Surely it begins at home. When kids grow up in
science-friendly homes, they are encouraged to ask questions, think
critically, experiment, explain their reasoning, read, write, create
models, and watch science programs on TV.
But what are the best activities and resources? And what about school? What do studies suggest about the best and worst ways to teach science in the classroom?
Perhaps the most important discovery is that kids benefit from
explicit lessons in critical thinking. Studies suggest that students
become better problem solvers--and even raise their IQs--when they are
taught principles of logic, hypothesis-testing, and other methods of
Studies also suggest that kids learn more when they are required to explain their own reasoning.
What about keeping up with the latest discoveries?
When kids follow breaking news stories, they may feel more
personally connected to science. Science news is also an opportunity for
kids to consider the process of science--how new data may support or
challenge old ideas.
Some high schools in the United States have embraced an approach to
science for kids known as “self-led inquiry.” With this approach,
students are free to direct their own research projects. They design and
carry out their own studies.
This sounds fun, and it might be a good approach for a kid who already has a strong background in math and science.
But for other kids, the “self-led inquiry” approach may lead to
lower science grades in college. Researchers Robert Tai and Philip
Sadler analyzed the performance of over 8000 U.S. high school students. They
found that high school students with less advanced math backgrounds
learned more science from teacher--structured laboratory
experiences--not self-led inquiry (Sadler and Tai 2009).
Different educational systems face different challenges
Approaches to science education vary from country to country. Could
any one plan improve them all? Finnish researcher Pasi Reinikainen
argues that efforts to enhance science achievement should take local
factors into account (Reinikainen 2007).
For instance, in England there is a link between frequent testing
and science achievement—the more frequently students are tested, the
poorer they perform in science. In Hungary, poor science achievement is
linked with too much group work (because only some group members
actively participate). In Russia, an emphasis on memorization is
correlated with lower science achievement.
Can we make any generalizations? Perhaps a few.
Science for kids: General guidelines for promoting achievement
Depth, not breadth
Young children benefit from depth, not breadth--being immersed in the
same subject matter for months, rather than jumping from topic to
topic. And new research suggests that this approach helps older
In a study of American undergraduates, Marc Schwartz and his colleagues found that students
whose high school science courses had covered at least one major topic
in depth (i.e., for a month or longer) had better college grades than
did peers who had learned about more topics during the same stretch of
time. Students whose high school coursework covered all the major topics didn’t have better college grades.
These correlations remained significant even after controlling
for socioeconomic status, English skills, math achievement, and the
rigor of high school science courses (Schwartz et al 2009).
Young kids and college students may have something else in common.
They don’t like lectures. Rochel Gelman and colleagues advise that
preschoolers need lots of “hands-on” experiences to learn about science.
Older kids seem to benefit from interactive teaching as well.
For instance, students enrolled in introductory physics benefit
when the mode of instruction is interactive—i.e., when students engage
in thought experiments or hands-on activities and students
receive immediate feedback through discussion with teachers or peers.
When Robert Hare compared students enrolled in traditional (lecture
only) physics courses with students enrolled in interactive courses, he
found that the students in interactive courses made dramatically better improvements (Hake 1998).
Emphasizing effort, not innate talent
An international study of science achievement amongst 4th and 8th
graders confirmed that Asian countries (e.g., Singapore, Korea, Hong
Kong, Taiwan, and Japan) are producing the best-prepared students (Bybee
and Kennedy 2005).
While there may be several reasons for this, one might boil down
to attitude: Asian cultures are more likely to endorse a flexible,
effort-based theory of intelligence. And
people who believe that intelligence is influenced by effort learn better and achieve more in school.
Experiments indicate that people do more poorly on tests
when they believe that “people like them” are less proficient in the
subject matter. This phenomenon is called stereotype threat.
Do stereotypes influence how we present science for kids? It
For example, a study of European-Americans found that
parents were more likely to believe that science is less interesting and
more difficult for daughters, not sons. Moreover, when researchers
analyzed parent-child conversations, they found that fathers used more
cognitively demanding language when working on a science project with
their sons than with their daughters (Tenenbaum and Leaper 2003).
If parents do this, we can imagine that kids might buy into
stereotypes themselves. And that could create a self-fulfilling prophesy
of lower achievement in the sciences. But don’t despair! We can
counteract the effects of stereotype threat. To learn more,
References: Science for kids
Bybee RW and Kennedy D. 2005. Math and Science Achievement. Science 307 (5709): 481.
Hake RR 1998. Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A
six thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics course. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64- 74.
Reinikainen P. 2007. Sequential Explanatory Study of Factors
Connected with Science Achievement in Six Countries: Finland, England,
Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Russia. Study based on TIMSS 1999. Finnish
institute for educational research.
Sadler P and Tai R. 2009. Same Science for All? Interactive
Association of Structure in Learning Activities and Academic Attainment
Background on College Science Performance in the U.S.A. International
Journal of Science Education 31(5): 675 – 696.
Schwartz MS, Sadler PM, Sonnert G, and Tai RH. 2008. Depth versus
breadth: How content coverage in high school science courses relates to
later success in college science coursework. Science Education 93(5):
Tenenbaum HR and Leaper C. 2003. Parent-child conversations about
science: the socialization of gender inequities? Dev Psychol.