Changing strategies in science education.

As J. Handelsman et al. note in their Policy Forum “Scientific teaching” (23 Apr., p. [521][1]), recent educational research has shown that a variety of active-learning strategies are superior to the teaching methods that many of us experienced in our own training. That is, the traditional approach of lecturing to a room full of students seems to be less effective than engaging these students in the process of thinking about the information. A particular challenge, which was not noted by Handlesman et al. , is reorienting our role in the training of secondary science teachers—indeed, in training teachers throughout the K-12 enterprise. In general, the science courses through which K-12 teachers learn their science are taught by scientists. It is incumbent upon us as scientists to ask ourselves how well we serve as role models for the teachers we train. In general, we tend to teach the way we were taught ourselves. It is only after we become more comfortable with our teaching expertise, and more comfortable in our other roles as scientists, that some of us may begin to investigate alternate pedagogical approaches. The same can be said for the students whom we teach. If we instruct our future K-12 teachers by the traditional approach of lecturing about scientific facts, we may expect that they will use the same methods in their own classes. But science is not the memorization of facts. It is an ongoing, investigative endeavor. It requires thinking deeply about subjects, and continuously assessing whether the data support the current understanding. Actually doing science requires a world view that is quite different from that which we portray in our classes. As scientific literacy has declined, we have considered a variety of ways to address it. One very important effort has been the development of the National Science Education Standards ([1][2], [2][3]). Built into the Standards is the expectation that the teaching of science should be realigned to match more closely the doing of science. That is, K-12 instruction should, wherever possible, use methods of active learning and of inquiry-based learning. The typical response to reading this, I suspect, will be “good, that is as it should be.” Thus, we have a paradox. We applaud the Standards' exhortation to teach science as an investigative endeavor and to use inquiry-based methods where possible. Yet, we, ourselves, tend to teach the way we were taught and use didactic lecturing—through which we train future K-12 teachers the avoidance of inquiry-based methods. Consequently, it is exceedingly difficult for K-12 teachers to incorporate inquiry-based teaching into their courses. This realization suggests that it is essential that we move our own teaching methods into the current century, pay attention to the educational literature, and use active learning, problem-based learning, and inquiry-based learning in our own classes. Handelsman et al. have offered recommendations for how we might improve the Culture of Science to put greater weight on the teaching enterprise. I suspect, however, given the vast inertia of our scientific and educational systems, that a single Policy Forum will be insufficient. It will be necessary to give educational innovations the same degree of attention that we give to basic research. Given the prestige and wide readership of Science , I ask that a new section of the journal be created to discuss teaching issues. We need open and frequent discussion of this tremendously important issue. 1. 1.[↵][4] 1. National Research Council , National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996). 2. 2.[↵][5] 1. National Research Council , Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1096022 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text"