Everybody agrees that education
is important. Likewise, it has become a commonplace to say that we aren't
educating the nation's children as well as we should.
First, and perhaps most
importantly, it is critical that all sciences, including biology, are taught as
a process and a way of thinking, rather than a set of facts that are
"true" and must be memorized. For example, one of the more startling
ideas in biology is that much of the weight of an oak tree has actually been
pulled out of thin air. If someone just told me that, and I had no idea where
the information came from, I'd think they were a bit loopy at best or trying to
sell me a bill of gods at worst. Equipped with an actual understanding of the
scientific inquiry that went into this discovery, I not only believe it, but
more importantly I understand and remember it as well. Now, replicating even
the simplest of the experiments scientists used to unravel the question
"How do plants gain weight?" would be difficult in the average
classroom and probably not the best use of precious time. But looking into case
studies like this one is a fabulous way to learn about both scientific facts
and scientific thinking.
Once we start thinking about
biology as a process of acquiring knowledge about living things and biology
education as an opportunity to understand that process and hone critical
thinking skills at the same time, we will be in a much stronger position to
improve science education than we are in now. At that point, we'll be well
placed to reliably turn out scientifically literate high school graduates and
also to tackle teaching more politically charged aspects of biology education.
Without question, the most
politically charged aspect of biology is evolution. It is also among the very
most important scientific ideas ever elucidated. If we present evolution in the
classroom as "great man, Charles Darwin, discovered evolution, and now we
know that people descended from apes without the help of God" we have only
ourselves to blame if 65 % of American citizens are creationists . Evolution
education might not be quite that bad in most schools, but I'll warrant that
it's not too much better. What do we lose if evolution is understood by only a
minority of Americans? Well, from an aesthetic point of view, it seems a shame
that so many of us don't understand one of the big ideas about how the world
works. From a practical perspective, it's just plain scary that most of the
farmers who use antibiotics to help their livestock gain weight and most of the
patients who don't follow their doctor's instruction when it comes to taking
antibiotics don't understand the role they are playing in promoting the
evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
One frequent complaint I hear
from students in high school biology classes is that there is so much
memorization. This is more closely linked to the failures of our educational
system than you might think at first. True, there is a significant amount of
new vocabulary that students must learn if they are going to be able to speak,
think, read, and write about new concepts. However, a biology class should
never feel like a pile of memorization to slog through. The most important
thing we can do to change this is to focus on the how's and why's of biology
rather than just the conclusions that biologists have drawn over the years. In
this way, students will be making connections and developing big picture
concepts rather than just memorizing niggling little facts.
An important result of this type
of education is that years after high school is over, a student who actually
developed a genuine understanding of biology is far less likely to be the
person frivolously abusing antibiotics.
Another way to greatly improve
this situation is to eliminate pure survey classes and require students to
study one or two areas in much greater depth. One model that I have seen work
quite well at the introductory high school level is to have a traditional
survey-style class supplemented by two significant research projects. One of
the research projects was a hands-on experiment (or series of experiments),
much like a traditional science fair project. The other was an in-depth
library-based research project, much like a term paper more traditionally seen
in history classes. These types of projects are not without costs. Most
notably, they are very hard on the teacher. It takes a tremendous amount of
time and energy to coordinate a hundred (or usually more) projects, each on a
different topic. This is daunting for a teacher even under the best of
circumstances and can be impossible in more difficult situations. Nevertheless,
the benefits are clear and significant. Not only do these types of projects
give students an opportunity to develop a real understanding of scientific
thinking, but they also give the students a library of interlinked facts to
refer to when they are trying to make sense of the big picture in biology.
For example, a student who
chooses to do a research report on handedness and brain asymmetry in humans
will undoubtedly learn about neurology, evolution, and epilepsy as well. As an
added bonus, if the projects are structured properly, students get much needed
practice making visual and oral presentations and writing non-fiction papers.
Rather than just throwing up our hands and saying that this type of education
is too difficult to organize, we need to structure our schools (and exert
peer-pressure on parents) so that this type of higher-level learning becomes
feasible.
A good education in biology
should be a routine part of the education that every American student receives.
We need to structure curriculums and classrooms so that science is taught as a
process and method rather than some sort of received truth. This type of
science education is an important part of teaching students to have strong
critical thinking skills and for ensuring that they have the tools to not
simply negotiate the modern world, but also thrive in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment