Reply to comment

Science is two-faced. Depending on the individual, one may encounter the captivating side of science where the pieces of information left at one’s disposal unlock an unfathomable amount of the world’s mysteries. On the other hand, one may come across a fairly dry science where one is attacked by an onslaught of formulas and long, tedious experiments. According to Greene it is up to the educational system to discover a way to put the more enchanting aspects of science at the forefront of academia. Yet I must ask how one can expect teachers to construct such a foundation in children when the teachers are given limited resources and a fraction of the school day to do so? With such limitations and the need to prepare students for both exams specific to the course as well as material covered on standardized tests it is impractical to assume that students would not become disinterested. If more focus was placed on emphasizing the connections between classroom learning and the real world instead of just making the grade I feel that one would be able to connect with the students better. As Greene stated in the article, most of us have woven science into our daily life and for many of us we find an immense amount of pleasure in our technological advancements. It only seems logical then that the science behind those “toys” would be appealing as well. However, it seems like no one has used this window of opportunity in the beginning years of science education to captivate students which leads to the years of indifference.