web stats
Track your comments!
[x]


If you registered, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Robert Olley | August 27th 2008 12:10 PM | 3 comments

About Robert Olley

I work in the Polymer Physics Group of the Physics Department at the University of Reading.

I would describe myself as a Polymer Morphologist. I am not an astronaut, but I am a "Real... Full Bio

More from Robert Olley

All
I sent the Professor Meg Urry interview to a colleague who is quite high-up in graduate teacher training. Here is his reply .

We do have a lot of evidence about student motivation and about their view about the Nature of Science (Physics). What is disappointing about Meg's comments is that they are solely anecdotal and only related to her view, yet if she read a little more widely, she would discover a broader perspective.

The ROSE project, based in Oslo, is the probably the latest and largest project on student motivation towards sciences in secondary schools, covering many countries in the modern and traditional world. Its web site is open to all. Motivation towards sciences tails off long before high school (A level) and is already very low among 13 year old pupils in the modern (western) world. Partly it is caused by this myth of objectivity propagated by teachers (and exacerbated by the dominance of mathematical physics, in contrast to both conceptual physics and applied physics). The teachers going into school teaching come from the traditional sciences background of university and the narrow approach to teaching of undergraduates. Those students who seek a different kind of physics (conceptual and applied) drop out when they see what is on offer. The university professors teach as they do because they want to have students who see sciences as they do, objective and sterile. So, in their turn, do the graduate teachers going into secondary schools teach in the same way, leading to the turn off of the masses. The new English science curriculum at GCSE has tried to address this by including more on the Nature of Sciences, and applied sciences, but there has been a tremendous reaction, in the first place by admissions tutors from universities who want to continue their previous view about what sciences are, and by teachers who have come up through the traditional system. It really is a very hard struggle, with lots of reasons for not changing by those in gate keeping positions, i.e. admissions tutors, professors and schoolteachers. I am working on the latter but the learned societies maintain the status quo, and are the bastion of reaction. It is up to university colleagues to change themselves but I will not hold my breath too long. Incidentally, it is interesting to see how few females are on the scientific blog as a proportion. Perhaps they have already given up the battle.

PDF link to the ROSE report

Comments

Matthew's picture
To address one of these comments, if I'm following correctly, I agree that science gets a bad reputation for being boring and sterile. I think we are losing a lot of bright minds to other fields because of this. The President of Wellesley College and immunologist Kim Bottomly, said this in an address at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellows Forum 2008:

“I looked at lower-division courses at good places in a number of fields. Here’s an example of what I found, their exact course topics to be covered.

In Introduction to Biology, these are the listed topics:

Circadian Control of Neurogenesis
Biological macromolecules
Cell membrane structure and function
Eukaryotic gene regulation

Compare that to these topics from lower-division courses in history, classics and sociology:

Women, Sex, and War in Athens
Crime and Deviant Behavior
Pirates in the Roman Empire
Human sexuality and intimate relations in modern society
The Nazis and the Final Solution
Greek men: drinking, poetry and sexuality
Urban manhood before the Civil War

Now let’s do a mental experiment. Imagine yourself to be a bright 18-year-old who likes science but is not yet particularly committed to it. You need to choose a course that sounds interesting. Which might you go for: Eukaryotic gene regulation or Women, Sex and War in Athens? Many, many choose the latter. What can we do about this?
Your first reaction may be the same as my first reaction when I thought about this. Nothing, we can do nothing because our courses are so very different ― we need to focus on what students may consider the minutiae because that is the nature of our field. We need to build that pyramid. But I am not so sure of that. The course that has women, sex and war as a topic does focus on minutiae and methodology: detailed historical dating methods, subtleties of Greek translation, geopolitical descriptions. But it starts with a big picture first, not with the minutiae. It is an Introduction to Classics course, but even titles itself differently: Uncovering the Ancient World. Scholars in the classics know that they will have trouble attracting majors, and they do something about it. If they structured their courses the way introduction to science courses are structured, the course would be called Introduction to Classics and the topics would be: Greek syntax, Greek and Persian administrative structure, and the complexities of calendric systems. This would not attract any majors. Yet they do attract majors, and they cover all of that.

Here is a link to the entire speech...worth a read!

Gerhard Adam's picture
Unfortunately science and mathematics gets a bad rap because its taught so badly in the early years of school. Everything is focused on memorization or problem solving. There is no context, no sense of appreciation beyond the ability to solve a particular problem. At that stage the student becomes intimidated and frustrated since there doesn't seem to be any rationale for why they're being put through the discipline. I've used an analogy before that suggested that if we taught music the same way, there would be no musicians. Imagine being forced to spend years learning scales, keys, and modes before you were allowed to touch an instrument. By the time the student gets to college, it is extremely difficult to suddenly remotivate them after years of avoidance.
Matthew's picture
Wow. Spot on, Gerhard.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.