SciFri
 FEEDBACK

 

Last week's topic: science education.

We asked what you thought needed improvement.

Here's what some of you had to say...


---

The biggest problem I see with science education is the lack of experienced teachers that have the proper back ground in both science and how to teach science to the high school level.

Another problem is the cutting of school budgets. I had an electronics teacher who was a former electrical engineer and he taught a four year program in electronics and computer science. Due to cuts in the school budget that hit both arts and music also killed his electronics program. He is now teaching math and a physics classes. I am a electrical engineer today because of his classes in electronics and physics.

Dan Young

---

One of the greatest problems we have with science education is that we introduce complex concepts before the fundamentals are fully learned. The same problem exists with math education as well. We seem to have an idea that math is adding numbers and science is watching protazoa under a microscope. Students are never given the basic tools to understand the application of logical thought. Science is the application of logical thought and math is the greatest tool used. The most useful tools are only taught later in the students academic careers and are never effectively tied into the concepts presented earlier. The end result is that the ideas learned earlier are forgotten later on. They are never shown to have real significance. Math and science education today are analogous to asking a neophyte to build a house with nothing but a hammer and a hand saw. They might be able to do it and become master craftsmen, but they would have wasted less time if you gave them power tools, blueprints, and some training on how to use them.

Patrick Berry

---

I really feel I missed out on at least half of all career opportunities when, in high school, I decided I was "bad at math". I never took math beyond Algebra II, and therefore didn't even consider advanced sciences. Now I'm back in college because I know I missed out on important and interesting knowledge. After attaining a liberal arts masters years ago and hopping dissatisfied from retailing to technical editing to software design to childrearing (which was satisfying!)..I've decided to become a high school physics teacher. And at this "late" stage (I'm 42), I'm discovering math and science are enormously fun. Trigonometry was so COOL! My Biology and Anatomy & Physiology classes were fascinating. Now I'm taking Physics and Calculus and having the time of my life. How I wish I'd known back in high school that I could be good at math...I would have had so many other career options.

Beth Asbeck

---

This is an endlessly fascinating and complex topic. How do you teach interested and uninterested students in the same class when the teacher is not allowed to remove disruptive students? How do teachers cope with increasingly politicized school administrators and school boards. How do schools attract committed teachers given the prevailing salaries and attitudes about teachers? Are the derogatory attitudes about teachers earned? How do we upgrade the colleges that churn out teachers that are highly conversant with the latest techniques but don't know the topic?

Blake Olson

---

Your guests have not mentioned the logical extension to the Physics First curriculum. In fact, I haven’t heard any mention of Earth Science and its role in the high school curriculum. “Earth System Science” is curriculum based on the fact that all the other sciences are used in the study of the Earth (and other planets, etc.) and that the Earth System is not only the most complex of the science systems, but also the most “concrete” and tremendously important for all students to understand the complexities of --- in order to be a homeowner, voter, traveler, anything….an appreciation of the Earth System is critical to decision making by adults in our society. The logical extension is to have Earth SScience as the "capstone" course required of all high school students, especially those students for whom this science course may be their last science course.

Mimi Fuhrman

---

I don't understand why we don't spend more time trying to figure out how we can teach very distracted high school kids about things they want to learn. For example, how does a compact disc (CD) work? What is the physics of snowboarding? How does radio work?

Kids would be more interested in learning about science if it was about things they enjoy, like music and sports.

Michael Koppelman

---

I am a degreed chemical engineer schooled in the early 1970's. Some of my professors emphasized the aspect of problem solving as a crucial element of our daily course instruction. Basically, we were encouraged to use all our knowledge of the sciences + in our attempt to solve the techical problems. In my experience this strongly impacted my way of thinking thru a problem and precluding me from trying to regurgitate reams of memorized clatter. I wonder if this chemical engineering approach could be/or has been studied by your learned guests as a possible model.

---

I attended Shadle Park High School in Spokane Washington. Our school had two science tracks, physical sciences (intro to physics concepts and applications) and then general biology, for most students, and a second track (which I followed) with physical sciences followed by chemistry followed by organic chemistry followed by Advanced Placement biology, for "honors" students. I thoroughly enjoyed my science education, gained a high level of science literacy and never once actually considered the importance of the order in which subjects were taught or that things might be done differently elsewhere.

After listening to a portion of your program while driving to lunch today, I recalled fondly the never-ending series of "Ah-Ha" experiences, of discovery building on knowledge, that made science enjoyable to me. I agree with your guest who stated that today's biology is a complex science that truly requires the ingrained definitions and premises of other sciences in order for comprehension and enjoyment of the subject.

With that I would like to thank my science teachers for their enthusiasm, dedication and knowledge.

Ed Wood

---

I was generally sickened by the "discussion" about math and science education. Your "experts" are a major part of the problem: they spend their intellectual energy on matters of curriculum, but totally avoid the fact that we (in this country) have inadequaely prepared and intellectually incapable math and science teachers. At some point, American society "must" recognize that $18,000 per year (Oklahoma) is not going to attract the most capable and able college students to teaching. Nationally, test scores reveal that the least capable students "choose" teaching.

Generally, I enjoy Science Friday, but today's segment "hurt my ears."

Robert A. Fairbanks, M.Ed (Harvard)

---

I am not a teaching professional, and I have no specific suggestions. I do have an observation. There will never be a TV show LA Scientist (or LA Engineer). Computer geeks have made a small dent in our societal paradigm regarding the value of science. I believe a PR program towards the value and joy of science may be worthwhile. Who pays? Government, consortium of technical firms, colleges, the media ??? One reason that engineers are always at the top of starting pay for BS degrees is supply & demand. A program designed to boost the understanding and appreciation of science and technology by youngsters, even a young as Barney age, may begin to create a DESIRE for science education. Spectacular teaching techniques will not help a student who is not interested.
• Don Murdock

  ---

  What is wrong with science education is that people do not ask what is right with it often enough?

  Another wrong is the myth that there is a correlation between ability to teach science (or understanding of teaching) and one's position in the academic hierarchy. It's quite possible that there is an inverse relationship. Kindegarten teachers know best, and Phd's know least. Thirdly, we live in capitalistic society, and science education for the most part is a socialistic enterprise.

  --Chris Harper

  ---

  One of the problems with science education is the way in which reform has been attempted in most places. The easy parts of reform are thrown in with little or no preparation for the teachers. They are given new curricula to try to drive instructional change, but have no ownership because they had no choice in it. The more difficult parts (read "expensive") are never attempted: giving practitioners time for reflection on the methods, etc.

  Scott Hudson
  Science Teacher

  ---

  I believe the key to science education, and indeed, education in general, is critical thinking. It just seems like critical thinking skills are simply not taught effectively, and our society suffers as a result. A sound framework of rational thought can give individuals a basis for processing information from many sources, not just the sciences.

  Travis Calef

  ---

  I am a science teacher in a public high school. I think the biggest difference between the education the students are getting in elementary school and in high school is the students' motivation itself. I am trained in the field I teach, dean's list in college, graduated two years ago, near the top in the Praxis test..... I know my material and I have been trained in how to present material. My students, for the most part, could care less about science. They are interested in socializing, shopping and video games. You could not "dumb this stuff down" far enough for many of these kids.

  It was really interesting to hear this topic today, as this was the topic of discussion over lunch in the Math-Science resource room today. Math teachers and Science teachers were discussing what we would do to fix this. My district is a poor, urban district and we are blamed for our students' lack of acheivement. What else can we do?

  Janet Petersen

  ---

  1. Science education depends on pre-requisite courses that are offered only yearly (usually). If a student doesn't do well on one course, his or her future can be drastically affected. In sports, for example, if you are weak on certain fundamentals, your workouts stress your weaknesses, but you aren't necessarily thrown off the "track".

  2. The school that was described in your show is a wonderful experiment for the "creme de la creme". I think much more could be accomplished if our entire population was educated just a little better in science and math. Otherwise, our precious teaching resources are concentrated on only a few. These few, being only humans like the rest of us, are as likely to squander the gifts as any of the rest of us. Better to spread the gifts out to as many as might be able to use them.

  David Porter

  ---