Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Are We Really Teaching Science? The dictionary definition of science begins something like this: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. Notice that all the nouns are derived from verbs: observe, identify, describe, investigate, and explain. This implies strongly that science is more a process than a body of knowledge. Only later do we find: Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience. Unfortunately the way we teach science often emphasizes that latter definition more than the former one. We tell students about science more than we ask them to do science—or even to apply scientific modes of thinking to problems. If that is what we do, we are not really teaching science. A report from the U.S. National Academies makes this point emphatically with respect to K–8 science education (1). According to the report, “Students who are proficient in science:
1. know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world;
2. generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;
3. understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and
4. participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.”
The first we usually aim to achieve, but the latter three also are extremely important, not only for scientists but for everyone in a democratic society. Many people in the U.S. do not accept scientific explanations such as evolution, and many ignore science when they make decisions, so it is crucial that students have more experience with science as a process. In the early 1990s the Institute for Chemical Education held summer workshops for K–3 teachers called Super Science Connections (2). I and several others worked with a group of superb K–3 teachers to develop the content and process for these workshops. The K–3 teachers were surprised to observe that my behavior in exploring a hands-on chemistry activity was very similar to the behavior of their students—inquisitive and even playful. They recognized that their early elementary students were behaving as scientists behave, without necessarily having had any scientific training. In Super Science Connections we attempted to integrate science with reading, writing, and other required aspects of the K–3 curriculum. Our goal was to make science appear as it is—important in all aspects of children’s experience and for society as a whole. Teachers who attended the workshops were surprised that science could be so readily integrated into their curricula; it required neither a separate time nor a science specialist. They could do it themselves. Perhaps more integration of this sort is needed to emphasize that science is a way of thinking—one in which both children and adults can participate. Of course, teaching science as a way of thinking is important for everyone. Those of us in higher education teach K–8 teachers and we too overemphasize knowledge to the detriment of process (3). One of the main reasons that many K–8 teachers are not aware of the full range of science proficiency outlined
Let’s redouble our efforts to restore the process of science to its rightful place in science education.
by the National Academies report is that we don’t teach it in introductory courses. That’s too bad, because learning the process, origin, and values of science is important for everyone from elementary-school children through future Nobel laureates. The value system of science should be an important part of the curriculum. Science strongly values honesty, objectivity, respect for facts and their implications, communication, openness to opposing evidence, and a healthy distrust of authority. We scientists constantly think about what we know and what facts support our theories and knowledge. From that thought has evolved the process we now call science—an approach that has proved fantastically successful. We should help students to discover that approach, or at least point it out often. We can also emphasize that the values of science are the values of democracy (4). It is no accident that science and democracy developed at about the same time. Sometimes the same people were instrumental in creating both. President Barack Obama, in his inaugural address, vowed to “restore science to its rightful place”. Those words, music to the ears of nearly every scientist, have been widely applauded. Implied also is that the values of science are essential to maintaining a healthy democracy. But the fact that science needs to be restored to its rightful place is indirectly an indictment of scientists and teachers. We need to work harder and smarter to really teach science, actively encouraging our students to learn everything that science is. Let’s redouble our efforts to restore the process of science to its rightful place in science education. Literature Cited 1. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8; Duschi, Richard A.; Schweingruber, Heidi A.; Shouse, Andrew W., Eds.; U.S. National Academies Press: Washington, 2007; http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11625 (accessed Feb 2009). 2. Super Science Connections; Smith, Janice, Ed.; Institute for Chemical Education: Madison, WI, 1995. 3. Alberts, Bruce. Science 2009, 323, 437; http://www.sciencemag. org/cgi/content/summary/323/5913/437 (accessed Feb 2009). 4. Overbye, Dennis. Elevating Science, Elevating Democracy. New York Times, Jan 26, 2009; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/ science/27essa.html (accessed Feb 2009).
Supporting JCE Online Material http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Apr/abs411.html Full text (HTML and PDF) with links to cited URLs Blogged at http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/chemeddl/
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 4 April 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
411
