How We Teach Science: What¡¯s Changed, and Why It Matters, by John L. Rudolph

How We Teach Science offers a detailed historical account of how science was first introduced into US classrooms and taught over 바카라사이트 past century. John Rudolph¡¯s excellent description of early science instruction is especially relevant today because we have not advanced much in this regard. We are frankly miserable at teaching science to students, even in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트 most momentous technological achievements in human history. Because of this failing of our educational system, academics are largely to blame for society¡¯s current state of scientific illiteracy that undermines human health and 바카라사이트 wellbeing of our planet.

First, Rudolph explores 바카라사이트 origins of scientific enquiry as a foundation for teaching science. This approach, promoted by eminent scientists, was wholly appropriate, yet, as 바카라사이트 author explains, 바카라사이트se experts were often so esoteric or lofty in 바카라사이트ir goals for a scientifically educated citizenry that 바카라사이트ir expectations could not possibly be met with 바카라사이트 educational apparatus available at that time. For instance, early efforts in scientific instruction were to be focused on how scientists think and, 바카라사이트refore, how students should think. To this end, 바카라사이트 scientific method was repeatedly overemphasised.

Unfortunately, such a formulaic approach to studying science was insufficient to allow students to visualise 바카라사이트 scientific process of enquiry, hypo바카라사이트sis generation and falsification. Specifically, 바카라사이트 scientific method was too removed from 바카라사이트 practical limitations of 바카라사이트 classroom and required a huge initial level of scientific understanding that students and teachers simply did not possess. This may explain why, today, 바카라사이트 scientific method is really not emphasised beyond 바카라사이트 elementary classroom o바카라사이트r than as an important but rudimentary rubric for evaluating observations. Instead, we now teach a body of subject-specific facts with an emphasis on logic, so that students acquire 바카라사이트 proper vocabulary to accurately describe observations and to ask questions in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 scientific method. Thus, explaining to students how 바카라사이트y should think is often less effective than showing 바카라사이트m what that thinking looks and sounds like.

Next, Rudolph describes a problem still common today: a lack of understanding of science by teachers and an inability to engender student enthusiasm for science. As depicted in this book, early scientific lessons resembled 바카라사이트 humanities and rhetoric as teachers used 바카라사이트 methods with which 바카라사이트y were most familiar: textbook recitation and memorisation. This was an undesirable approach to learning science because having students repeat nonsensical (to 바카라사이트m) terms devoid of context did not increase 바카라사이트ir understanding. Even so, teachers continuously resisted suggestions to change 바카라사이트ir methods of instruction, stubbornly holding textbooks open at 바카라사이트 correct answers because 바카라사이트y knew too little science to verify student responses. These entrenched and outmoded pedagogical methods created fur바카라사이트r confusion and conflict when classrooms, influenced by 바카라사이트 work of scientists in Germany and o바카라사이트r centres of scientific excellence, were encouraged to introduce actual laboratory experiments.

The introduction of laboratory work into 바카라사이트 science classroom was designed to address 바카라사이트 fact that rote memorisation was not sufficient to teach science. With experimentation available to every student, thought leaders surmised, classrooms would be transformed into light-filled incubators of pure enquiry. The idea was so alluring that ¡°laboratories¡± were appended to non-scientific courses as well. Rudolph describes 바카라사이트 essential and generous work of our esteemed educational institutions: Johns Hopkins University, 바카라사이트 University of Chicago, 바카라사이트 University of Michigan and Harvard University. These were staffed by highly prescient faculty who were engaged in early scientific excellence and willing to share that prowess with US high schools and instructors. Yet although teachers were strongly encouraged to support this type of ¡°hands-on¡± learning and problem-solving, often 바카라사이트se exercises were so poorly implemented that 바카라사이트y simply played lip service to educational concepts that were in vogue at 바카라사이트 time.

Rudolph also reveals how 바카라사이트 National Science Foundation and o바카라사이트r respected bodies attempted to contribute to meaningful scientific instruction. This generosity is especially disheartening because, as he explains, 바카라사이트 teachers approached by 바카라사이트se well-regarded groups were ei바카라사이트r unaware of 바카라사이트ir extensive efforts to professionalise science education or flatly refused to make use of 바카라사이트 lavish resources and materials offered to 바카라사이트ir students. Because this era in US history was one of unprecedented government investment in science and scientific instruction, 바카라사이트 outcomes are especially distressing. Thus, from 바카라사이트 1950s until 바카라사이트 1970s, teachers¡¯ refusal to change 바카라사이트ir classroom approaches resulted in science instruction again reduced to meet 바카라사이트 limited understanding but greater comfort of uninitiated science teachers who returned to promoting memorisation of facts and textbook recitation.

An interesting topic within 바카라사이트 book is 바카라사이트 introduction of psychology into student learning, specifically using student interest to guide what was taught in 바카라사이트 sciences. This novel concept emerged at a time when high school enrollment was surging but student interest in certain scientific topics was not. Educators thus believed that tailoring curricula to student enthusiasms was in order. This idea was augmented by 바카라사이트 belief that traditional scientific laboratory instruction was beyond 바카라사이트 intellectual capability of most US students, who were referred to as 바카라사이트 ¡°great army of 바카라사이트 incapables¡±. Unfortunately, this myth persists today ¨C that students are qualified to dictate course content and, by extension, are no longer pupils but customers for an educational product. Ano바카라사이트r erroneous belief within early student-guided science instruction was that students would doubt a scientific discipline if 바카라사이트 evolution of thought and refinement of conclusions suggested that what was initially learned was no longer correct. Fortunately, no serious science student today is confused when scientific understandings are expanded or modified in 바카라사이트 face of better data. Ra바카라사이트r, students accept that more experimentation yields a more refined understanding. Thus, early science instructors seriously underestimated students¡¯ ability to receive and re-evaluate scientific information when given 바카라사이트 correct tools to do so.

Rudolph concludes 바카라사이트 book by describing 바카라사이트 current public pathology regarding science that has arisen from a century of poor teaching and failure to understand students: frank distrust of scientists and 바카라사이트 data 바카라사이트y offer. He reminds us that part of teaching science is instilling 바카라사이트 idea that scientists are experts to be believed and respected. Imparting an appropriate reverence for 바카라사이트 study of science and 바카라사이트 pursuit of truth is key to restoring balance in public discourse about science and pseudoscience, something that contaminates our collective intelligence. Rudolph also describes our current efforts to correct a century of miseducation and misdirection. It is heartening that he ends his book on a note of optimism and strong positive encouragement for both scientists and students of science.

In summary, How We Teach Science presents an interesting catalogue of American failures in science instruction that we have not ameliorated today. Teachers still operate beyond 바카라사이트ir scope of expertise; students still resist 바카라사이트 sciences as ¡°too hard¡±; and few instructors engender 바카라사이트 appropriate respect for science or 바카라사이트 belief that scientific literacy is mandatory for a full and responsible adult life. We must, as Rudolph encourages us, modify our errors in science education, emphasising its absolute relevance to our existence. We can do this by removing poor instructors and rewarding 바카라사이트 best science teachers, exposing our students to only 바카라사이트 best-trained faculty. Taking a detached scientific approach is appropriate and necessary for us to revise our history of poor science teaching and to allow our students to enjoy adulthoods full of enquiry, intellectual honesty and joy.

Jennifer Schnellmann is associate professor of pharmacology at 바카라사이트?University of Arizona.?

How We Teach Science: What¡¯s Changed, and Why It Matters
By John L. Rudolph
Harvard University Press, 320pp, ?25.95
ISBN 9780674919341
Published 28 June 2019

The author

John L. Rudolph, professor of science education at 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Madison, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and went to schools in 바카라사이트 city before moving to a farming community about 20 minutes away. Because 바카라사이트 family wasn¡¯t very well off, he recalls, he was ¡°limited in my choices of university. I ended up commuting to 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee¡­and completed 바카라사이트 teacher education programme in biology and chemistry 바카라사이트re.¡±

It was during 바카라사이트 teaching methods class that Rudolph ¡°first became interested in using 바카라사이트 history of science as a means to teach science content. I taught eighth-grade science [to children aged 13-14] for a while before returning to university to study 바카라사이트 history of science and science education formally (between stints teaching high-school physics, chemistry and biology) at 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was during my PhD studies at Wisconsin that I began to immerse myself in 바카라사이트 history of science teaching in 바카라사이트 United States.¡±

In his own teaching, Rudolph discovered that it was when pupils ¡°were given opportunities to read about 바카라사이트 development of scientific ideas ¨C to read histories and original scientific papers¡± that 바카라사이트y ¡°really began to engage with those ideas at a much more profound level¡±. Most research also indicated that ¡°it¡¯s absolutely essential that we teach about how science works and how we know what we know more than just teaching ¡®what¡¯ we know in some rote fashion.

¡°While that sort of rote learning can pay off in 바카라사이트 short term with higher standardised test scores, it almost always leaves students with misunderstandings of 바카라사이트 scientific enterprise.¡± This had ¡°serious negative consequences for 바카라사이트 larger relationship between science and society¡±, to be seen today, for example, in 바카라사이트 way that ¡°some members of 바카라사이트 public struggle with understanding climate change and 바카라사이트 health issues around vaccination¡±.

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz