technology is crucially important to us as humans, but understanding how these technologies work is in my book, every bit as important.
In my opinion, the whole point of teaching science in schools is to encourage kids to take an interest in the world around them. It's quite amazing how often people lose sight of that basic goal. For example, when talking about something as fundamental as gravity, I have yet to see a science teacher express a feeling of wonder or amazement about this phenomenon that affects every single facet of our lives. Yes, teachers talk about how, without gravity, we'd all just float up into space. But do the students (or even the teachers) realise that without gravity, the very planet we would float away from, wouldn't even exist! My earliest memories of being taught "biology" as part of primary school consisted of being asked to classify things as "living" and "non-living". That in itself wouldn't be so bad, if we hadn't had a third category added the next year that said that things can be classified into "living", "non-living" and "dead"!
I can't think of any real value to teaching this in a school, except maybe as a classroom exercise that had at most, one hour devoted to it. We on the other hand, had this as part of our regular syllabus and were actually expected to write exam answers where we had to classify things into these three categories. What would make this exercise far more valuable, is if the teacher had first explained why some things are living and others aren't... What makes a thing alive in the first place? What is life? Why don't we understand the most basic question of what makes us alive? What defines a living organism? All these questions (those that we have answers for, at least) were only discussed in later years, when people already knew those things anyway. What's the point? The point of teaching science, is to make the students ask questions, not learn formulae by rote. An inquisitive nature is what got man from the stone age, right up to where we are now, thrashing in the throes of the computer age. A good science lesson, I think, should raise far more questions than it answers, and this, more than anything else is what I think is missing from science lessons in schools.
I am of course limited in my experience, since I have only ever experienced the Indian primary education system, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this would be true to a greater or lesser degree in any country in the world. I am soon going to get to test this theory first hand with the British system, so look for more rants on this topic! I must say, with all this, it's amazing that any children take up science in the first place. I think those who become scientists today, do it inspite of the system, not because of it.
4 comments:
Okay, your point is well made but now I would like to offer you a challenge. I found your blog when I was searching for science blogs. I am an administrator of a K-8 school in Los Angeles, Ca USA. My 7th grade students ( aprox 11-12 year olds) will shortly be beginning a unit in Life science on classification and on structure and function of plants and animals. So my question for you... Can you give some concrete suggestions for my teachers on how to bring this to life. How can we use this unit to create wonder and awe for the world around us...how can we challenge them to be scientists instead of just learning science?
I had typed out a detailed reply to this when blogger decided to have a fit. I lost the original post, but here's what I said again...
Since you're teaching plant and animal classification, give them a funky example of an animal that can be called either a plant or an animal. Euglena is great example, because they are common enough that you might even be able to buy/prepare a slide or two of it. Euglena is a micro-organism that shows characteristics of animal cells, but can also photosynthesize. Ask them to read about Euglena and form an opinion as to whether it is a plant or an animal and (this is the important bit!!!) why they think that. Or alternatively, if you can spare the time, ask the teacher to go through a description of Euglena being very careful not to offer an opinion (or even a hint of one) and then ask each member of the class to decide. This is possibly a better approach as any material they read might have an inherent bias...
Another useful exercise might be to give them a set of criteria to look for, like "shape of leaf", "pattern of venation", "what the flower looks like", etc for plants and ask them to go out, select a plant and fill in those criteria. Don't give them any information on what are and are not acceptable description (if that means that some students simply write "the flower was pretty", that's ok). Ask them to be as detailed as possible. When they get back to class (the next day or week or whatever), give them a sheet with classification parameters on it. Ask them to classify their plant according to their descriptions. Obviously, how detailed the criteria are will depend on how much they already know about plant classification.
The trick is to get them not only to ask questions, but to ask the right kind of questions (there are no "right" questions, but there are TYPES of questions that will be better suited to the task at hand). Later on, you will have to go over their papers and 1) See how many got it right. 2) See how many got close and (this is more important than getting it right) 3) See how many asked the right kind of questions (the questions here will of course be implicit, i.e. they would have asked themselves the questions when they described the plants). Remember, science isn't always about being right, often, being completely wrong has a lot of value because others now know not to repeat the errors. It's more about your way of looking at things. If you want further examples or think that I'm just spewing crap, feel free to comment again :)
Cheers,
Chinmay
Thanks, Chinmay! I am enjoying this converstaion. We will be going on Christmas break soon and we are planning the unit for mid? January. I hope that it will include wiki or blog postings by the students...so perhaps you would be interested in visiting their work and leaving some comments too???
Actually, I was just talking to a friend about this, and though she isn't a scientist, she feels that maybe my reply to your comment didn't really come out as well as it could have. There are facets of this that I considered further, so I'd like to elaborate a bit.
One thing is that the exercise loses value if it is done repetitively, so a particular batch of students should never have to do the same exercise twice no matter what grade they're at. So, if this is done at 7th grade level, it should not be repeated for the same batch at 8th, 9th or 10th grade levels. Teaching science well requires planning and innovation on part of the teachers too.
Another thing that I would like to mention that I left out in my original reply is that this is the way real taxonomists classify animals or plants. A friend of mine (a very, very good and distinguished snake taxonomist) looks at a series of criteria. He does of course look at established, published criteria, but he also goes one step further and looks at criteria that no one else has noticed. Sometimes, they turn out to be valid only for maybe distinguishing two species, but sometimes they might lead him to disregard a particular established criterion entirely, because his criterion gives him significantly better results over the whole spectrum of the species that he studies. Most students find classification really boring (I know I used to!), but that's only because of the way it tends to be taught. Classification requires an analytical mind, attention to detail and a meticulousness that should challenge even the most brilliant minds, and if that is brought out, it no longer remains a subject where you memorise endless lists of criteria!
My friend also suggested that you could try and challenge your students, since older students (as opposed to primary students) tend to feel that they know everything. Finding ways to shake that conception out of their heads might make them more receptive. I can't think of an example of this offhand, but I will think about this.
Another thing I think I should mention is that don't discount the effect that simple verbal and body language cues can have on a class. If your teachers take the time to say, "Look at this, isn't it amazing!" occasionally and really appear enthusiastic about the subject in class (and this doesn't just apply to science), the children tend to catch on to that vibe. Of course, like anything else, it loses its value if it's over-done, so it's all about striking a balance.
And yet another thing, remember that not every student will be cut out for science, so while it is essential to reward those that are good at it, make sure that those that aren't can still pass and maybe get a decentish grade.
As for looking at students' work, I'd be delighted to do it, provided 1) I have the time. I have exams and assignments to do all of January, so I may or may not be able to devote time to this.
2) You only expect me to leave qualitative feedback and not mark/grade them.
Cheers,
Chinmay
Post a Comment