An email from a high school student resulted in my taking a final examination about science education.  A student from a high school in Long Island wrote and asked if I would be willing to be interviewed for a book the student was writing about education.

Here are the questions and my answers.  The questions are far superior to my answers, but at least its a start.

1. How has the advent of No Child Left Behind affected science education?

The NCLB has not only affected science education, but education generally.  Because math and reading were the two areas that were emphasized in the NCLB Act, science education (and social studies, art, music) were emphasized less, especially in the elementary schools.

2. Currently, there’s a lot of talk of teaching the “building blocks” of engineering to elementary school kids. What are your thoughts on this?

Engineering has been ‘added’ as a content area to the traditional emphasis in earth science, life science, and physical science.  It is unfortunate that engineering was not integrated into these areas, thereby moving a little bit closer to a more realistic curriculum—that is one that mirrors the way science and engineering are integrated outside of school.

3. How can the traditional high school science curriculum (9th grade: Biology, 10th Grade: Chemistry, 11th Grade: Physics) be reformed?

No easy answer.  This curriculum has been in place since the late 19th Century when the Committee of Ten deemed this the science curriculum.  Actually, the “national curriculum” is earth science (9), biology (10), chemistry (11) and physics (12).  Attempts at changing the high school curriculum have met with great resistance.  As you know from my Blog, the traditional curriculum is pipeline ideology, and will be continue to be the way high school science is organized as long as we form committees made up of traditional scientists as was done with the National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education.  If you go and look at the membership, you will see no one from the K-12 schools were involved in this work.

For many years there has been an alternative approach to the traditional curriculum in the form of science-related social issues, or science-technology-society (STS).  Again you can find references in my blog to this.

Will the traditional curriculum be replaced?  No.  The momentum of the Common Core State Standards will only reinforce a more traditional approach to teaching and curriculum development.

4. What course/courses should a student take if he/she is not entering a science-related path? And what types of skills are essential?

Please go and read my pieces on Why Do We Teach Science? on my blog site.  You will find an analysis there that will help you identify the kinds of skills needed.

What are your thoughts so far about these questions?

5. I was reading on your website about possible science assessments. What have you noticed about the success of porfolios in evaluating students?

Portfolios have been around for a long time, and many science teachers have found them to a powerful way to assess student learning.  I used portfolios for more than 20 years at the university level, and indeed it was the form of assessment that I used.  Portfolios probably come closer to uncovering what students have learned, and what their strengths and weaknesses are, more so than traditional pencil and paper bubble tests.

6. How can we implement a project based learning style of science on a grand scale?

Scaling up project based teaching would mean that our system of assessment (and standards) would have to be greatly changed.  Paradigm shift, if you will.  Project based teaching, like the traditional approach, has a long history in American education, starting with the work of John Dewey.  Other theorists you should examine here would include Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and Ernst von Glaserfeld.  The theory behind project based teaching is underscored by social constructivist theories of how humans learn.  These theorist will help you understand this.

How can move pbl to a grand scale?  By changing the fundamental way that we perceive that people learn.  Unfortunately the behaviorist theories of learning pretty much dominate the thinking, especially when it comes to asking questions about what students learned in school.  Most people think that bubble tests can assess the complexities of human learning.  The theorists that I cited here would disagree, and suggest a more diverse approach to assessment, as you raised with your question about portfolios.  I am afraid we are deeply entrenched in the traditional approach to curriculum.  So what we see are embedded within the traditional paradigm, diamonds and crystals of innovation, and creative thinking sparked by individual teachers or small teams of innovative teachers, departments, or schools.

A Bit of Theory

6. How can we make learning science fun for students?

We know how to make science fun for students.  By implementing a hands-on, experiential approach to science teaching that embodies an inquiry based approach.  This approach is fun for students, but its not really the answer.  Again, we have a long history of “hands-on” inquiry oriented teaching, especially at the elementary science level, but extending through high school.  In fact, innovation in science curriculum reform began at the high school level in physics at MIT and at Harvard in the 1960s (PSSC Physics and Harvard Project Physics).  It then spiraled down to include CHEM and CBA Chemistry, three colorful versions of BSCS Biology, The Earth Science Curriculum Project, Introductory Physical Science, Intermediate Science Curriculum Project, and on and on.  All of these projects took what we call a disciplinary approach, somewhat based on the ideas of Jerome Bruner.  It was a pipeline science mentality in that the core concepts of the discipline were the central organizing points for each of these curriculums.

Some educators (See Dr. Glen S. Aikenhead, Science Education for Everyday Life) believe there is an alternative way to organize curriculum.  Educators like Aikenhead believe we should begin science learning in a context (a polluted stream, a smoggy atmosphere, a disease), and involve students in trying to not only examine the context or problem, and then bring to the table the science, social science, history, math, geography, etc. needed for students to investigate, discuss, make proposals, etc.  This form of learning is constructivist, and humanistic in the sense that we start with the context that students find themselves, and then use this as a center of learning.  As you can see, this comes back to one of your earlier questions about problem based learning.

Making science fun?  Make it realistic and relevant.  For most students the traditional science curriculum has been a failure.  We need to look beyond our earlier attempts and forge something new.

7. Why is inquiry-based learning fundamental to any science curriculum?

It’s fundamental if the students are involved in identifying the problems for inquiry, and if students realize that inquiry is one way for humans to know.  The general argument is that inquiry is fundamental because it is an important skill of the scientist, and the scientific establishment.   Involving students in inquiry is one of the reasons we teach science.  I wrote about this, and you can read it here:  http://www.artofteachingscience.org/?p=3189.  You will also find four related articles on why we teach science.  The skill (or inquiry) argument is only one.  There are other arguments as to why we teach science, and each may be as important, surely more influential.  See this article: http://www.artofteachingscience.org/?p=3173.  And in particular read about the economic argument.

8. What should the role of the teacher be in the 21st century science classroom? 

Again, many have written about this.  The role of a teacher is unfortunately getting lost in the Corporate Approach to education that dominates schooling today.  21st Century teachers are already here—just look around in your own high school.  Who are the teachers that you and your classmates are drawn to? Teachers are scouts.  They look out ahead, and bring to their students ideas, and methods that inspire them, and show them a love for learning.

9. In a post, you argue that the inquiry science teaching cannot flourish with common standards. What is an alternative solution? 

That’s right.  We do not need a set of Common Core Standards.  I am sure that the teachers in your high school are more capable of determining the curriculum for your classmates than any national committee assembled by the most prestigious organizations in the country.  Education needs to decentralized, not centralized.  There are more than 15,000 school districts in the United States.  Do you think that one set of standards would meet the needs of these 15, 000 school districts.

How would you answer any of these questions?  Tell us what you are thinking by making your comments here.