Improving science education requires rethinking academic priorities
Since President Obama’s announcement of the Educate to Innovate program in November 2009, an encouraging number of technology and media companies, non-profit organizations and government agencies have been working in concert to strengthen the nation’s approach to science education. But the reality is that the lion’s share of transformation must come from within: from school systems, in the case of K-12 education, and from the academy, in the case of higher education.
A position paper recently issued by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) illustrates this point in the context of higher education. Vikram Savkar, Senior VP & Publishing Director for Education Markets at NPG has the story in this repost.
A significant majority, 77 percent, of the 450 faculty surveyed for the paper consider their educational responsibilities to be equally as important as research responsibilities. Only 6 percent consider research more important than education. Yet when asked to appoint a hypothetical candidate to an open tenure position in their department, the majority chose a star researcher with poor teaching skills over both a star teacher with little research background and a candidate equally skilled, though not notable, in both teaching and research.
The ripple effects of this mindset in the academy are damaging to the goals of universities. Faculty at most of our institutions are expected to both teach and conduct research; yet if they are selected largely on the basis of their excellence in research, why should be we be surprised if the quality of classroom teaching is often low, as many studies strongly suggest? Poor teaching has three regrettable consequences. First, many talented science majors who enter college with inadequate prior preparation switch out of science programs after a year of disappointing college courses. Second, many students who do stay in science programs never achieve sufficient levels of mastery in the field to launch a professional scientific career. Third, students for whom science is a side interest rather than a career don’t build the scientific literacy that will turn them into informed voters, parents, teachers, and policy-makers later in life.
There are thousands of individual superb teachers throughout higher education, to be sure, and hundreds of colleges that place great emphasis on classroom teaching. But, as the Nature Publishing Group paper illustrates, the structural incentives of the academy are in general stacked against teaching. Research brings far more funding and prestige to both universities and individuals than teaching does; no surprise, then, that university presidents and department chairs push a research agenda, and that science faculty are motivated to follow suit. The point is not that research isn’t important; on the contrary, research is the central purpose of science, and we must galvanize both investment and political will to support the needs of our research sector. But where education is weak, research has a rickety foundation. It may be thriving today, but who will perform meaningful research tomorrow, if sufficient numbers and a diversity of students are not well trained and guided through the education pipeline to the laboratory bench? Who will vote for increasing national investment in research & development if the average citizen has a poor understanding and appreciation of science? The scientific challenges our society faces are only growing, as crucial issues like climate change, diabetes, and food sustainability proliferate and intensify. Is our educational system keeping pace?
If we want to ensure that R&D prospers in the next generation, we must take a hard and candid look at the incentives that are built into the academy. Universities that profess to value teaching must ask themselves whether their department chairs and tenure committees are really asked to select excellent teachers as well as excellent researchers. If they are not, then a mandate to support teaching must be made explicit, and backed with financial awards, job security, and promotions. Funding agencies, both private and governmental, must continue their current trend of allocating increasing investment to excellence and innovation in teaching, to eventually ensure that a dedicated and successful teacher will receive comparable career rewards to those that star researchers can count on. And universities and funding agencies must work together to develop a much-needed system of evaluating teaching quality, similar to what is already in discussion in the engineering community. A reliable set of metrics will make teaching impossible to ignore. We believe that such a system, which can be produced by a concerted effort of the key players in higher education within a few years, would be a watershed in the reinvigoration of our national science capabilities.
This is a repost from Science Progress by Vikram Savkar, Senior Vice President & Publishing Director for Education Markets at Nature Publishing Group. He is based in Cambridge, MA.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
A very good point, but pinpointing the bad actors would connect the dots for those who pretend it somebody else who is responsible.
Of course, star researchers who are great teachers should be considered the most valuable providing added incentives for improving teaching skills and the most bang for the buck.
Further, teaching is a normative process where the teacher learns much from students.
There are many studies on the advancement of children based on parenting but few if any on the advancement of adults who care for children.
It’s worth pointing out that there is a class of institutions which already embody this perspective. I’m speaking of the hundreds of small liberal arts colleges across this nation that already take teaching seriously. (I’m proud to say I’ve taught physics at two of them.) I can’t remember the precise statistics and the source but I seem to remember that these colleges contribute science students to advanced degree programs in numbers well above what you’d expect given the number of students they serve. This is particularly important now as these institutions are under enormous financial strain due the current economy. One relatively cheap part of a solution to the problem of educating future scientists would be to think of ways to support the work these institutions do.
Mike is absolutely correct. Smaller schools with a strong commitment to science education produce a disproportionate number of scientists. I haven’t seen the most up to date statistics, but numbers published by NSF 4 or 5 years ago show that on a per capita basis, schools like Oberlin (#1 and my alma mater) and Wesleyan (the original one). There is a nice essay by Thomas Cech, Nobelist and former head of the Howard Hughes Medicial Institutes (Grinnell grad) on this point, which can probably be found somewhere on the Web. These schools, however, have the advantage of admitting a highly selected group of students. Mike’s suggestion of trying to support these insitutions is appropriate, possibly by expanding the pool of students who can attend them through more generous financial support.
The Savkar piece posted above is on target but there is nothing in it that hasn’t been said many times previously. There is an additional obstacle to emphasizing education. An issue that hasn’t been dealt with particularly well and is not discussed in the Savkar piece is the problem of how to evaluate teaching quality. This turns out to be considerably more difficult than appears at first glance. Counting grants and papers is much easier than assessing teaching quality. The promotions process at American research universities involve soliciting support letters from outsiders. These letters (and I’ve written my fair share) rarely address teaching because the outside referees don’t have the needed information.
“But the reality is that the lion’s share of transformation must come from within: from school systems, in the case of K-12 education, and from the academy, in the case of higher education.”
As a high school science teacher I see this statement as true but with caveats. There are many K-12 schools that would be educating students much better if the right funding were available. Class size is extremely important. The more a teacher can nurture a student’s individual abilities and interests the more likely a student will be successful in what ever field they choose. That might be why small liberal arts colleges produce successful scientists. I have been working in a small independent school for 16 years. The school has poor facilities and no AP (some students take advanced science at a local university senior year). Due to small class size I have been able to challenge students on an individual basis in a variety of ways. Often my former students who become science majors in college tell me they are succeeding better then students who took AP classes. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, this year I was told I had to coach, which kept me from having the time to nurture strong science skills through individual contact and the grading process. I protested and lost my job. I’m a great teacher I was told but they need faculty who are spending more time with students out side of class. This might seem like an individual case but I am hearing stories like this all over the country from all types of schools and at all levels of teaching. The conditions that promote good teaching are not priorities even without a recession as an excuse. Until the actual “art of teaching” becomes respected as a profession there will not be turn around. Teaching to a test is not good teaching.
One important by-product of a war-like effort dealing with the environmental crisis will be the enhanced common wisdom of the importance on natural capital and a crucial subset: human capital.
As civilization learns to cast off its wasteful ways there should be more resources — and focus — available for education and other human capital amplification efforts such as poverty elimination including full employment and recession elimination, the arts, health care, accelerated innovation, etc.
During World War II life expectancy jumped by something like 7 years resulting from the development of antibiotics, etc.; despite the carnage.
A lot of the research that we “invest” in is not very good.
We have substituted expensive “research” as a path to learning for less expensive “teaching”. We would get a better value for the money we spend on research if we did a better job of teaching.
Oops. Sloppy proof-reading. Should be:
Mike is absolutely correct. Smaller schools with a strong commitment to science education produce a disproportionate number of scientists. I haven’t seen the most up to date statistics, but numbers published by NSF 4 or 5 years ago show that on a per capita basis, schools like Oberlin (#1 and my alma mater) and Wesleyan (the original one), swamp the Ivies and large universities. There is a nice essay by Thomas Cech, Nobelist and former head of the Howard Hughes Medicial Institutes (Grinnell grad) on this point, which can probably be found somewhere on the Web. These schools, however, have the advantage of admitting a highly selected group of students. Mike’s suggestion of trying to support these insitutions is appropriate, possibly by expanding the pool of students who can attend them through more generous financial support.
The Savkar piece posted above is on target but there is nothing in it that hasn’t been said many times previously. There is an additional obstacle to emphasizing education. An issue that hasn’t been dealt with particularly well and is discussed in the Savkar piece is the problem of how to evaluate teaching quality. This turns out to be considerably more difficult than appears at first glance. Counting grants and papers is much easier than assessing teaching quality. The promotions process at American research universities involve soliciting support letters from outsiders. These letters (and I’ve written my fair share) rarely address teaching because the outside referees don’t have the needed information.
I’d like to share a different aspect to this subject: environmental education in grades K through 12. I haven’t done any research into what other states are doing, but California is introducing new curriculum in a fews months developed because of its Environmental Education Initiative (Pavley AB 1548). I took a two-week online introductory course at UCLA Extension on EEI. I am not a teacher, but my classmates all are. I thought it an amazing package. They all raved about it and could barely wait to use the material. I understand it was designed to complement and augment the state’s high standards. The materials packages are quite comprehensive in providing teacher guides, materials and plans. If there were no restrictions to changing lessons mid-course, any teacher could turn around and add it to a lesson or make a substitution.
I quote the California EPA site
Highlights of the EEI Curriculum
-The first environment based curriculum approved by the California State Board of Education.
-Teaches students about their relationship with the environment and how humans interact with natural systems.
-Teaches select California academic standards to mastery.
-Does not place an extra burden on teachers.
-Makes use of, and works well with, adopted California Department of Education instructional materials.
-Includes “Extension and Unit Resources” pages with ideas and links to community resources, including environmental education providers, businesses, and/or agencies.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Education/EEI/default.htm
See:
http://www.tfn.org
Texas Freedom Network
The State of Texas Board of Education [SBOE] is trying to re-write science and history in a radical right wing religious way. Since Texas buys more textbooks than any other state, they are sabotaging K-12 education for the whole nation. K-12 education was bad enough already.
Recommend you join the TFN emailing list.
In the 1950s, 1/3 of all college science majors were graduates of New York state K-12 education. I think the NY Regents exams had a lot to do with that. It kept teachers in line, like my biology teacher who tried to flunk me for believing in evolution. I got 100% on the regents exam and A for the course. The regents exams are gone. Now a lot of science students come from India and China.
You have to realize that ignorant people are easier for politicians and corporations to manipulate. They don’t want a well educated independent thinking voting population.
Bring back regents exams.
In my view there is some truth in this article, but some points have been left out as well. Probably the strongest correlate for going on to grad school in science is doing research as an undergraduate. Certainly, there is more opportunity for this at many liberal arts schools and regional campuses. The problem with hiring someone who appears weak in research is that he or she probably won’t get tenure. Also, in my opinion, there is a positive correlation between research and teaching–better researchers are often better teachers. Another issue is that most hiring is at the assistant professor level and these people have had opportunity to demonstate strong performance in research but not in teaching. Perhaps the main issue is that faculty at major research institutions don’t do much teaching and the incentives and required time investments for getting funding are too strong.
One issue for teaching science literacy is classes for nonmajors. I teach one such class–it’s fun and I think that it’s important because of the the literacy issue and because it’s a required class for many K-12 education majors.
Thanks Monique #9,
Good to see positive responses to a changing world.