INTRODUCTION
What is it about Science which makes it an unattractive choice for many students today? While STEM aims to draw more students into learning science so as to produce more mathematicians, engineers and scientists, fewer students are seeing Science as an attractive option today. Science curricula and science education policies need to be aligned with the intent of drawing more students into learning and enjoying the subject better.
How can such a change be initiated?
THE NEED
Despite many laudable initiatives to design curricula that connect scientific concepts to the learner’s own context, Science is often learnt as a truckload of facts – to be received by a passive learner – with some experimentation and activities thrown in to make it ‘learning by doing’.
However, until the subject causes an alteration in the thinking of the learner, Science has not really been learnt.
All action stems from thought: so if the learning of Science is to effect a sustained change in behaviour, the teaching of the subject must aim to impact the process of thinking…for unless we do this, it is unlikely that Science will develop problem-solving skills and enhance critical thinking.
In standard science textbooks, the scientific method is, at best, dealt with in a single chapter. Scientists and their discoveries are often made out to be flashes of genius, and rarely, if at all, is their thought process described. Not surprisingly, therefore, seldom is the value of thinking scientifically recognised.
If policy makers, curriculum designers and textbook writers regarded the process of making discoveries in science to be of greater value than the content of the discoveries, we would be well on our way to placing scientific thinking centre stage. We would then have Science curricula that lay greater emphasis on how discoveries were made, rather than focusing mainly on the outcome of scientific discoveries.
Such an approach will be reflected in the curricular objectives, the design and content of the curricular material, the pedagogy that it invites and the mode of evaluation that it demands.
There will be a shift from a content-rich, teacher-driven approach, to one that hones thinking skills in students, through their actual participation in the process of discovery and invention. Thus, instead of demanding transaction of seemingly abstract content, this approach will invite a teacher to:
- employ storytelling (of an actual scientific discovery) as its entry point,
- highlight the thought process of the scientist concerned,
- intersperse the lesson with questions for discussion,
- lace it with related activities and relevant puzzles.
Storytelling is a sure shot way of luring students into any lesson, and more so if the story is purportedly true. As the lesson unfolds and periodically draws the student in – through questions, suggested activities and puzzles – hardly any student can adopt the stance of a passive receiver.
Further, it will lend itself to the development of scientific skills like:
- Observation
- Enquiry
- Thinking
- Analysis
- Verification of Hypotheses
- Problem Solving
METHODOLOGY:
Two exemplars are presented below: one in some detail, and another as an outline.
STORY Long ago, in Europe, people believed that diseases were airborne. So nobody thought it necessary to wash their hands before/after touching sick people – not even doctors.
In 1847, IGNAZ SEMMELWEIS, a doctor from Hungary changed this belief.
He is often called the FATHER OF INFECTION CONTROL.
LOOK He found that babies were delivered in a hospital by:
(A) Medical students/doctors.
(B) Midwives from the village.
When he LOOKED CLOSER, he noted:
- When midwives (B) delivered the babies, the mothers were healthier.
- When medical students/physicians (A) delivered the babies, there were more sick/dying mothers.
ASK This puzzled the doctor, who asked:
WHY were more mothers dying if medical students delivered babies and staying healthy if midwives delivered them?
Now, he LOOKED even closer.
He saw that the medical students and physicians were coming to deliver babies after dissecting corpses.
He also saw that the midwives were not doing any such thing.
GUESS So he made this guess:
Could it be that the medical students/physicians had picked up some infection in their hands from the corpses? And that they transferred this
to the mothers – who then died?
DO/VERIFY So he asked the medical students/physicians to wash their hands well, before delivering the babies.
He FOUND that now, there were an equal number of healthy mothers in both A and B.
CONCLUDE So he CONCLUDED: infection is carried by touch.
He told everyone that they should wash their hands thoroughly to prevent spreading infection.
However, many people retained the commonly held belief that infection is carried through the foul air – not by touch.
The Hospital Manager argued that the decreased number of deaths was due to the new ventilation system which allowed cleaner air to
circulate.
VERIFY THINK: If you were Semmelweis, how would you prove that you were right?
The teacher can present the following steps to scaffold the verification process:
Step 1: Count the number of healthy mothers in a hospital without new ventilation, and doctors who don’t wash their hands before treating patients.
Step 2: Count the number of healthy mothers in the same hospital with new ventilation with
(a) doctors who don’t wash their hands and
(b) doctors who wash their hands before treating patients.
What would you find if Semmelweis was right/wrong?
Now to build upon this story and nurture the same skills, Teacher can suggest the following to students:
DO
- Note the acts that you perform each day simply out of habit,
- Observe if these are common habits
- Examine the belief that each habit is based on
- Gather evidence for each such belief
- If you cannot gather evidence, suggest ways of testing each belief
Think about the following (Teacher can include some examples for each of these):
- What are the beliefs that you hold for which you can gather proof?
- What are the beliefs you hold, for which you have no proof?
- What are the things you believe in simply because everyone does?
Depending on the age of the students, Teacher can decide whether or not to add the rest of the story; viz. Semmelweis had a very tough time convincing the hospital management that he was right. The need for a scientist to possess the ability to convincingly argue his/her case can be convincingly brought out here. It is a sad fact of history that Semmelweis lost his job and finally died in an asylum, and his discovery was not valued until several years after his death.
Example 2 (for Grades VI to VIII): Until William Harvey2 discovered (in the 17th century), how blood circulates in the human body, people believed a 2nd-century thinker, Galen, who had stated that blood is continuously produced in the body. It is astounding that for almost fifteen centuries, no one had considered questioning Galen about a basic paradox: where does the constantly produced blood go? It took a bold mind like Harvey’s to question such a long-held belief. Harvey’s story2 dramatically conveys the power of systematic enquiry. In the next section, a framework is outlined for curricular material as well as the teacher to scaffold the process of identifying those questions which helped unfurl important steps in the discovery of blood circulation.
EXPERIENCE OF THIS METHODOLOGY:
A fair question to ask is whether such pedagogy has been tried. Along with a team, this educator designed (and field tested) some digital material along these lines. Children of Grades IV to VI enjoyed this approach and participated in the lesson with interest. They loved the story and asked for many more stories. Using a suitably altered mode of evaluation – in alignment with the focus on process skills – it was found that students enjoyed thinking through the puzzles, whether or not they succeeded in solving them entirely. Teachers noted that this was an enjoyable experience for their students and listed some skills that it could help develop in their students.
The main obstacle, however, was in the perception of teachers that this did not align with the existing curriculum or textbook. Teachers (understandably) saw this more as an (interesting) experiment rather than as an invitation to alter their pedagogy – those who did find the pedagogy compelling cited existing norms as the impediment to changing their approach.
The lesson learned by this educator, therefore, was that until policy makers, curriculum designers and textbook writers get convinced of the value of this approach, merely showcasing it to teachers will not change things any.
IMPLICATIONS:
What are the implications of this suggested approach for various stakeholders? The table below is an attempt to outline these:
Curricular Objective |
Curricular material |
Teacher’s approach |
Evaluation Method |
To develop the skill of enquiry |
Story of Semmelweis/ William Harvey’s discovery Description of scientist’s thought process with emphasis on pertinent questions asked Examination of possible reasons why nobody dared question the belief that – Infection is carried by foul air alone, or that blood is continuously produced in the liver |
Teacher will sustain a child’s curiosity and sense of wonder at the world around by facilitating the following-
Ø Formulating clear and sharp questions Ø Identifying closed and open-ended questions Ø Peeling off layers by asking deeper and deeper questions, so as to gradually probe into what is observed Ø Visualising what must have been asked prior to the availability of existing knowledge, so that this knowledge became available Ø Appreciating the criticality of asking questions, rather than knowing the answers, in the process of scientific thinking |
Nudging students to identify:
· Key questions asked by the scientist in the story · Absence of which question(s) could have prevented this discovery · Questions which people hesitate to ask today Giving a puzzling situation to the student and challenging him/her to understand it. By setting a situation where asking the right questions is the doorway to understanding it, the clarity, relevance and depth of questions posed by the learner will be evaluated. |
To bring home the importance of sharp observation; reasoning and deductive skills by –
Ø Identifying logical fallacies in a flow of reasoning or an argument Ø Eliminating inconsistencies and false conclusions purely by using reason and experience Ø Making logically consistent inferences and also multiple interpretations wherever possible – going from a narrow set of interpretations to a wider set, thus throwing open previously closed doors |
Story of William Harvey noticing the rhythmic heartbeat of frogs and spurting out of blood
Asking: Why does the blood flowing out of frogs spurt out in the same rhythm as that at which the heart beats? Asking where excess blood goes if indeed blood is continuously being produced in the liver. Showing which observation clinched the conclusion that arteries carry blood away from the heart and veins take it to the heart Drawing the attention of students to conclusions that are/are not based on evidence Emphasising the absence of experimental observation in Galen’s theory of blood flow in the human body |
Examining with students the number of present-day beliefs that are not based on objective observations, by –
Ø Observing using all senses (move from the gross to the subtle) Ø Acquiring sustained attention/persistence Ø Presenting observations · in simple language, · through diagrams, · using graphs, · by drawing tables, · by making simple measurements (length, weight, volume, etc.). |
Presenting contexts that differ in minute details and challenging students to spot these differences (these could even be news reports from different newspapers of the same event)
Demanding the identification of assumptions and untested beliefs in a given situation Giving puzzles of water flow in interconnected pipes and getting students to · identify the direction of flow, the point of blockage, one-way valves, etc. · Arrive at clearly articulated conclusions · Suggest ways of testing above conclusions |
DISCUSSION:
It would be interesting to hear from readers of this blog about their views on this approach to teaching science. It would be useful to explore the sort of demands that such an approach would make on:
• Curriculum design
• Textbook writing
• Teacher development
• Student engagement
• Education policy
In conclusion, it would be worthwhile to hear from readers of better ways of teaching science as a way of thinking.
References:
Ranjini Narasimhan
-Wonderful way of keeping both teacher and student interested.
Nidhi
-So pertinent — the hows and whys. And Sagan’s quote, so true and reassuring. Semmelweis’s story is absolutely fascinating. Most of us have only learned of such stories, discoveries or not, as adults. Strangely, even though the textbooks have become so much friendlier & ‘activity-oriented’, we (as laypeople, students or teachers) are still headline chasers and mostly tend to ignore the process entirely; conditioning is a powerful master, eh! Also, your blog reminded me again that we need to be kinder to (& happier at) mistakes, as often they lead to amazing discoveries (or stories) of our own (small ones, surely).
Neeraja Raghavan
-Absolutely, Nidhi! If we talked more of the mistakes that scientists have made down the years – instead of focusing only on their correct theories and discoveries – they would come closer to us as learners and teachers, and we would see the whole process of scientific thinking as a road that most of us can easily walk on. Yes, conditioning is the big bear here…we need to set ourselves free of that, but even if we cannot, we can begin by at least becoming aware of the power of conditioning!
Sumitra
-A truly wonderful way of building interaction between all those interested in teaching and learning.
Sujatha
-Lovely write up! What a great way to spread the love for science and learning! But I do have some questions – how do you measure the results of such an abstract quest? How do you set goals for the teachers and students to achieve? Will they be rewarded and appreciated for having got onboard this journey and ignited the spark?
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Sujatha, for raising very pertinent questions.
In the last column of the table in this blog, I have tried giving some ways of evaluating the achievement of learning objectives. Basically, if the process skills that are expected to emerge from the particular lesson are clear, evaluation will then need to be aligned with these process skills. For instance, Semmelweis and Harvey questioned existing beliefs and gathered convincing evidence to counter them. After transaction of this lesson, learning can be evaluated through exercises that demand the same from the learner, if enough scaffolding of this process has been done in class. As for rewards, if the curricular objectives describe as the desired approach, following the curriculum is something school managements would appreciate and lend support to teachers for. I hope that I have addressed your concerns.
Jayashree Ramadas
-I do believe the story-telling approach is promising but every example needs to be worked out carefully, through many trials and critiques. E.g. the Semmelweis story may bring up the question of whether one could withhold a known effective treatment just to come up with convincing evidence. This is not merely hypothetical as there are troubling examples from history, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
Scientific thinking is complex and science educators are continually trying to work out how to bring it into the classroom. Story-telling is surely one device. Interesting approaches based on history and on student’s thinking have been Harvard’s Project Physics and Project Zero. Perhaps you could recommend others.
Overall I feel we agree on the direction but the devil is in the detail.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Jayashree. Yes, I couldn’t agree more.
If transaction of the lesson raises questions like whether a known effective treatment needs to be put on hold until convincing evidence is gathered for it, I would think the lesson is a very rich one indeed. Doubtless the devil is in the detail and working with policy makers to develop a detailed curriculum and with teachers to design suitable pedagogy would be very enriching for all concerned. I have not come across too many approaches which use the history of science, and am grateful to you for nudging me to revisit Project Zero: I am downloading their curriculum on Nature of Science as I type this! Thank you!
Vineeta Sood
-Hey Friends. Really a very refreshing and innovative pedagogy. As Neeraja said, sadly, science is more looked at as a collection of facts and figures rather than an art of observing, engaging, asking the right questions and an exploratory process of finding out through trial and error. Neeraja, your article brings alive in my memory, my experience of working with a group of children 10-13 years of age group. My students were really exuberant and playful, not at all interested in mundane facts and figures that didn’t make any sense to them. I didn’t believe in delivering a list of facts and figures to them in the name of science either. So, I suggested to them if we could start with the process of discovering for ourselves whatever we wanted to and whatever we could, They were a bit perplexed at my suggestion. So, Further, I suggested let us find out how scientists discover facts and arrive at figures. And together we read the biography of Galileo. This increased their hunger to find out more about scientists and their explorations. We went on to read the biographies of Newton and Einstein. By the time we finished reading these biographies, they got a sense of how scientists are people like us, they go through a process of trial and error, asking questions, failing at finding their answers, modifying their questions, trying again and again till they get an insight into their quest. They got a fair understanding of history of the times of these scientists, particularly Galileo, the prevailing understanding and dogma at that time, struggle with speaking out what he observed and the consequences of challenging the authorities gave them a good insight of socio-cultural, political scenario of that time. And teaching them Science and Social studies as a process of ‘Research and Investigation’ was never difficult after that. My heart fills with gratitude and joy whenever I think of what we learned together as a group, they about science and discovery and I about the process of facilitating learning rather than teaching.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Vineeta, for sharing such a lovely account of your using the History of Science while teaching your students. I love your turn of phrase: “facilitating learning rather than teaching”. Thank you!
Patti Swarts
-I’ve not been a science teacher, but at one time, for a brief period, had to teach Math to a couple of classes when the regular Math teacher took ill. I found it to be a very daunting, and at the same time, a fascinating experience. I was completely bored by the Math textbook prescribed at that time, and couldn’t imagine how it could ever motivate or inspire those kids/students not naturally gifted in Math, to become interested and even passionate about Math. Sadly, in many schools learning Math is still seen to be difficult and a struggle – something to be endured rather than to be enjoyed. Too often kids in school can’t see the reason why they should learn and be proficient in Math or Science, while on the other hand policy makers proclaim from podiums the importance of Math and Science graduates for socio-economic development. In my limited experience I think that teaching Math as a way of thinking would be equally appropriate and applicable to stimulate understanding, inquiry and interest in Math and other subjects (of course taking into consideration the nature of the subject), and that the new technology tools can facilitate that . But the big issues are how we frame our curricula and our assessment, and how we train our teachers to encourage critical thinking and inquiry and to continue to stimulate curiosity about the scientific and mathematical processes and wonders of our magnificent world.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Patti, for raising concerns which I couldn’t agree with more. Yes, indeed – mathematics, too, needs to be seen as a way of thinking: and a very beautiful way, at that!
I, too, taught Math for a year to third graders about two decades ago, and I also (like you) found it to be very challenging and daunting. Although I have never taught Math after that, this one experience has stayed in my memory.
I recall discovering that teaching the four fundamental operations to third graders is no mean feat. At that time, I wondered how on earth my teachers had succeeded in teaching me these! A trap that I repeatedly fell into was making efforts to convey to eight-year-olds the logic of each of the four operations – which, I came to realize is way too profound for such young minds to grasp. So I ended up just making them ‘get it’ – rather like mastering a sequence of steps – an algorithm – but the sense of dissatisfaction at doing that has not gone away to this day. I still wonder how we can convey to children the beauty and magnificence of numbers, how to think with numbers and connect to a mathematical way of thinking. As you can see from my blog, I have decided to stay content with making such efforts in Science!
Mary Hooker
-Neeraja – a very interesting blog on science as a way of thinking and story telling as an approach for deeper thinking and learning around science concepts, discoveries and inquiry methodologies integrating real and authentic problem-solving.
My question is how do you see the role of new technologies to enhance science as a way of thinking and the story telling authentic problem solving approaches? New technology enhancing new approaches for interactive immersive learning individually and collaboratively may offer huge potential to break down the barriers of restrictive didactic rote learning models that have consumed our classrooms whether in science, mathematics or the humanities – and that you highlight at the front end of your blog.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Mary, for raising a pertinent question. Interestingly, I began this whole exploration through the design and development of a digital learning resource, which began with an animated story and then went on to many games and puzzles that the learner could choose from. The navigation was so designed that it allowed the learner to go back and forth, choose the pace and level of complexity, and learn along the way. It ended with a set of do-it-yourself videos.
So I see this approach as lending itself very well indeed to the digital world, and making a Digital Learning Resource is just one way of going about it. A website can be created with the possibility of navigating through several scientists’ stories, and clicking on the relevant games and puzzles, each of which serve to develop different skills in the learner.
Having said this, I must add that these can only be additions to the classroom engagement of teacher-learner, as such an engagement is the cornerstone to the success of this sort of curriculum. The reason I say this is that it is not enough if learners are introduced to such an approach: their teachers too need to enter into it. And this can happen only when curricula, teacher development programs and curricular material are all aligned in the same direction. I hope that I have answered your question. Neeraja.
Abrha
-Thanks Dr for your presentation I have enjoyed your article although I didnt found new to my experience difference from the active learning and active engagement of students in science learning. What is the difference from? could you tell us more about that.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, Abrha, for asking an excellent question! I am so glad you raised this. You see, I, too, taught Science using what I understood as ‘active learning and active engagement of students’ – and so, when I did, I, too, would have asked the same question as you have now.
I would like to first ascertain whether both of us are referring to the same things when we speak of ‘active learning and active engagement of students’.
Let me take the example of teaching blood circulation. I am giving the two approaches below for comparison:
Active Learning and Active Engagement of students
1. Blend my lecture (about the arteries, veins, valves, heart as a pump, etc.) with experiments and activities that help the learner grasp:
• what a valve is,
• how flow is directed by a pump,
• what happens when a valve is blocked, etc
2. They would probably be exposed to videos on the subject, use a model (maybe even an animated model online) of a heart to visualise it vividly- nowadays, the heart can even be dissected virtually, so as to see the compartments and the directions of flow.
3. At the end of the lesson, I would assess my students on
• their grasp of the concepts taught and
• their ability to apply that learning to answer questions like why a patient has a heart attack, what causes blockage of arteries, etc
4. I would grade their work on clarity of understanding of concepts taught, application of this understanding and clear, unambiguous expression.
5. As an option, I would consider giving them the task of reading online about the discovery of blood circulation by William Harvey and making a presentation of the same. Basically, since my objective here was the clear understanding of the circulatory system, with enjoyment and active engagement, I would not do more than the above.
Teaching Science as a Way of thinking
1. I would begin with the story of the discovery by William Harvey of blood circulation. I would draw everyone’s attention to the fact that Galen’s proposition that blood was continuously being manufactured in the liver was left unquestioned for fourteen centuries.
2. I would ask my students to think about possible reasons why Galen was not challenged [either during or after his lifetime], and for so very long. I would ask them what sort of evidence Galen should have been asked to present in order to support his hypothesis.
3. Then, I would ask them to examine the simple steps of William Harvey’s band-tying experiments and see if they could also deduce the direction of blood flow from the observations that he had made. I would ask them to pinpoint the exact set of observations which led Harvey to conclude that the heart was the centre of the circulatory system.
4. I would also ask my students to identify the question (or set of questions) which, had they remained unasked, would have prevented this discovery.
5. Only then would I proceed to the actual content of the circulatory system. Here, I would, do pretty much what I have described above in the ‘active learning and active engagement of students’ method.
6. Finally, I would assess their learning by having them think about situations where they hesitate to question, have them examine reasons why they don’t question and then get them to pose heretofore unasked questions.
7. I would grade their work less on the correctness of answers testing their conceptual understanding than on the sharpness of their own questions and the boldness of their enquiry. [For the latter, I would give every day and familiar contexts for them to question.]
8. I would also assess their appreciation of the thought process of Harvey through pointed questions that serve to draw out their unique understanding of this process.
Have I made things a little clearer?
Please feel free to clarify further, if not. I will be more than pleased to continue this discussion.
gesci
-I came across this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover#t-679978
It’s about the math curriculum is teaching students to expect — and excel at — paint-by-numbers classwork, robbing kids of a skill more important than solving problems: formulating them. Dan Meyer shows classroom-tested math exercises that prompt students to stop and think.
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, GESCI, for introducing me to an excellent talk. I particularly liked the speaker’s advice to teachers: “Be less helpful, let students build the problems!” And his example of asking students to solve the problem of which line to join in a grocery store – where one customer has 19 items to check out, or another where there are three customers with fewer items to check out – was exactly in alignment with what I will be talking about in my webinar shortly. Thank you, Neeraja.
gesci
-See below the link to the STEM webinar session.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFaVFF5oFSc&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for contributing and feel free to keep the discussion going
Neeraja Raghavan
-Thank you, everyone, for participating in the webinar. I am responding to a request for references by listing a few below, which is not a comprehensive list, but a starter:
References
1. Narrative Form and Normative Force: Baconian Story-Telling in Popular Science Author(s): Ron Curtis Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1994), pp. 419-461 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
2. http://static.nsta.org/files/PB333X1web.pdf EVERYDAY PHYSICAL SCIENCE MYSTERIES: Stories for Inquiry Based Science Teaching, Richard Konicek-Moran, NSTA Press 2013
3. Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the classroom Author(s): Rosalind Driver, Hilary Asoko, John Leach, Eduardo Mortimer and Philip Scott Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 23, No. 7 (Oct., 1994), pp. 5-12 Published by: American Educational Research Association
4. Children’s ideas in science. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
5. A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science.Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122
6. What Is the Purpose of Learning Science? An Analysis of Policy and Practice in the Primary School Author(s): Sandra Eady Source: British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Mar., 2008), pp. 4-19
7. Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Michael R Matthews, Psychology press, 1994
8. Project Zero, http://www.pz.harvard.edu/
9. A Student’s Understanding of the Nature of Science: Resume and Summary of Findings Paperback – Import, Nov 1993 by Rosalind Driver (Author)
10. YOUNG PEOPLE’S IMAGES OF SCIENCE (UK Higher Education OUP Humanities & Social Sciences Education OUP) Paperback – Import, 1 Jan 1996 by Rosalind Driver (Author), John Leach (Author), Robin Millar (Author), Phil Scott (Author)
Neeraja.
owilli G M
-very incisive approach. makes me wanna go back to class
Neeraja Raghavan
-There is an interesting paper that describes a STEM curriculum unit that made girls as well as boys excited about Science: Flood Rescue: A Gender-Inclusive Integrated STEM Curriculum Unit – Emily A. Dare, Dave Rafferty, Elizabeth Scheidel and Gillian H. Roehrig, K-12 STEM Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, Apr-Jun 2017, pp.193-203. It will be very interesting for anyone who wishes to make STEM attractive for young learners, especially girls.