Most Helpful Customer Reviews
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Age-Old Question, January 28, 2008
This review is from: Why Science? (Paperback)
In my third year of teaching high school science (back in the early 1990's), I came to an epiphany. I had spent two years pushing my students towards the kind of "hard" science that I had spent many years studying and about which I had great passion. I had some success but I wasn't reaching as many students as I'd hoped as an idealistic young teacher. Then, sometime between years two and three, I changed my goal. Instead of trying to turn my students into scientists, I would try to help them become scientifically literate. From that moment, I believe I became a better and more successful teacher.
I tell this story to underline the fact that the concept of science literacy is not a new one. Dr. Trefil has written a wonderful book on the subject but, despite the impression he might give, he is by no means blazing a new trail here. His work with E. D. Hirsch and the cultural literacy gurus gives him a certain cache and it is easy to see how this work grew out of his involvement with that project; however, the question of literacy--cultural, scientific or otherwise--is basically an age-old question: what is it that an educated person should know and when should we teach it to them?
I admire much of what Trefil has done here. The early chapters, in particular, on what science is and is not and his definition of scientific literacy are informative and useful. On the other hand, when he starts to get into the field of education and its impact on scientific literacy, I think his conclusions are much more debatable.
For example, though I agree in principle with his conclusions that we tend towards hysteria in comparing our scientific graduates to those of other countries, I feel strongly that America is behind other countries in many ways. In Trefil's analysis, per capita comparisons are the key. Still, raw numbers play a role. We may be competing with China per capita, but they still have over 200,000 more brains educated in science which gives them more opportunity to come up with the next great new idea. And he doesn't even comment how American-educated internationals are now much more likely to return to their country of origin rather than stay in America as they used to do. We are in a crisis and something needs to be done.
Of course something needs to be done and Trefil has some good suggestions. I like the idea of his "great ideas" approach to scientific literacy though I don't see why his ordering is particularly necessary and I might vary the topics a bit. I'm a bit uncomfortable with his rather high-handed dismissal of inquiry-based learning which, in my experience, is very powerful for students. I'm also not as high on the importance of his "third way"--modeling is important but that does not reduce the value of theory and experiment. But this is where we get down to the brass tacks of that age-old question, don't we? The debate will never end.
When it comes right down to it, I think he falls into the very trap he mentions in his book; that is, Ph.D.s determining what pre-collegiate education should look like without much experience in those types of classrooms. I think much of what he talks about is very appropriate to the college-level. It just doesn't play as clearly in a middle school or high school; at least, not in my experience.
In the end, however, I think Dr. Trefil has done a great service to the cause of scientific literacy. He has provided and excellent analysis of the background of the problem and has made many useful suggestions. Hopefully, many in the field of education will read this book and, even if they don't agree with all of his conclusions, take up the cause. Scientific literacy is something that needs to be examined more closely if the United States is going to remain competitive in the decades to come.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An Essay on Science Education in the United States and the Need for Improvement, December 25, 2007
This review is from: Why Science? (Paperback)
As an environmental biology major in college, and as a volunteer at the local high school district, I have an interest in science instruction in the school system. I have seen science illiteracy on an up close and personal basis and have been striving to improve the number and quality of science courses offered to students at the high school level, hoping it would interest more students in careers in science and technology. So, when this book was offered, I thought it might be of help.
The premise of the book is that as our world grows scientifically and technologically, people will need to be more literate in the sciences in order to be able to properly enter a democratic debate on scientific issues. Stem cell research, global warming, cloning and a host of other issues are offered as proof that we need to understand science (at least at a basic level) in order to make proper policy choices.
Although we hear how badly we, in the United States, are doing in science literacy, the news isn't all bad. Although high school testing indicates we are at, or near, the bottom, the same cannot be said about the science literacy of adults. The United States posts a 28% literacy rate (or about 75% illiterate), which is second only to Sweden. Many of the countries that beat us as highs school students don't fare as well as adults, probably because of our university systems.
The author proposes a number of solutions, staring with the high school level, and working on up to the college level. While I think he may have a basis for his argument, there are a number of problems, and I question the practicality of his solutions. On the high school level, the author proposes, for advanced students, that they rearrange the course of study to start with the most basic principals (physics) and work toward progressively more complicated principals (biology). While a fine idea, the math needed for physics is not generally completed by most students until their junior year, which nullifies this solution.
The author also proposes, for high school students who are taking only minimum science courses, that the courses be made into an integrated science curricula that will cover the highlights of the most important scientific principals. Some districts are already doing this, and have had success; however the basic principals are not, in my opinion, enough to increase scientific literacy in a statistically significant way.
In addition to a lack of real changes in curricula, the book is densely written and the author is prone to taking detours into areas which are of questionable relevancy. While the book cover states that all school board members should read this work, it is so difficult to ponder through that I can only think of one, on our local board, who has the tenacity to make it through.
I believe the book is a good starting place for a discussion, which is desperately needed, but it hardly provides all, or even many, of the answers. A two star book, three were given for the author's attempt to provide answers.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is a scientific education needed to fully understand the world even for the lay?, June 8, 2008
This review is from: Why Science? (Paperback)
Is a scientific education needed to fully understand the world even for the lay? "Why Science?" is a call for America to increase their scientific literacy for a more perfect union - saying understanding of the fundamentals of science - natural selection, electricity, magnetism, and others - are necessary to understanding the very principles of modern society. "Why Science?" is a must for any community library science, social issues, or education shelf.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
