Get Schooled

By shogun

October 7, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

I suppose they can help, but it’s not the teachers who need to have more first-hand experiences with science.

In Japan, most, if not all, elementary and middle schools have a science lab. When I was growing up in Japan, we often did have opportunities to engage in science experiments. My kids, who are now both in HS here, have had only a few such opportunities. They have seen some teacher demonstrations, but not experimenting themselves.

So, a huge component of improving science education must be an improvement of school facilities. Of course, this will cost a lost of money, and I’m not sure if that will ever happen unfortunately.

By HS Teacher Too

October 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Programs like this can work. They require two things: teachers dedicated to the hard work it will take the get the lessons, field trips, etc., coordinated to make it meaningful; and school systems that allow teachers the flexibility to teach using this “outside the box” method.

I don’t think there is any shortage of teachers that would rise to the challenge. But until we do away with the “must finish the book by May,” attitude, and losing 20 school days to testing and countless other “benchmark” tests along the way. It doesn’t matter how good the teachers are — at some point they hit a wall.

When I taught in New England, I was able to (as a math teacher) do some amazing lessons like this, and I attended substantial training and lots of conferences to meet the people and corporations that were willing to get involved. But my directive was “you know [subject]. Teach it.” We were not burdened by county and local school “benchmark” tests. We were advised NOT to try to complete the book, but to make sure our kids really understood as much as we did cover, and that they would be ready for their next course. In short, we were allowed to teach, and the school WANTED us to teach in a way that kids would learn and remember and be able to apply their knowledge. That attitude simply doesnt’ exist here in Georgia. We’re handcuffed by the AKS and the countless tests and the “mile wide, inch deep” curricular goals.

So, I think the opportunity is wonderful for these teachers today; but I don’t think that a real, honest opportunity exists in the public schools in Georgia today for these teachers to put the ideas to practice in any meaningful way.

I am writing a novel here, but what else can we do to get kids interested in science? We can give science teachers the tools and the time that they need. Right now I don’t think they have either.

By lyncoln

October 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

I’m skeptical that programs like this help or not.

How does watching videos of your science teacher do science show a student how a science/technology career is cool? It’s a teacher doing the interesting stuff, not a scientist.

I’m sure that the plant tours and riding the zero G flights is fun and exciting and will get the teachers interested in science. That enthusiasm will definitely come across in the teaching and will reach the students. But why not take the students to the labs? Why not take some of the students up to be weightless?

I guess field trips of this magnitude are really difficult for the school to set up, not to mention the large number of students that would want to go would be almost impossible for logistics.

Also, field trips really die off during middle school/high school exactly when the students are being introduced to the basic science concepts that can be tied directly to the things in the lab. Why not something like a tour of the CDC labs for chemistry students in HS to show what you can do with chemistry?

Whenever I read results from stuff like the Intel National Science contest, the winners all seem to have opportunities to work in a real lab with real scientists to help them develop their projects and research. That is not normal for a HS student, but we could try to make visiting the lab/worksite/etc. normal for a MS/HS student.

By HS Teacher Too

October 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

lyncoln,

You’re right. It doesn’t help the kids for the teacher to get to do these things and not be able to bring the whole idea and excitement back to the kids, and that was my point: teachers in Georgia have their hands tied. They simply can’t bring the ideas back to the kids (or bring the kids to the ideas, etc. etc.).

So I couldn’t agree more — who really cares if a bunch of teachers get to take the day to do some cool things? What I argue, however, is that those cool things can make their way to the kids if the teachers had the ability to teach without the burdens of countless days of testing, etc., etc.

I think NCLB had the right idea, but it’s turned out the wrong way. We need acountability, and it’s great to have people certified in their fields teaching the subjects. So now we are at least theoretically equipped for the teachers to be able to do these kinds of things, at least academically. The old argument that the teachers don’t know the material themselves doesn’t hold (as much) anymore. Now we need to let the teachers have the freedom to teach the stuff they know, and we’ll be on an even better path.

By Camille

October 7, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

I’m with Shogun and lyncoln. I’m not sure exactly how these programs are going to help get the kids more interested in science when the kids themselves are not able to actively participate in the programs. My oldest son is in 5th gade and wants to be a scientist. So, while I do take him to different science museums so that he can actively participate in all different types of science experiments, programs, etc., at his school he also gets to do different types of science experiments. And, he absolutely loves it! On the days that they do the experiments are the days that I can get him to actually tell me about his day at school (otherwise, it’s just “it was ok” ” we did some reading or math or history…”). So, while having the teachers participate in the above-mentioned programs is important, I think that it is much more important for the students to be able to have hands-on experience in order to get them (and keep them) more interested in science.

By TheBlogger

October 7, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

This hits on a major pet peeve of mine!

Should science be exciting? Interesting question in and of itself. Should math be exciting? Should history be exciting?

If your answer to all of the above is “yes”, then to what extent? Should we have cartoons in the classroom? Should we invite the Telly Tubies? Should teachers dress up as clowns and tell jokes? Are teachers really just entertainers (if so, I am way under paid)?

If your answer to all of the above is “yes”, then…. while we make it soooooo exciting, when do the students literally learn the content? Today’s kids are so hyper sensitive to all of the “exciting” things: TV, X-Box, I-Pods, and so on. All the kids see is the “excitment” and have no clue about content.

Should science be exciting? Yes, but only to the extent that they see a connection to the real world from the content. Too often, teachers are guilty of doing STUPID and SILLY and really INTELLECTUALLY INSULTING things with students for the sake of excitement and the content is lost.

I have seen a teacher bring dry ice to class. On the surface, one would say that this is a good thing. What did the teacher actually do with the dry ice? She let it sit in the bucket and told the kids to watch the “smoke” come out of the bucket. Nice science. I’m sure that the kids learned a lot from watching the “smoke.”

But, that very teacher was “praised” by the administration (they saw her bring the dry ice to class). That teacher was “praised” by the kids (all they had to do was sit in their chair for the day and watch smoke). That teacher was “praised” by the parents (the kids told their parents that they saw dry ice).

What did the kids learn? Absolutely nothing. Okay - maybe they learned that dry ice is different from regular ice for some reason, but that’s it.

By the way - this was a HIGH SCHOOL science class!

By Sasha

October 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

How much did this cost the individual schools?

By KoolAid House

October 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

It is statistically proven that girls lose interest in math and science in middle school. I’ve enrolled my daughter in a program called T.G.ITech —-> Teenage Girls in Technology that fosters a fun way of being interested in math and science. This is my daughter’s 3rd year.

By Tony

October 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

It is impossible for us to define and agree upon “exciting” in terms of energizing science classrooms. The programs described can have a profound impact on the teachers who participate. This is where the spark of excitement originates in a classroom.

To quote the folksy religious song, “It only takes a spark to get a fire going.” And getting the teacher fired up is the best bet to improving the students’ attitudes. Sometimes, teachers have been their own worst enemies when it comes to building enthusiasm for their subject whether it be science, math, history, PE, music, drama, or literature.

One blogger hit a critical point by saying there is a need to connect to real life. Another blogger talked about the need for more appropriate facilities in schools to promote science learning - laboratories! How true.

The best remedy for improving science education is to provide teachers with appropriate materials, equipment and space to have science experiments. These experiments should promote the importance of inquiry. Science should not be based on learning a body of facts to be regurgitated by students on some test.

KoolAid House - your information is very inaccurate. There is no statistical proof that supports that claim. In fact, in recent years girls have been scoring equal to or higher than boys on nearly all exams including math and science. I agree that it is important to promote interest for girls in science and applaud the use of programs like you describe.

By KoolAid House

October 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Well, from the information I received came directly from Georgia Tech 3 years ago. It stated that young girls lose interest in math and science from 6-8th grade (not all girls, but quite a bit). Now, if you want the statistical data to back that up, I couldn’t provide it to you. I personally believe both sexes lose interest in any given subject by the time they reach certain grade levels. As a result, I conscioiusly choose to take advantage of this free program to enstill that she didn’t lose interest. The program was instituted as a ways to keep girls interested.

By maryarmy

October 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Good luck. Students hate science and there aren’t enough engaging science teachers out there to get them interested.

By jim d

October 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

What ever happened to Mr. Wizard?

Actually Tony nailed it. Talk to any science teacher in the schools and you’ll discover they may have elaborate labs at their disposal but no materials to use providing experiments that would peak the curiosity.

I recall having some great stuff to fool around with back in the day. we were even allowed to stink up the entire building once in a while in chemistry class.

By Jody

October 7, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

I agree with everyone who said that they need to go back to teaching and get rid of the standardized testing.

And yes, traditionally, girls have lost interest in math, science and technology around ths middle grades. Any closing of that gap is the result of programs like the one at GA Tech or the ones that the Society of Women Engineers hold to get students interested.

I’m a woman and I was always interested in science and math in school. I credit my parents for not discouraging this interest. This is why I work with programs that operate outside of the school day to get kids interested in science and such. This issue is so important to industry that there is a great deal of corporate philanthropy being spent to fund these kind of programs.

Here are a few programs that I work with:

BEST Robotics: BEST is an acronym for Boosting Engineering, Science, and Technology in middle and high school students. Our goal is to get students interested in a future career in these fields by hosting an engineering competition using robotics. The program is run every fall and is supported solely on corporate and university philanthropy. Georgia BEST is run out of Southern Polytechnic State University. More information on this program is at www.bestinc.org.

Another program is the National Engineers Week Future City Competition. This program is geared towards middle school students. The students use the popular SimCity 4 to run their simulation and then write a paper and present a scale model of their city. This program is supported by IEEE and also by corporate donations.

National Engineers Week happens every February and encourages those of us in the workforce to bring our jobs to the classroom and other science venues to get kids further interested. I’ve spoken to middle and high schools and have learned a lot from them as well as what they’ve learned from me.

Last, but certainly not least, I’m a Professional member of the Society of Women Engineers. We have a two pronged approach, with one part being to encourage young women to go into engineering, science and technology fields. We work with many different educational programs all with the goal of sparking young women’s interest in a future in a technical field. One of the reasons we do this is that over the last 30 years, women have consistently made up 23% of the engineering workforce. This news is a double edged sword, as in the aggregate, there are more jobs available to women in engineering now than there were 30 years ago, but we’re not gaining a larger presence in the technical workforce in spite of all our efforts. And yes, I can get you the research that went behind that statistic. It is from a study conducted by SWE for the last 30 years.

Sorry for the long post, but this is something I feel very passionate about.

By HB

October 7, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

As part of my job, I keep up with a lot of science ed studies, and actually both Tony and Kool-Aid are correct. Girls have caught up to boys in science test scores, but they do tend to lose interest in science in grades 6-8 (surveys of likes/dislikes, not achievement) and are less likely to later choose science majors/careers (although the number of boys choosing those paths is also dropping). There are a number of programs that try to teach science in a way that fits how girls differ from boys socially during those years. These programs emphasize things like collaborative problem solving, info about women scientists’ research and accomplishments, and big picture info about why what they’re learning matters (boys that age like to focus on the problem at hand and solve it, girls tend to think more broadly and want know how it fits into the bigger picture). Girls that age often need more encouragement too to really get involved in lab work and try things — they don’t like to mess up and look silly! Boys don’t tend to worry about that as much and just go for it.

If any teachers are interested, the Girls Math & Science Initiative at the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh has developed a website, www.braincake.org, as well as a teacher toolkit called the Girl Solution, www.braincake.org/toolkit.

By high school physics teacher

October 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

“Cool” science, or cool physics anyway, involves hard work to learn the logical, precise, and profoundly interconnected principles that constitute the subject. Physics is hard! Understanding physics is cool, but you’ve got to think about it as hard as you can, or else you aren’t going to get it.

You have to be able to understand complex sentences like, “The x and y components of the vector are the x and y coordinates of the point locating the tip of the vector when the tail is at the origin.”

We can make physics less intimidating, but if we expect real learning to take place, there is no way around doing the hard thinking required for correct understanding. Trying to make physics more concrete is being dishonest with the students. Physics is abstract, and the deeper one goes into it, the more abstract it gets. Any of you seen an electron lately? We need teachers who understand physics in their bones, and are able to get it across to teenagers. Students want lucid, clear, correct, logical physics. That’s what they think is cool.

By 'SallyB

October 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this

To quote a favorite middle school science teacher….”.IF WE KEEP MAKING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION MORE HANDS ON AND KEEP TRYING TO MAKE IT EXCITING, the kids’ brains are going to turn to JELLY!!!!! My students can’t even read the text, much less understand it!!!! And the “Big Boys” keep saying that doesn’t matter, just make classes more “hands on”…….an overused and over valued strategy.

By 31 years in

October 7, 2008 9:04 PM | Link to this

This group is trying to show girls that brains can be beautiful.

www.nerdgirls.com

By tom

October 7, 2008 11:12 PM | Link to this

SallyB,

So are you saying that the current state is acceptable? The current state of science teaching is learning about science from reading the textbooks and/or listening to teachers’ boring lectures. I don’t see any reason to continue with that. The MS teacher you quote should probably be getting out of teaching and work with something other than kids. He (or she) obviously does not understand what “hands on” instruction really means and therefore unable to teach it that way. For such teachers, no program will be helpful.

By jim d

October 8, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Who really cares if teaching science is cool?

Science is basically fact based and the fact is that a recent study reported the majority of people in this country have self taught themselves the little science they know. More out of interest and curiosity regarding things they care about. People with a real knowledge of science obtained it through Post- secondary education, not in our public primary/secondary educational system.

By catlady

October 8, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Laura please fix the link on today’s topic!

By tom

October 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

So, jim d, do you want the status quo, or do you think it is important that more students will learn science in K-12?

Science, I also believe, is not just about facts. Rather, it is more about the process of science our students should be learning. Ideas like “experiments,” “variables,” “cause/effect,” etc. are much more important that knowing specific facts. Our school education is already too much like preparing students for a trivial pursuit contest.

By catlady

October 8, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

My youngest daughter is now in grad school in astrophysics. She graduated with dual BAs in astrophysics and math. SHE GOT REALLY TURNED ON TO PHYSICS AND MATH IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, THANKS TO SOME INCREDIBLE TEACHERS, AND WAS FURTHER NURTURED (MOSTLY) IN HIGH SCHOOL. (This is in a poor, rural county) Good science instruction, for a well-prepared student, can make all the difference. Part of our problem is the “well-prepared” part. As long as we teach students to “read” by the current vogue in scripted reading (example: class reads “the boy was wearing a blue coat.” Teacher stops and says, “What color was the coat?” Class is required to respond, in unison, “blue!” Teacher: what was blue? class: the coat!), as long as we call recognizing words fast “reading” (a la Reading First), as long as we do not require memorization of basic math facts and teaching to MASTERY, we will continue to turn out students vastly unprepared to do much in science or math.

By tom

October 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

An overemphasis on “basic math facts” is the equivalence of “Reading First” in school mathematics. Programs like Saxon and variations of “Direct Instructions” are all under that category.

By jim d

October 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Cat,

You may have stumbled upon a key factor in a keen interest in science.

“This is in a poor, rural county”

Having been raised in one myself I believe these kids have a lot more exposure to science in their everyday life as they grow up. Such things as Biology, Chemistry, physics, etc. are an everyday common occurance and they actually see how it plays out in the big scheme of things.

By jim d

October 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Tom,

As I said, who cares?

Since the beginning of time some have had an intrest in what makes things tick while others really didn’t give a damn. Regardless of how COOL one attempts to make the subject some will care and others won’t. So why bother to try to change human nature? Why not just allow them to follow their own path? After all at the end of the day we all go our own way anyways.

IMHO, making any subject mandatory for graduation is simply asinine. Each student is unigue and has a path to follow. We need to be encouraging they follow that path and give them the tools to help them be successfull. THAT my friend is my idea of providing an appropriate education.

By catlady

October 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

Tom, my problem is, we have 5th graders who cannot IMMEDIATELY tell you that 5+7 is 12. They have to count on their fingers, and sometimes they do not count correctly! No hope for them to actually do 5th grade math in a reasonable amount of time.