When Chemists Attack

CNN is carrying a small story pointing to a report from the National Research Council on science education for young people. The press release is here.

I haven’t had time to read the full report (352 pages!), but this part of the press release resonates wilh me (bold added by me, for emphasis).

Today’s standards are still too broad, resulting in superficial coverage of science that fails to link concepts or develop them over successive grades, the report says. Teachers also need more opportunities to learn how to teach science as an integrated whole — and to diverse student populations.

A little while ago, I was briefly involved in a workshop whose goals were to try to align the courses of the high school with the courses at the college – making it easier for the high schoolers to transition to our college when they graduate. This gave me some opportunity to talk with some of the high school teachers about what sort of things were in the standards to be covered in high school science classes.

While this National Research Council is about K-8 education, I find that the high school standards suffer from the same problems: too many topics and too few underlying principles. In the mad rush to get through all the bullet points the course is supposed to cover, important concepts receive rather shallow treatment. I remember remarking at the workshop – “Wow, if my freshmen actually understood half of what’s in that list [the standards], all I’d need to do in class is pass out the test.”

My incoming students might have heard the terms “chemical reaction”, “percent yield”, and “equilibrium” Were Alex Trebek to uncover a definition of percent yield on an episode of Jeopardy, many of my incoming students might respond with “What is percent yield?” But they aren’t able to connect these concepts – because they do not see chemistry as a set of ideas linking things together. And, they don’t see science as a way of getting things done. Instead of knowing science, they know Jeopardy.

The National Research Council recommends, for K-8 students, this:

Students should have a wide variety of learning experiences in science classes, the committee said. Those experiences should include conducting investigations; sharing ideas with peers; talking and writing in specialized ways; and using mechanical, mathematical, and computer-based models. Science should be presented as a process of using evidence to build explanatory theories and models, and then checking how well the evidence supports them.

Sounds good to me, but I have my doubts as to whether a lot of this will be implemented. It’s all a matter of cost. All the stuff suggested above costs money – not just in terms of technology, but in terms of personnel. I teach classes for adults who wish to work in the chemical industry – and I try to do a lot of the stuff above with them. For it to work well, the class needs to be small – so you can have meaningful interactions with students on the concepts they’re investigating. You also need adequate technology. For schools that have trouble keeping the buildings from falling apart due to lack of funds (read: poorer districts in my state, for instance), this’ll be a tall order.

Real science is better, but Jeopardy is a lot cheaper. At least in the short term.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Science education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.