Context

‘I grew up convinced that science was supremely dull, but suspecting that it needn’t be, and not really thinking about it at all if I could help it. Then, much later … it occurred to me with a certain uncomfortable forcefulness that I didn’t know the first thing about the only planet I was ever going to live on. I had no idea, for example, why the oceans were salty but the Great Lakes weren’t. Didn’t have the faintest idea. I didn’t know whether the oceans were growing more salty with time or less, and whether ocean salinity levels was something I should be concerned about or not. … And ocean salinity, of course, represented only the merest sliver of my ignorance. I didn’t know what a proton was, or a protein, didn’t know a quark from a quasar, didn’t understand how geologists could look at a layer of rock on a canyon wall and tell you how old it was. … I became gripped by a quiet, unwonted but insistent urge to know a little about these matters and to understand above all how people figured them out. That to me remained the greatest of all amazements – how scientists work things out.’ (p 23)
 
‘Because we are so remarkably careless about looking after things, both when they are alive and when they are not, we have no idea – really none at all – about how many things have died off permanently, or may do so soon, or may never, and what role we have played in any part of the process. … A United Nations report of 1995 put the number of known extinctions in the last 400 years at slightly under 500 for animals and slightly over 650 for plants – while allowing that this was ‘almost certainly an underestimate’. … We don’t know what we are doing right now or how our present actions will affect the future. What we do know is that there is only one planet to do it on, and only one species of being capable of making a considered difference … ‘One planet, one experiment’. … As humans, we enjoy not only the privilege of existence, but also the singular ability to appreciate it and even, in a multitude of ways, to make it better. It is a trick we have only just begun to grasp.’ (p 574)
Two extracts from ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’, Bill Bryson, by kind persmission (Black Swan edition 2004)
 

1. These are challenging and exciting times for teachers of Science. The prospect of a diminishing supply of scientists and engineers looms large for the future, and once again the nature and purpose of Science teaching in schools have become matters of concern and debate. Yet broadcast programmes on such diverse topics as wildlife and natural history, on scientific and medical advances at the forefront of knowledge or on the history of science and engineering remain popular and successful. This suggests that many people take a real interest in science and its applications to modern life.

2. However, whilst there is considerable public interest, teachers of Science continue to face the difficult task of introducing students of all abilities to the radical insights and wide-ranging impact of modern scientific knowledge. Nothing less than our whole vision of the Universe we inhabit, of life and its healthy preservation on our planet - a planet at once more delicate and more turbulent than we have previously realized - and equally, our assumption that we can maintain our energy-consuming lifestyles of convenience and fast communications, have been shaped and reformed by Science and its diverse applications.

3. On the other hand, the Sciences as they are often taught and learnt are perceived by many as dry, dull and difficult areas of study, with too few connections to life in the real world that can capture the attention of pupils or the public. The ‘inner workings’ of Science as it is studied in school often appear divorced from daily life and experience. Some believe that too little consideration is given to the impact that science has, and has had, on our society, past, present and future. The subject matter appears to leave little scope for creativity or personal involvement. A gulf commonly separates the detailed scientific knowledge required by the curriculum from any bearing it could or should have on the issues and decisions that face individuals and society at large, from matters of health and lifestyle to those of global sustainability and peaceful, cooperative development.

4. Once past the period of compulsory study, recruitment of post-16 students to Science courses, in particular the physical sciences and the mathematics that underpins them, continues to decline alarmingly. The viability of some University departments in Sciences and Engineering is being called into question. Indeed many believe there is a vicious circle as qualified teachers of mathematics, physics and chemistry are becoming hard to recruit and students at school level may increasingly experience these subjects only through non-specialist teachers. At the same time, surveys show serious inadequacies in the laboratory and other specialist facilities available to teachers, limiting the scope for practical engagement and stimulating teaching in the Sciences.

5. Some tough issues face the ongoing development of the Science curriculum and the manner in which it is taught and learnt. Is the role of practical work, with its central place in the development and methodology of science and its powerful ability to motivate many pupils, becoming diminished, or too often replaced by second-hand experience through visual media? Could this undermine a fundamental ethic in the work of all scientists concerning the honest reporting of first-hand data?

6. We live in a ‘global village’. To what extent should our Science curriculum pay attention to visiting the other end of the village, to considering sustainable or ‘alternative’ technological developments, to issues of recycling for example, or of alternatives in the production of energy, food and fuel – alongside the high-tech solutions of ‘Western’ science? Could we investigate, or even model in our own laboratories, ways in which people from different cultures treat their resources and their environment?

7. What priority should we give to students’ understanding of the ‘bigger picture’ in local or national - let alone global - contexts? How should we approach the teaching of complex systems such as ecosystems and climate change or qualities such as human health and the significance of these as indicators of human well being? The National Strategy for Science introduced interrelated topics as a key theme for teaching. Are we good at stimulating coherent thought about such issues, or does the understanding that students have of them remain superficial and fragmented?

8. Are science teachers ready, trained and equipped to deal with current issues such as the above through classroom debate, to deal with synthesising and weighing arguments from across a range of science subject areas, including environmental, socio-economic and moral/ethical aspects? Should this be part of the job of science teachers? But if it is not, then how can substantial scientific knowledge be effectively drawn into areas such as citizenship teaching?

9. If we concentrate our teaching more heavily on ‘Science and Society’ issues, how and when does anyone learn the ‘inner workings’ of Science, necessary to become a physicist or an engineer, or indeed a Science teacher? Is this an insoluble dilemma that results from making Science compulsory for all up to 16?

10. What is the role, if any, of the creative arts in the teaching of science, for example in helping students to understand connections in scientific thinking about resources and recycling, about nuclear power and nuclear waste, about genetic technologies and food supplies, about health and medicine? Do the creative arts enable ethical and moral issues to be considered alongside students’ developing scientific knowledge, prompting them to look more clearly at issues for the future? Some schools and science teachers find drama, creative writing and other art forms to be powerful tools. Can and should such approaches be built into the curriculum, and if so, how?

11. Does our current approach to teaching and learning in science ever, whether knowingly or unwittingly, shade into a process nearer to one of indoctrination than of education? Is it justifiable to teach the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, the theory of Evolution, or even the atomic theory of matter without carefully connecting these ideas to the complex webs of observational and experimental evidence that support them?

12. The 14-19 curriculum in the Sciences is undergoing significant change. The statutory requirements for Key Stage 4 now occupy just two sides of an A4 page. In principle, this enables a swing of the pendulum away from building up extensive scientific knowledge as the compulsory basis of science for ages 14-16, perhaps towards allowing the pursuit of more detailed knowledge in selected areas of interest - and giving greater importance to students’ appreciation of the social, environmental and ethical implications of scientific advance. Teachers are evaluating the extent to which these new Examination Specifications in fact reflect such a change of emphasis, whether in the Specification contents or their assessment methodologies.

13. Then again, what do the Applied Science courses, for ages 14-19, offer the growing numbers of students studying science through these routes? Are they usefully introducing students to examples of the nature and substance of scientific knowledge and procedures, and their role in the world of work, and opening windows onto the responsible and sustainable use of science in the future? Are there some limitations to the view of science portrayed?

14. Furthermore, Science teachers face the difficulty of trying to balance calls for breadth, rigour, relevance and excitement with the equally demanding needs of assessment and monitoring of results. Teachers and their pupils feel a pressure to concentrate exclusively on the requirements of National Curriculum and Examination specifications, consequently restricting educational breadth and value. Have recent revisions opened up the range of assessment styles and objectives, or is there still a culture of teaching to the examination? The problem is not just one of limited breadth; there is a case for suggesting that a narrow and fragmented approach to scientific knowledge fails to develop pupils' lasting appreciation of the concepts, achievements and limitations of modern science, or their sense of its vital role in informing decisions for the future.

15. The need for Science teachers to engage in serious and well informed debate about such issues, central to education in their subjects, has never been greater. The Education Summer School offers an unprecedented opportunity to do just that. The purpose of the course is to bring together school leaders in Science and academics to discuss different approaches to teaching, learning and most importantly engaging the interest and commitment of students in their subjects. It is the aim to debate from first principles the essential elements of a good Science education in the 21st century: to consider what we should learn from the past and the present in order to benefit the future of humankind on our planet, and what contribution scientific knowledge should make to cultural, ethical and social values in a global context. The course also aims to examine in depth our current approach to Science education and provide opportunity for teachers to consider the cumulative effect of changes in educational policy since the introduction of the National Curriculum.