Science Education - Getting Started

Immordino-Yang and Damasio’s article “We Feel, Therefore We Learn: the Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education” discusses the function that emotion plays in learning and thinking. The authors argue that cognitive activity can not be divorced from emotional influence. They place their explanations in an anthropological and evolutionary context.

I am curious about how to apply these theories to a science curriculum. One issue that is common in chemistry courses is massive amounts of material must be memorized by the student. This material is often no retained after either the course or evaluation are completed. Based on the information presented in the article, is it possible to enhance student retention of material by accessing or treating the emotional component of learning differently? Is there a reason why students are able to remember their friends phone numbers better than academic facts? Does my intense interest in chemistry explain why I was able to tell my neurologist that helium was the second element in the periodic table after suffering a severe concussion? What did my chemistry teacher do to ingrain the material so deeply in my mind? For reference, I was unable to remember my birthday or mother’s name.

I would like to argue that the very first statement Professor Grobstein proposes in his Education and the Brain: New Challenges and New Direction piece only holds true in retrospect. He himself has said that the goal of science is to get the answers about life, the definitive description of reality, less wrong. So with each successful attempt at reaching that goal, of that closer approximation of the “truth,” we are temporarily picturing the factuality of this world. What I believe Professor Grobstien is trying to suggest is that at no point can we come to a single, definitive, absolute, and complete depiction of different aspects of the world, which I completely agree with.

The reevaluation of a student’s misconceptions about science holds the biggest impact on the students learning especially when the misconception comes from their previous educational experiences like with the concept of the scientific method. This, I have to admit, was one of the biggest, for the lack of a better word, revelations I experienced while undertaking Professor Grobstein’s Bio 103 course last year. Because for a certain time saying the “hypothesis is true” remained peacefully in the back of our minds and now that we aware of the fact that it does not satisfy our more accurate understanding of science students such as myself are finally taking a more active, more conscious role in what gets established in the classroom.

Looking at the way in which Gorstein’s reevaluate the definitiveness of the scientific method closely, exhibits a good example for which a class discussion should be conducted. Rather than feeding the student the question meant to be answered by the end of the class, usually posed in the Aim or hypothesis, the students should be introduced to a summary of related observations and be given the opportunity to derive a certain question to see whether that sum remains consistent. Because the summary itself is always subject to change, the certainty of the uncertain outcome should help to work as a driving force, motivating the students to come to a general conclusion that either rejects or supports the assumption from the question made.

If what I believe to be the distinction between science and art to remain true, where science is more focused on persuading its audience of a certain claim, than steering away from “dry” scientific stories would be most logical. Admitting to and interweaving more humane components (i.e. fallibility) into scientific stories like records and models renders the findings to be more realistic and therefore believable to the audience. But at the same time I can see how complications may arise in the classroom setting because it will allow the students to potentially be more sympathetic to the scientific situation I suppose, releasing them from their analytical stare of the less “objective” science story.

Just as an interesting little tidbit to end this post, when I finished the last words on the separation between the body and mind by Mary Midgley, “source of habit,” I mistakenly read force of habit and instantly thought back to the similarly deep separations between Art and Science I posed in a previous post.

The education I have gained leading up to college has consisted of temporarily ingraining the information established in a classroom into my brain for its immediate regurgitation and even more immediate disposal. This thought process like those of many students, I argue, is ineffective for learning because it fails to form a solid foundation of knowledge to build upon and continue learning from. For once the exam on say ecosystems is over with, all-relevant information is forgotten about, allowing the succeeding topic in the curriculum take impermanent home in my brain.

The little knowledge I did gain throughout my pre-college education can be well summed up in the phrase “a mile wide and an inch deep.” Acknowledging that, I’d like to argue that educational potential is contingent on the teachers involved. Students can only excel as far as their teacher’s allow them to go within the restraints of the classroom and more importantly the repertoire of knowledge they themselves have to offer. As a second grade teacher from Overbrook elementary once told me, teaching is like being a Jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. Elementary school teachers in particular are given what I feel an unfair amount of responsibility when, on top of being a second mother for the students, are expected to teach the them all of the major subjects in academia (language arts, science, mathematics, and history). One should not expect a student to automatically gain an aptitude in a certain aspect of science if their teacher can’t.

Whenever I look back on the education I have received, I feel as though the years that have gone by could very easily be abridged simply by excising all of the time spent re-teaching the material and teaching things that were not geared towards aptitude examinations. For the only things I took with me after coming out of elementary school included the three R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic, three things of which were not even at mediocre standards after so many years. Thinking about this reminds me of a stand-up performance about educational retention I had seen in the education class on Math and Science Pedagogy I took this past semester. It brings up the idea of creating and enrolling into a “Five-minute University” and gaining the same amount of factual knowledge one would still possess five years after graduating from a more conventional institution. Please follow the link provided below to watch this short skit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4

My educational experience really has been very much of a blur, the main reason to account for this is the fact that the teachers were not prepared to handle students of all different learning levels properly, forcing the class to progress only as fast as the most difficult or sacrifice other teacher’s and student’s time to cover the same material to the class the following year. The actual internalization of the material discussed is vitally important for a student to form a malleable tool to tackle real world applications when in the classroom and more importantly when in the actual real world.

Whenever I hear the phrase real-world applications or applications for that matter I automatically think about a pen and paper, there being a exam going on, and the student being tested on their ability to understand and apply a certain concept. What many people do not readily associate “real-world applications” with is the real world. I would argue that schools do a poor job at making solid links between the lessons learned in school and its influence on the student/environment/etc once the notebook is put away. Science in particular is rarely seen as a round-the-clock, subconscious human behavior just like breathing. But instead, most of society believes that science is confined to the four walls that make up a science classroom or laboratory. (As a small aside, simply using the world laboratory perpetuates the idea that science can only be conducted properly within a designated area.) Although students are not equipped with the same rulers or triple balance beam once outside the school building, they are still capable of making observations and forming criticisms and questions in respect to that, furthering there understanding on the world around them.

After finaly stepping into the completely different realm that is a college introductory science course, I realized that personally I do not have to know all of the science there is in order to accept, understand and, most importantly, enjoy it. The particular course is Professor Grobstein’s Biology 103 Basic Concepts, which did not include a textbook, to learn from or a traditional biology midterm and final to test how much information was retained and thoroughly understood. The most interesting thing I found in the class was the fact that you can use the pre-existing knowledge you have about the world-the science you have gathered throughout life-to make sense of the different aspects of life on your own. Not to get this confused with the inadequate amount of science being learned and actually understood in the lower levels of education, I came to terms with the fact that science is continually transforming, becoming something more, something different as time goes on. This scientific freedom has sparked my interest in its history, evolution, practice, and representation rather than my direct participation in it. To a certain extent, conducting the science is not what I want to be tested on and is why I will not pursue many more hardcore science courses in the future.

My thought for the day is that science can be reduced to a combination or unification of curiosity and skepticism as exemplified by my kitten, Roady. When placed in a new room, Roady will almost immediately begin to explore, investigate, and interact with her surroundings. She will develop and test hypotheses based on some sort of observation, such as "the chair leg is inanimate." She may bat, paw, and pounce on the chair leg to determine whether or not it may be induced to move. Based on the results of her experiments, she may draw some conclusions about the nature of the chair leg.

Maybe I am reading too much into my kitten's antics or personifying her, or something. However, if you watch Roady for an hour, I think she will prove to you just what a good scientist she is! If you accept Roadie as a scientist, then you must accept all humans as scientists.

Making science accessable to all humans will require significant changes in science education and practice. In our currant society, many elements of science are elitist and exclude the majority. Is it consistent with our definition or description of science to make the discipline available to all? Or must the accepted account of science be altered first? If so, how? It is important to consider whether or not there are any prerequisites for participating in science. Analytical ability is necessary to interpret new observations and evaluate their relationship to various theories. How much does an individual's education affect or develop their critical thinking? Does an individual's intelligence correspond to their ability to contribute to scientific progress? How should an individual's capacity for participating in science be evaluated? Should it be? Are there levels of participation in science?

One of the aspects of being a chemistry major in college that I have found most challenging is explaining and justifying my scientific interests to my friends. Many of the people I have encountered perceive science as an abstract and elite discipline, disconnected from their interests and experiences. They consider themselves to be incapable of either comprehending or participating in science. They emphasize the above average intelligence of scientists and their disengagement with the rest of humanity. However, these criticisms are not unique to science and scientists. Art and artists are subject to the exact same criticisms. As someone who finds both art and science appealing I am interested in finding responses to these complaints.

I think it is important to note that I have never observed my kitten being involved in an artistic activity. It is entirely possible that my kitten does produce artistic projects that I merely do not recognize. Or it may be inferred that art is a uniquely human pursuit. This second idea might provide criteria for distinguishing between art and science in terms of psychology and neurobiology.
My education has provided me a few interesting thoughts about art and science.

At my small, all girls, college preparatory school, science was given great value. Three science courses were required and many more were offered. However, only one art course was necessary for graduation. This uneven distribution of requirements implies a prejudice in favor of science. This potential partiality may be resolved by examining the strength and number of programs provided by my high school for practical experience in the arts. This arrangement of curriculum and requirements suggests that there are two different strategies favored for art and science education. What is it about the nature of these two subjects that signifies the need for such divergent approaches? Is this style of education effective? Higher education's treatment of art and science raises additional concerns. Simply looking at a list of possible majors reveals interesting attitudes, the existence of an art history major and not a science history major. Why is the study of the history of art considered rewarding and the history of science not? Was this opinion always held?

Last semester I took a course about the philosophy of science. One of the topics that was discussed consistently throughout the semester was the demarcation issue. In class discussion we spent a significant amount of time trying to describe and determine what exactly science is. Our class found it interesting to compare and contrast art and science. Art and science are traditionally perceived as two distinct activities that each appeal to certain people. However, I am not convinced that a rigorous study of the two disciplines, their aims and methodologies would confirm this stereotype. I am interested in using my background in philosophy to pursue an exploration about the relationship between art and science. I would like to apply my insights to the area of science education.

I can tell you about the day, month, and year that I fell in love with science. It was the first day of honors chemistry, my sophomore year of high school. The teacher began class by reading an account of the discovery of teflon by a young researcher at DuPont. She emphasized the role of curiosity and skepticism in how the research was conducted. She argued that a good scientist is conscientious, observant, and applies rigorous analysis to every problem or situation. She then went on to explain that the techniques and terminology of science were important only as much as they facilitate the culture, expression, and progress of science. I found this characterization of science very appealing. Its characterization of a good scientist corresponded closely with my idea of an interesting person. The idea of adventure and exploration being extended to everyday experiences for the scientist in the lab. For the first time, the practice of science was attractive to me. Since then, I have pursued a career in science.

In the course of my studies of chemistry, I have been discouraged and disappointed many times. Sometimes I have considered changing my major or my career plans. The feature of my life that kept me most focused was summoning up the lessons I learned in my first chemistry course. That depiction of a scientist, I keep like a photograph of a loved one in my wallet. It is my encouragement. As are the rare and treasured conversations I still have with my high school chemistry teacher. Her continued support has kept the picture shiny, smooth, and striking.

It the end of my freshmen year of college, I had completed organic chemistry and was wondering about what courses to take the following semester. I was well aware of my college's requirements for a chemistry major, which include two semesters of physics, and three semesters of calculus, in addition to a variety of chemistry courses. One afternoon in town, I met a biology professor from my college, who recognized my face among many in my college's science building. After ascertaining that I was a chemistry major, she launched into a long animated lecture about how unreasonable it was that biology majors are required to take four semesters of chemistry courses and chemistry majors are not required to take any biology courses. She argued that it is equally valuable for a science major to learn about the applications of their discipline as the theories underlying it. Nature has developed much more sophisticated systems than humans have, they are incredibly complex and effective at performing a variety of functions. The professor spoke with such conviction and passion that I was mesmerized. At the end of her speech, I found myself agreeing to take four semesters of biology. I have found the first three of the promised semesters as rewarding as she predicted.

It occurs to me, that my education has been significantly influenced by certain teachers. These teachers possessed the quality of charisma. They were capable of influencing my development, interests, and personal thoughts with only their words. Their recommendations were interesting, unorthodox, and ultimately beneficial to my education. I am greatly indebted to these unique individuals who appear to be the great man figures of history. I would like to explore the applications of the great man theory to education. I am also interested in the psychological and neurological connections.

As I reflect on my education, many contradictions and uncertainties come to mind. The traits that I have found valuable in my past teachers do not uniquely constitute a good teacher. Unorthodox behaviors may have either a positive or negative effects on students. The formation of close student teacher connections lead to intensely good or intensely bad relationships. The nature of student-teacher relationships may have critical consequences for student learning. Therefore, caution in creating connections between students and teachers must be exercised.