Do You Speak Science?

For all the high school graduates out there, how many of you can still tell me how to predict the formation of ionic solids in solutions?  Or compute the terminal velocity of a projectile?  Or give me the Linnean nomenclature for more than three species?

Of the people that answered yes to the questions above, how many of you are not working in a science-oriented profession?  I'd be willing to bet the fraction is staggeringly small.  And I also think that's ok.  Clearly, many Americans have grown up to become successful contributing members of society while simultaneously forgetting the finer points of chemistry and physics.

On the other hand, if the intricacies of many scientific subjects aren't essential for a life well lived, and if many people who are exposed to these ideas don't retain them or retain a significantly inaccurate impression of the state of scientific understanding as they move forward in life, it does raise the question of what we could or should be doing in our science classes.  My argument is that while a robust exploration of science content is valuable for students that are particularly interested in those disciplines, ALL students need a thorough education in science literacy - that is, understanding the essential nature of science as a world view and methodology for increasing human understanding on the world, and where that fits into the spectrum of human experience.

So why shift gears?  What do we have to gain?  How could that possibly compare to what we as a society might lose if our students are required to complete a rigorous curriculum in biology, physics and chemistry?  Well, I think there are three salient points to consider.

1. Most people don't remember (or inaccurately recall) what they learned in high school science classes.  If your own life experience isn't enough to convince you of this, consider the findings from this Pew Center report on the level of science knowledge in America - granted the sample size of thirteen questions is relatively small, but it's still quite telling that 50-80% of respondents incorrectly answered EXTREMELY basic science content questions - I'm not talking fine details here, I'm talking about high level bullet points covered in the first week of class.  In the same way that you're unlikely to remember the details of the plot of Gatsby unless you read and discuss it semi-regularly, you're not likely to recall these sorts of details unless you leverage the knowledge on a semi-regular basis.  That trend is pretty well established in cognitive neuroscience.  So what's the harm in shifting gears?  Most students don't recall what they've been taught anyway.

2. A detail oriented, rigorous science curriculum is disempowering for people that aren't naturally inclined toward math and science.  From the same Pew Center study linked above, nearly 50% of people who took the pool said they steered away from math/science majors because "science is too hard"; now granted this pertains to choices of academic major, but I think it's a fair wager to say that the same phenomenon plays out on the high school level.  Students that find science too difficult will write off the entire subject, and close themselves off from an entire realm of human knowledge and exploration.

3. Understanding the basic nature of science is more important than ever.  If you want to be a responsible member of a democracy, you need to have the wherewithal to evaluate claims made in the public sphere, to decide which policies and candidates you will support, and to understand when you're being fed a giant load.  Many of the arguments surrounding global warming, for instance (particularly from the Conservative side) play upon a deep misunderstanding of the way that science works and the way scientific knowledge is developed.  People who don't understand science because they were alienated from it at a young age will be susceptible to buying snake oil from its many talented sales agents.

A science education focused more on developing high level conceptual understanding of science practices and norms, rather than obsessing over the details, would resolve all of these issues, because it would allow the repetitive development of broad themes (better for cognitive retention), demonstrate clear applications to real world policy discussions (leading to lifelong retention, application, and understanding), and be more approachable to a broad base of young Americans who will be bombarded with more scientific claims and skeptical grousing than any previous generation.

If you're curious, by the way, about how well you "speak science", try the Nature of Science Questionnaire used by curriculum researchers.  If you have a really hard time answering these questions... well, maybe that tells you something about what you should have been learning in science class.