An emphasis on “inquiry science” has long been advocated by the National Research Council, whose national science education standards stress science as inquiry and grasp of a few fundamental concepts, ahead of the more traditional focus on a wide smattering of content knowledge (see tinyurl.com/inquirysci). The approach does, however, depend on the instructors understanding how to carry out inquiry-based lessons effectively. The teachers need training in how to teach science. It is not enough to give them courses to bolster their science content knowledge—or to fast-track science graduates into teaching with insufficient schooling in the science of how children learn.
Children are natural scientists: not only are they inquisitive and energetic, but they have an instinct for controlled experimentation. The goal of science education at the earliest levels should be to encourage and refine children’s innate love of exploring the world around them and to help that enthusiastic behavior grow into true scientific literacy.
This article was originally published with the title Start Science Sooner.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentNot only is there a concerted anti-science movement in the US our "later start" and lack of scientific depth in school put us far behind many other nations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy this is not a matter of national security is beyond me.
If our children were taught good science education at the earliest possible grades then crap like intelligent design would never be considered. It would be appropriately and immediately dismissed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is perilous to generalize about anything in the U.S. education system"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it is. So stop doing it.
The research you highlight is interesting and important. So are critiques of this sort of approach too though, so it's a shame you seem to settle with rather hackneyed rhetoric.
It's the "Children are natural scientists" generalisation that bugged me the most about this piece. Even temporarily putting aside my desire to scream at anyone who chooses to generalise about a group as diverse as "children", that big old thing called "science" isn't natural, so no-one, even "children" can be naturally-so. Please note, saying science isn't natural isn't the same as saying it is bad or wrong; simply that it is done by people. As the late great Rosalind Driver (Professor for Science Education at King's College, London) often wrote, the idea that science can be simply "discovered" by a child in a classroom is rooted in a rather unrealistic philosophy of science which denies whole centuries of human history. Make assumptions such as these, and you loose out passing on (and celebrating) science as a craft and body of human knowledge.
The very last thing either science or science education (or children...) might be is simple. I know this is an editorial, and the odd bit of lofty rhetoric is part of the course. But I expected a few less cliches and a little more critical depth from Scientific American.
"If our children were taught good science education at the earliest possible grades then crap like intelligent design would never be considered. It would be appropriately and immediately dismissed. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight. Because a theory that is routinely tossed about as the explanation for contradictory observations is the pure essence of scientific thought, and branding anyone who disagrees with a current theory as a heretic is the hallmark of true science.
Don't forget the hallmark of a theory - the fact that it can be proven wrong. Some "intelligent" theories can't make this claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnjoyed the article and the links!
The only question is where are we going to get the teachers from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor characterization purposes, I was in 7th grade when Sputnik went up. During that era, science was generally considered to be to abstract and sophisticated for "too young" students. Biology in the 10th grade was the beginning, followed by chemistry and then physics. I believe that this perception of science education was correct and worked well for students of my generation. I am a physicist. ---What is China presently doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, there are no contradictory "observations" in "intelligent" design. There's only "this is what the bible says, and that's all that's true". To suggest that science has a concept like heresy is proof enough that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"(Science's) only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths" - Sagan.
In order to falsify evolution, you have to falsify the results of dozens of scientific disciplines across a century and a half done by thousands of scientists. Simply saying "I don't believe, despite all of the evidence" is not being a skeptic. It's being an idiot.
Note: yes, I used an ad hominem. That doesn't make my argument invalid. You ARE an idiot, I'm simply stating a fact. You're a religious zealot and will never be convinced by evidence. You're not interested in an honest debate, you're only interested in pushing your religion of hated on everyone. I don't have to be nice to you, I don't want to be nice to you.
Our grad schools in science and engineering are DOMINATED by foreign students, male AND female, from China, India, Iran, and a few other places, ...and GOOD for them! Regarding science education, it appears that something is being done right in these students' earlier lives, ...what is it???????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The idea that science can be simply "discovered" by a child in a classroom is rooted in a rather unrealistic philosophy of science which denies whole centuries of human history"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the essence of the article, which, as rightly pointed out, isn't true. All the child can do at the age, is observe, which may lead it to some seemingly logical conclusions. Saying this logic is not so simple as it sounds is something a child cannot grasp as easily as an adult. The reason being insufficient observations and the inability to expand ideas beyond a threshold, which comes of age.
The point in that statement is that children are naturally curious, a generalization that stands on remarkably firm ground. Further, generalizations (when backed by evidence) are correct more often and than not, a fact that makes them an essential tool to science and inferential statistics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems clear that rather than teach kids science you teach them the scientific process. It is the process that is not inherent to children, not curiosity. If we can nurture that curiosity into a vehicle by which they test a learned scientific method (as seems to be done in with some of these programs) that we take a significant step forward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKia ora Karnamohit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree wholeheartedly with what you say here.
In fact, Science cannot be taught to those who do not have the conceptual development to understand what Science is all about. Any adult who thinks that Science is all about observation and making conclusion from this - any conclusion - doesn't understand what Science is all about either.
Hence the myth that Science is everywhere and can be learnt (or done) by anyone of any age is propagated by people who really don't know what they are talking about.
Catchya later
Many elementary teachers are science (and math) averse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps that is not a coincidence.
Example: In 2nd grade, my younger son did a book report about an astronomy book. He decided to make a scale model of the solar system. I helped him figure out what that means (multiplication was new), and to make his first spreadsheet to do the calculations. He used a 5m long bamboo pole to support the properly spaced threads where orbits would be. Then he calculated how big the objects would be and found that the sun should be about 1mm diameter. We found a seed bead 2mm, and he duly noted in his written report that the sun was too big for scale. He correctly asserted that each of the planets was smaller than the threads hanging there.
The teacher's killer comment: "Next time, make the planets bigger so we can see them"
It's one thing to not be able to teach math and science, but to actively smother interest is... common.
Besides confusing "curiosity of the natural world" for being a "scientist," what strikes me as something that is glossed over is how are you going to explain the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, and Santa Claus to these young "scientists" that should demand a world driven by facts? And oh yeah, explain God!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sooner we stop lying to our children, the sooner they can become scientific.
Oh, Kallan, you are so wrong! It sounds to me like you think "science" is about memorizing facts and solving equations. I have worked as an educator for over 30 years and have seen amazing conclusions made by those "little minds"! Sure, there are some concepts that are beyond understanding (as is obvious by your comments ... ), but you underestimate the power of those "little minds".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me a young, curious, open mind any day ... rather than an old narrow-minded one like yours. You are doing science education a great disservice.
But, Karnamohit, deny them the opportunity to observe and how will they ever overcome their "insufficient observations"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found that "science" ( experiments, proyects, movies, TV programs, etc.) for kindergarden kids are also interesting for older kids. I am a science teacher and observation and logical conclusions are always in my class.
Give the children a chance! The teachers have to change because kids can not do it alone.
We need them for the future.
When will elementary administration realize that in order for elementary students to have real science experiences they must hire a science specialist for each building so that at least once a week all students go to the science lab for hands-on instruction. Elementary teachers are not prepared to teach science inquiry in the small amount of time they have (20-30 minutes to set up plan, gather materials, group students, and do an experiment! With a science specialist at each building, the specialist can work with each grade level team to prepare effective lesson plans that connect to the lab activities each week. This collaboration will ensure that all elementary students are experiencing science and is the model that all elementary principals need to look at closely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoood
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that science ever took the back seat at my elementary school. I always remember doing fun projects relating to all different things. Some involved drawing or growing a plant and others we even went outside or feild trips to get hands on experiences. Actually it wasnt until highschool when i had to take chemistry that i loathed going to science class, because to me doing math wasn't science. I think the way everything is presented is what makes it seem fun, not just because it is a certain class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that the image of a scientist is not a woman or a child. I want to be an elementary school teacher and everyone in my classroom will enter the world of science. I hope that everyone comes to love science and I can do my best to teach it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that science is not introduced to children like math and reading are. Science is pushed to the side and thought of as not as important. Therefore children grow to think it isn't important and they don't like it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this