Dennis Wolcott has been appointed as the new NYC Chancellor of Education.
- Should he establish science education as a priority in the months ahead?
- If so, in what direction should he try to move?
- What are the kinds of initiatives that have the highest potential payoff?
- What kinds of programs have the highest probability of generating lasting change?
I’m not sure of the answer, but I think it’s critical to remind ourselves of the importance of genuine experience with the world as opposed to viewing a video or film, or “experimenting” with a computer simulation.
I’ve been an advocate for a very long time of informal science, home experiments, use of technology and simulations, and all sorts of alternatives to traditional lab experiments. I’ve always been critical of “cookbook” experiments. I’ve been very enthusiastic about the use of sensors and computers to record and display data. And I’ve spent LOTS of time working on preparing computer simulations (search on my name at demonstrations.wolfram.com).
But maybe it’s time for me, and for science educators in general, to say out loud that kids need certain real-world experiences along the way, to face up to what’s really necessary for kids to have such real-world experiences, and to start providing what’s necessary for all kids!
There’s a limit to what a teacher can do no matter how creative if there aren’t lab facilities, or at least a local reliable source of the equipment needed for the key demonstrations and experiences that students need to have in “person” and that just aren’t as effective in a simulation or a video.
And NYC, and most other “high-needs” districts in the State have in fact steadily reduced these facilities and the availability of such equipment and supplies over the last few years. Of course, science teachers buy the equipment and supplies out of their own pockets – that’s been going on for a long time.
But beyond that, I’ve watched dedicated science teachers coaching 30 kids in a tiny classroom doing experiments with lighted candles and water on their chair-arms. Does that make sense? Maybe it always will, but given the critical importance of kids understanding science, don’t we need to do better?
However, maybe the value of real-world experience is debatable? Maybe sixth graders understand the real meaning of a film showing a feather and a coin falling together on the Moon? Or perhaps a candle burning up the oxygen in a closed space and going out? What about a can collapsing after a burning paper is inserted and the top is screwed on or the electrolysis of water?
But I don’t think a film or video or simulation is quite the same as kids seeing the feather falling more slowly than the coin in a glass tube filled with air in front of their faces, then predicting what to expect if they pump out the air, and finally being able to actually pump out the air and play with the tube with their own hands (with what is now a $69 apparatus!).
There are many other examples – film and video and simulations can be extraordinary resources, but all the way up to the most advanced science work, the “real” world represents the ultimate bottom line for science.
That is the way all theories ultimately get tested. While there’s plenty of room for theory and theorists, when a student is trying to learn science, it seems to me there is some minimum amount of actual hands-on experimentation that is necessary.
Whatever the student is studying and at whatever level, while one can certainly criticize the “cookbook” experiments that are out there, there’s a very strong case for some minimum amount of hands-on experience with the materials and the phenomena.
More generally, understanding science means getting students to change the ideas they carry around in their guts about the way the world works; these kinds of intuitive ideas can be called “gut science” – the practical, shorthand ways of thinking we all develop based on our experiences with the world.
In my opinion, really understanding science means kids have to experience cognitive dissonance, at least to some extent, for themselves – they have to, in some way, feel that their “gut” expectations about the world are somehow in conflict with what is really happening, and they have to have sufficient time and support to establish a new way of thinking and to practice it sufficiently that it displaces or becomes more comfortable and satisfying than their previous set of intuitive ideas.
This doesn’t happen quickly; it means a kid should have a continuous series of experiences and the chance to think about them and interpret them and talk about them so that the feelings of dissonance don’t become overwhelming.
Then kids have a chance to gradually figure out what’s going on and can change the way they think without simply assenting to a different way of thinking.
Given the amazing things we all see every day on the screen, is it possible kids will change the way they really think based on a video, or will they simply be entertained and file it in the same category as the latest SciFi thriller and video game?
In any case, it certainly seems as if NYC, and most urban/high needs districts, have gone well beyond the tipping point, or maybe more accurately, we’ve never, in all the attempts to reform science teaching and education in general, reached the point where the kinds of concrete science experiences kids need in order to understand science have been available in most schools in most districts.
Do we need more, and more easily available, science equipment and supplies in all schools? Do we need more teachers in all schools who understand the key concepts of science, including (maybe especially?) at the elementary level, and who are able to get kids engaged in the full range of science experiences and who know how to use science equipment and supplies to full advantage? Do we need space and facilities in every school where kids can have these kinds of experiences? Do we need more time in the curriculum so all kids can have these kinds of experiences?
I think the evidence seems clear that we do! But if we can’t do everything at once, the question remains, of course, what do we do now? Where should the new chancellor direct whatever resources are available? What are the key areas that are worth pushing first?
What do you think? Now’s a good time to give the new Chancellor some advice!
