Skip to main content

Why is science teaching so variable?

Yesterday I visited North London Collegiate School to give a talk. It's my third visit to the school and it's always a pleasure - apart from being a lovely venue, the students (and staff) are always enthusiastic, interested and supportive.  In a conversation about teaching over lunch, I started wondering why it is that here there were so many students with a real passion for science, yet at many schools this isn't the case. After all, most 10 year-olds are excited by science. Where do we go wrong?

Of course NLCS isn't a typical school - it's a very good private school. Of itself, the 'private' part isn't too significant. I've been to state schools where there is a similar enthusiasm, and to private schools with little interest. Now, some of the drop off in interest in science (or the ability to sustain it) as students get older is a result of peer pressure - and though there have been doubts expressed about socialization issues with single sex schools I think it's fair to say that there is less of the peer pressure that says 'Don't seem interested in academic subjects!' in single sex schools like NLCS. But the two factors I'm most interested in are quality of teaching and content of the course, both of which can engage or turn students off.

As far as teaching goes, we need teachers who know their subject - I am worried by how many schools might have a biologist teaching physics, for instance - love their subject, and have a passion to communicate it. This is a difficult combination, I admit. Many scientists aren't great communicators. We're asking a lot in a science teacher, because we want them to understand and be excited about the science and put it across well. But I don't think this is impossible, provided we see teaching science as a fundamentally important role (and, yes, reward it appropriately). I know there is a shortage of science teachers as it is - but all that says is we need to put even more effort and money into the next generation. No money to spare in these hard times? So running some games in 2012 is more important than science education and the future technological fitness of the country? Politicians can find the money if they have the will. It's just that few of them understand science at the moment. (We should have compulsory science classes for MPs - but that's a different post.)

Then there's the content of the teaching. The big difference between academic science and popular science is that popular science is more built around stories and people. Yes, you get the science, but you get some context - and though I think it has improved since my day, science courses could probably still do with more context along the way. The other powerful tool popular science communicators have is using the sexy bits of science. In physics, for instance, we drag in relativity and quantum theory and all that good stuff at the drop of a hat. There's very little basic physics that doesn't have a component that really is exciting and mindboggling provided you are up on the 20th century developments - but most science as taught in schools is 19th century science. By bringing in the exciting stuff early - and it's not a problem: I talk about relativity and quantum theory to junior school children - you not only give them science that's closer to the real thing, but give it much more of a wow factor.

I'm not saying it's easy. But it is important. We need more students as engaged as those at NLCS. And that means some fundamental change.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou