Reforming science instruction

[wiggin]

An activity I often find fun in my free time is to answer science questions for a web service run through a Department of Energy lab. Students and teachers in K-12 are encouraged to submit questions, after which a large and fairly diverse group of scientists and engineers are given the opportunity to answer. Some questions aren't answered at all; others are answered by several scientists. The questions range from the simple (often revealing significant misconceptions) to the profound (sometimes unintentionally), and when I have time I'm normally delighted to try to give a complete, thoughtful, and age-appropriate answer to those questions I'm knowledgeable in. I really enjoy that kids are curious about the natural world and go the extra mile to understand it.

What has gotten me thinking, though, is the questions submitted by educators. I've found they generally fall into two broad categories. One category is laudable - generally, teachers who found either complex or specialized questions arising from their students, and who are seeking expert help to answer them. The second category, though, gives me more cause for concern. On any number of occasions I have received questions from science instructors - even those teaching at middle or high school levels - who are clearly unfamiliar with basic scientific concepts. Things like understanding how surface area/volume ratios and scaling matter, or basic understandings of energy, or how evolution works. These aren't misconceptions based on a lack of detailed knowledge about a field - I wouldn't expect that of science teachers. These are things that anyone with even a rudimentary science background should know. It makes me rather concerned about the state of science instruction in the US.

What scares me is that these are the self-selected group of teachers who are aware of their confusion and/or ignorance and are motivated enough to try to remedy the situation by consulting an expert. I can't imagine how many more instructors don't even know or bother. I would imagine that these teachers have had at least minimal college-level science training, which should be more than sufficient for understanding these concepts. Given this lack, I doubt that their students are receiving much useful instruction - science textbooks for grade school and high school already focus too much on information and not enough on fundamental concepts, and I imagine these students don't learn much more than rote memorization.

I know there's at least one science teacher here, and I'm curious about the broader community's thoughts. How can we best ensure that our science instruction is at least passable, if not excellent? Would stricter requirements for teachers be enough? Better salaries? A change in curricular focus? An end to standardized tests that focus on fact retention? I have personally met any number of absolutely superlative, dedicated science teachers, and I doubt they are motivated by money or standards or much of anything other than love of their jobs and a recognition of its importance. But I'm more concerned about the vast numbers of largely indifferent science instructors who have neither the passion, knowledge, or skill to impart scientific understanding with anything approaching competence. This does a disservice to our kids, and means that college curricula spend too much time playing catch-up.

Suggestions?

[Dreadnaught]

It's probably a combination of four things, which are pretty inherent to just about any job-

1) Solid qualifications (education or experience in the field).
2) Access to training, with maybe some testing.
3) Verification of good performance based on standards of the head of that school, with the ability to terminate immediately if necessary.
4) Good pay for the ones who are good at it.

In some form or another, those factors are often not available in many schools. EG some of my friends who have MAs in teaching have enormous amounts of education about the theory and practice of teaching, but are then tasked to go read-up on a textbook or otherwise do their own research to prepare actual lesson plans.

Similar to how some portion of law school is utterly useless, some portion of teaching instruction is often useless for subjects that require some real attention to detail and explanation of complex concepts.

[Timbuk2]

I have encountered examples of incompetence, indifference and downright ignorance in every office of every department of every company I have ever worked for.

I'm sure it's true of every profession there is, so I don't see why teaching should be any different, of science subjects or otherwise.

Not to say it's not a concern, in any profession, but there will always be jobsworths.

And jobsworths will never excel beyond lowly positions.

~

The UK has a school standards agency, called OFSTED (Office of Standards in Education).

The agency has regular visits of schools, where it assesses performance, sits in on classes, monitors targets etc. Each school is then given a rating. These ratings are publically available, which gives the supposed opportunity to parents to be able to choose schools for their children - I won't go into the problems that in itself causes, as that's for another discussion.

OFSTED inspections are dreaded by schools, they are taken very seriously. Badly performing schools are shut down.

Does the US have an equivalent?

[Khendraja'aro]

In Germany, for the higher education (the Gymnasium) it's often the exact opposite, Wiggin, of what you describe. My time at university included at least 60% of that what a Master student has to study (and I did that in two subjects) and it's not rare that such a student decides to get a doctor's degree just because going the rest of the way doesn't require much additional time anyway.

As a result, our teachers at the Gymnasium are usually quite knowledgable about their subjects. They may have problems with paedagogics and didadactics since that area is a bit neglected in university. Yes, those subjects exist and they're mandatory - but as it turned out, they're not really helpful.

However, our curricula don't focus on teaching information anymore. They're focussing on teaching qualifications (this may not translate correctly) instead - thus, instead of saying: "The pupils need to know all about Ohm's law" our curriculum is now saying: "The pupils should be able to physically build a working circuit. The pupils should be able to turn a circuit layout into a physical circuit and vice versa. The pupils should be able to describe the components of a circuit and their functions. The pupils should be able to calculate the proper resistance for a given voltage."

And so on. It's simplified quite a bit but you should get the idea. Pure delivery of information is still in there (and explicitly named at some points) but teaching of qualifications gets quite a lot of attention.

[Dreadnaught]

OFSTED inspections are dreaded by schools, they are taken very seriously. Badly performing schools are shut down.

Does the US have an equivalent?

It varies based on geography, but they aren't too common. And, in big cities, our teacher's unions have bitterly fought such evaluations as racist/tools of the 1%/prongs of Bushitler/etc.

In Germany, for the higher education (the Gymnasium) it's often the exact opposite, Wiggin, of what you describe. My time at university included at least 60% of that what a Master student has to study (and I did that in two subjects) and it's not rare that such a student decides to get a doctor's degree just because going the rest of the way doesn't require much additional time anyway.

As a result, our teachers at the Gymnasium are usually quite knowledgable about their subjects. They may have problems with paedagogics and didadactics since that area is a bit neglected in university. Yes, those subjects exist and they're mandatory - but as it turned out, they're not really helpful.

However, our curricula don't focus on teaching information anymore. They're focussing on teaching qualifications (this may not translate correctly) instead - thus, instead of saying: "The pupils need to know all about Ohm's law" our curriculum is now saying: "The pupils should be able to physically build a working circuit. The pupils should be able to turn a circuit layout into a physical circuit and vice versa. The pupils should be able to describe the components of a circuit and their functions. The pupils should be able to calculate the proper resistance for a given voltage."

And so on. It's simplified quite a bit but you should get the idea. Pure delivery of information is still in there (and explicitly named at some points) but teaching of qualifications gets quite a lot of attention.

Interesting about the last part. Whether teaching the concept or the underlying physical law, it's certainly an area of knowledge that is lacking in our education system. What do you think about that shift?

[Ominous Gamer]

The UK has a school standards agency, called OFSTED (Office of Standards in Education).

The website makes this sound like these are on location inspections rather than student competency evaluations. I have never experienced or heard of such a system in the US. Instead we have the NCLBA which uses tests scores of the students to rate teachers and schools.

[Flixy]

I'm fairly sure we also have on site inspection and that poorly performing schools can get supervision or even closure, but no clue on how common that is.

Most of my teachers at high school in the higher years were msc or higher, but that's not the case for lower years or less academic tracks. My teachers were all pretty good I think, in this sense, but maybe I was lucky. Plus I grew up near the border so I had a bunch of Belgian teachers who tend to be higher educated than Dutch teachers.

I do know that the knowledge of elementary school teachers here is generally completely shit

[Timbuk2]

The website makes this sound like these are on location inspections rather than student competency evaluations. I have never experienced or heard of such a system in the US. Instead we have the NCLBA which uses tests scores of the students to rate teachers and schools.

They are indeed onsite inspections. The inspections seem to be all-encompassing, so student competency is taken into consideration, as well as teacher and school performance.

The following is an extract from OFSTED's inspection framework and guidelines:

6. Inspections engage headteachers, school staff and governors . The views of parents, pupils and staff provide important evidence for the inspection.

7. Inspectors are required to report on the quality of education provided in the school and must, in particular, cover:
 the achievement of pupils at the school
 the quality of teaching in the school
 the behaviour and safety of pupils at the school
 the quality of leadership in, and management of, the school.

8. When reporting, inspectors must also consider:
 the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school
 the extent to which the education provided by the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and in particular the needs of disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs

I do know that the knowledge of elementary school teachers here is generally completely shit

Their knowledge doesn't have to be advanced in any way though.

I would expect teachers with a greater knowledge in a particular field to teach that particular field to kids of a higher age in high school. Elementary school teachers need nothing more than a basic teaching degree and a general grounding.

[Khendraja'aro]

[...]Elementary school teachers need nothing more than a basic teaching degree and a general grounding.

I'm not so sure that this is indeed the case - yes, at first glance it looks that way. But this is what me teaching the younger classes has taught me: Teaching basic stuff is actually more difficult if you want to do it right.

Because you can't tell them the whole truth yet. You need to lay foundations for more complicated stuff to come, you need to reduce complexity at the same time and you need to do it in such a way that you don't have to "tear it down" again at a later date.

Granted, my next example is not elementary school stuff, but: Take the concept of redox reactions. The problem here is that an oxidation is not restricted solely to reactions with oxygen, contrary to the suggestion residing in its name. Which means that you now have a choice: Either you don't use this term at all until a later date (thus preventing you from using the school books) or you use the term but will run into problems later on, because the pupils will fix that connection "oxidation=oxygen" in their minds.

I'm sure there are similar problems in elementary school - you need to teach concepts in such a way that advanced knowledge at a later date can be integrated into existing knowledge with a minimum of friction.

Interesting about the last part. Whether teaching the concept or the underlying physical law, it's certainly an area of knowledge that is lacking in our education system. What do you think about that shift?

It's a good thing in my mind. Because it shifts the focus from what we call "inert knowledge" to "ability".

[ImAnOgre]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Stereotype, yes.... always true, no.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's actually quite an insult - people who say that usually won't last 10 minutes in a class room.

[LittleFuzzy]

I am not a science teacher or involved in the education field in any way. . . but my mother switched careers from law to teaching and ended up teaching science at an alternative high school (i.e. kids who got expelled from the regular high school, primarily for behavioral problems). Additional training time will help. Guidance on how to make science look interesting to kids even when you lack any sort of adequate facilities so help on demonstrations and hands-on experiments for the students. Tightening up standards won't help in the slightest, that will just result in less science classes because, like with math, there just aren't enough truly qualified people in the US looking to take up a teaching career.

Maybe more state and federal financial aid for STEM education with strings attached requiring time spent teaching classes (either concurrently with working on the degree or after graduation)?

[RandBlade]

It's actually quite an insult - people who say that usually won't last 10 minutes in a class room.

Unfortunately many who are in the classroom shouldn't have lasted 10 minutes but last 40 years. Or were good for 10 years but are now bored and jaded of it but still clock on and do a rather half-hearted job.

One problem is that unlike in many parts of the private sector which can have a bit of a cut-throat rigor to it, teaching can become for some a job for life. Any job for life is a problem - not just in education but in any industry. I believe the track record in the UK is that over a period of 20 years only 20 teachers in the entire country had been dismissed for poor performance. Many will quit before they get dismissed no doubt but there is not just one poorly performing teacher in the entire country per annum.

This is not a criticism of either teaching as a vocation or teachers in general. The problem was hit on the head by Tim, in any industry anywhere there will be bad apples. Every industry should have a mechanism for pruning away those who shouldn't be there but sadly that is lacking in the field of education. I have the utmost respect for teachers who are doing one of the most important jobs there is in modern society, but that just makes it even worse when you get that small minority who don't give a shit coasting by rather than helping those who need it.

[Aimless]

Require, enable and reward continuing education for teachers that focuses on questions that test and develop the understanding of important principles. Or just give them the same national standardized tests their students have to take I can't really think of a practical and reasonable way to make continuing education a mechanism for sorting out bad people but I reckon it can be a way to keep teaching teachers the things they need to know.

Universities and colleges don't always test for understanding of basic principles. It takes great skill and understanding to write a really good test that both sorts as well as teaches, and I reckon many of those who teach at the college/uni level don't have what it takes to write such tests. A database of good questions that test for/teach important basic principles may make life easier for teachers' teachers.

[Khendraja'aro]

Unfortunately many who are in the classroom shouldn't have lasted 10 minutes but last 40 years. Or were good for 10 years but are now bored and jaded of it but still clock on and do a rather half-hearted job.

Where exactly do you get that "many" from? Base this statement of yours on facts please.

Not to mention this "any job for life is a problem" rubbish. A broad and overly sweeping opinion made to look like a fact, again.

[Aimless]

Where exactly do you get that "many" from? Base this statement of yours on facts please.

It might be in Base-T (troll), eg. one, two, many, lots

[Aimless]

Where exactly do you get that "many" from? Base this statement of yours on facts please.

No doubt there have been a few studies but even informally many teachers here in Sweden at least seem to have felt themselves grow increasingly unmotivated and demoralized. My discussions with teachers and teaching students here have led me to believe that those who are especially keen and idealistic are also the ones most likely to become completely demoralised and give up on the shit business altogether I don't think this is an indictment of teachers so much as it is an indictment of the education system and of our society. I reckon doctors may be close behind

[Khendraja'aro]

That mechanism is well known - there are roughly 4 personality types for teachers (doesn't mean that they're equally distributed) and 2 of those have a higher risk of burnout than the other two. The 4 personality types are:
1) idealists who live for teaching
2) motivated people who do their job and a bit more, but take care not to overdo it
3) unmotivated people who do exactly what is required of them and not a bit more
4) overchallenged people who, for some reason, are not really suited for the job

Personality types 1 & 4 are risk factors. We spoke of this quite a bit during my training and got a lot of advice on how to avoid burnout.

Of course, there's also outside influence - some of our politicians come to mind. There are quite a lot of former teachers among them - and they all seem to have a very good reason as to why they don't teach anymore.

[RandBlade]

Way to get over-protective Khen and lash out, nobody was having a dig.

Where exactly do you get that "many" from? Base this statement of yours on facts please.

The word many was used as a word because I don't have a number. How many do you define as many? 20? 50? 100? 1000?

There are 442k (Source) teachers in England alone this year. In a 10 year period 17 teachers have been struck off (Source). That puts 1.7 teachers or 0.000385% of total teachers being struck off per annum. Now it strikes me just from logic that as was said in any industry that there may many more than one in every 260,000 per year who may not be up to the desired standard.

Not to mention this "any job for life is a problem" rubbish. A broad and overly sweeping opinion made to look like a fact, again.

Gee whiz, an opinion being stated in the Debate and Discussion forum. Stop the presses! Care to rebut that opinion as again logic and reasons behind said opinion were given.

EDIT: To give a comparison from one primarily state-ran field (Education) to another (Health) there are 252k doctors (Source) of which in a period of the last 5 years 669 (Source) were "struck off or suspended" - I can't find a modern number struck off alone. In 2007 alone 60 were struck off (Source), most recent number I coulf find Googling so will use that figure. So that appears that despite having just over half the number of people working in that profession more than 35x as many were struck off in one year than teachers were. Or on an evened for population ratio there is less than 1 teacher struck off for every 66 doctors who are.

Now using logic do we believe this is because medicine is significantly more likely to include generally worse fully qualified doctors than education has fully qualified teachers? Or is the field of medicine simply better at catching and removing the bad doctors better than education is at catching and removing bad teachers?

EDIT2: Continuing with the maths, if the same proportion of teachers had been struck off over a decade as doctors then instead of 17 teachers being struck off 1035 would have been. I'd consider over a thousand "many".

[RandBlade]

You may not be happy with the comparison to doctors as they're literally "life and death" so may be held to a stricter standard, though shouldn't teachers be held to a high standard if you consider teaching important? So an alternative example - solicitors.

There are 120k solicitors in England and Wales (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitors_Regulation_Authority]Source[/url]) of which 82 (Source) were struck of in 2010.

You asked for facts, there's some facts.

Lawyers: 82/120k in one year
Doctors: 60/252k in one year.
Teachers: 17/442k over a span of 10 years.

Spot the odd one out . On a per person ratio comparing the two professons a Solicitor is 100 times more likely to be struck off than a Teacher is.

[GGT]

I'm not convinced we should be "blaming" educators for the faults and flaws within educational systems, especially when it comes to teaching STEM, when the "science" component gives way to technology, engineering, and math.

My children weren't expected to learn the basics of biology, botany, or zoology. But they were expected to learn advanced math and chemistry. That disconnect is alarming.

[LittleFuzzy]

. . .

I took biology, chemistry, and a wildlife/forestry class i.e. practical botany and zoology (and some fire science).

[Flixy]

Their knowledge doesn't have to be advanced in any way though.

I would expect teachers with a greater knowledge in a particular field to teach that particular field to kids of a higher age in high school. Elementary school teachers need nothing more than a basic teaching degree and a general grounding.

For clarification, I'm talking about the schools that are from ~6 to ~12 years old.

You definitely get basics of spelling, grammar and math (English too, already, by the way). So then it is worrying when a lot of the teachers can't, for example, work with fractions properly.

Problem is that teaching there shifted more to a sort of glorified daycare, which lead to knowledge being less important than pedagogy. Which is fine, up to a certain point, and we're past that point (attempting to get back though). Also lead to like 99% of the new teachers being female.

Of course higher teachers should be better. Ideally they are always a bit more advanced than what they cover, so they can help students who ask extra questions. But a minimum should be actually knowing the stuff You are teaching (and understanding), and that standard was slipping for elementary schools here.

[ImAnOgre]

Where exactly do you get that "many" from? Base this statement of yours on facts please.

<snip>.

It's actually quite an insult - people who say that usually won't last 10 minutes in a class room.

Are you meaning many? Or all?
I can't help but think your two statements are contradictory in some way. Do you mind basing your statement on facts please?

[Loki]

wig, am I wrong in thinking that one can teach science classes by getting a BS in science along with a teaching certificate or an MA in education? Because I'm pretty sure I can get straight As in those courses without having any in-depth knowledge of the subject.

[Flixy]

In that case your degrees over there are shit. It's hard to graduate in Bsc or Msc here, and impossible without in depth knowledge.

[Loki]

Generally speaking, only about a quarter of your classes are in your major. When you add the fact that several of those courses are introductory ones, I can't see how you can develop a good knowledge of the subject. A masters is different.

[Aimless]

Generally speaking, only about a quarter of your classes are in your major. When you add the fact that several of those courses are introductory ones, I can't see how you can develop a good knowledge of the subject. A masters is different.

I think many European unis fill their programmes with courses that are directly relevant to the main subject and don't dedicate much time to the equivalent of a "minor".

[GGT]

So far, I haven't seen posts addressing needs of students.

[Flixy]

My minor was 30 ECTS, so about half a year. all the rest was major related, no general classes, since, you know, we get those at high school