Science's Editor-in-Chief Talks Up Science Education. (January 24, 2009)

Bruce Alberts, Science's editor-in-chief has got a bone to pick with those who effect science education: "There is a major mismatch between opportunity and action in most education systems today," and he means to use the journal to get his point across. He continues: "Rather than learning how to think scientifically, students are generally being told about science and asked to remember facts. This disturbing situation must be corrected..."

Professor Alberts doesn't argue against the importance of imparting factual information but rather that there must be four parts to science education and currently factual knowledge over dominates. Alluding to the US National Academies' Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 he summarises that in addition to imparting facts science education goals must be used to prepare students: "to generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations, to understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge, and to participate productively in scientific practices and discourse."

But Science's EoC asks: "Why then do most science professors teach only the first one?"

The short answer is of course that it's easy to do. Addressing the other three components would require much more time, effort, and considerably more nuance.

And while Professor Alberts doesn't develop a detailed plan to overcome the current shortcomings, he outlines a strategy: "I therefore propose an intense, high-profile national project to develop quality assessments that explicitly measure all four strands of science learning that were defined by the National Academies. Designing such assessments for students at all levels (from fourth grade through college), energetically advertising and explaining them to the public, and making them widely available at low cost to states and universities would greatly accelerate the redefinition of science education that the world so urgently needs."

That's all well and good, but how can the approach that is to be derived? For example, as matters stand in Australia, a high percentage of primary and secondary school teachers of science and mathematics are, if not unqualified, certainly underqualified to teach the subjects? And what special courses will be introduced at universities to give primary and secondary school teachers the extreme makeover? And will the universities and their staffs institute the regimes to implement the makeover from the top?

It could happen, but it will take an outstanding achievement in the use of digital technology to do so, say analogous to the designing of an Airbus 380 simulation trainer. Current standard university teaching methodology is simply not up to the requirements Bruce Albert wants to set. Together with that will be the necessity for both remuneration and facilities to be made sufficient to attract the quality of individuals required.

That would be a significant part of a real education revolution.