Engineering better science education

Thanks to Stephen Pompea and Pedro Russo for their comprehensive overview of science education activities (Physics Today, September 2021, page 26 ). The authors mention in passing that the evaluation of innovative science education projects was included in their studies of educational transformation. It would be interesting to learn what was found in their evaluations and in others that may have been performed. NSF alone spends some $1 billion on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education, so it is important to assess what effects those activities have had on science appreciation and competence.

I constructed a small observatory in my town and operated it with NSF and NASA support for over 20 years. The opportunity to increase the awareness of astronomy in my community was enjoyable. ¹ But the experience raised some concerns about the current emphasis in science education. For one, I was surprised to find that while there are many astronomy projects on the Web focused on specific topics like building a model solar system or a rocket, the one resource that elementary or middle school teachers might most need—a comprehensive introduction to astronomy at that level—seems to have been overlooked. The only such general introduction that my colleagues and I were able to find at that time was an excellent textbook by Jay Pasachoff ² that wasn’t available anymore, although a revised edition has since appeared. An experienced teacher working with me commented that the currently popular emphasis of Web-based resources for teachers and students on relatively narrow topics makes it difficult to present a subject like astronomy cohesively.

Another concern is the impact of too many curriculum changes on teachers. Our daughter teaches third grade, and one wonders how many enthusiasts of frequently revamping STEM curricula understand how much work goes into handling 25 rambunctious kids and their sometimes-difficult parents. Attrition of experienced teachers is a serious problem, and finding out that they need to master yet another way to teach math or science could be the last straw for some.

It would be interesting to hear from the authors whether such concerns have been covered in past evaluations or how they might be addressed in the future.