Matt Brown posted a blog entry with a questionnaire about science engagement. I filled it and included some comments, that I’m pasting here. Written in two minutes it’s roughly, very roughly, a bit of what I think about it:
”In my opinion, the off putting part of the science engagement/communication/whatever is the label “science”.
The gung ho approach that “science is good!” “science is cool!” is annoying. Children and young people are interested in interesting things (pretty obvious, isn’t it?), no matter if they are usually classified as science or not. We should encourage curiosity in general.
Other point is that science should be mixed with other topics, in my opinion (therefore avoiding the “science is good” approach I just mentioned). But unfortunately this is very difficult, given that funding for science communication comes from institutions that want to focus on the “science” and the “sciency” label, many times associated with geeky kids, labs, white coats, scientists-as-weird-people, and so on.
In other words, I think this kind of approach reinforces the idea of science as something detached from the rest of the world, something “special”, different. Some people may think it’s a good thing, but I don’t.
Encourage “curiosity towards the world”, in the broader sense possible, would be the best thing to do.”
In very crude words, that’s it. Any opinions?
Yes, agree totally. I just completed the questionnaire (incidentally, the link to this blog post from your comment to Matt’s post does not seem to work)—I have two daughters at a very good state secondary “science specialist” school – yet they find the science as taught not interesting. Get good teachers, pay them well, and give them free rein to communicate enthusiasm for their subject. Stop all this “public relevance” stuff. My youngest daughter is just studying “healthy eating” for about the fourth time and boy is she bored with it!
I completed the questionnaire, too.
One of the problems with engaging young people with science is the disconnect between the government’s desire for science teachers (here in the UK at least) and what it is prepared to pay to get them.
What the government wants is experienced people, who have been Out There, in the Real World, to make second careers as teachers—but then pay them rubbish rates compared with what they’d get in the open market.
Some time ago in a fit of disillusionment I registered an interest in principle on the website of the teaching agency (or whatever it was called) saying that I had a science PhD, had been in science publishing for yonks, and might consider changing careers to teach secondary-school science. When I discovered that they expected me to halve my salary to do it, my desire evaporated. And yet, for many months afterwards, this woman kept calling me to ask when I wanted to enrol (she was so insistent and desperate that I expected her to say she’d have my babies, if only I’d become a teacher), and I got bombarded with loads of literature.
I kept explaining that if they wanted the people they plainly desired, they’d have to double their starting rates, given that the people they were targeting weren’t beginners, but in mid-career with children to feed and mortgages to pay.
After I’d explained that for the zillionth time this desperate-sounding woman didn’t call any more. Perhaps she thought my desire for babies had been fulfilled.
I like the idea of encouraging curiosity towards the world, in all aspects of education. While I agree that the ‘science is cool’ message can get overplayed, I think it’s a critical part of getting people interested in science. If funding agencies push this message, and inadvertently associate science with geeky kids, labs, white coats, and scientists-as-weird-people, then I think we have to examine why geekiness, labs, white coats, etc., are viewed negatively.
I just filled out the survey, which I thought covered some fundamental issues. I remember that one of my favorite history teachers in high school didn’t always follow the textbook, but instead used current events (it was an election year) to illustrate various concepts. This is why I think that placing too much emphasis on following a curriculum stifles some of the creativity and curiosity that is so central to science. Also, I think that the lack of role models is another obstacle. My commencement speaker at Stanford (the poet Dana Gioia) discussed how the average American can easily name numerous athletes and actors, but probably no living poets or scientists.