But I also grew up during the space race. It was downright patriotic to know the science of aviation and space travel. In order to escape the life singing and Biblical memorization of a parsonage, I began to build flying model airplanes at 12.
When I finally got one done, I had to show it to everyone. My parents were proud, my teachers were encouraging, my friends were envious. So one sunny day, I took it out to fly. It crashed in less than 30 seconds. I had neglected to tighten properly the retaining nut which held the control rod to the elevator.
For a while, I acted as if I had suffered some great injustice. How could something that took 150 hours to build be destroyed by a tiny oversight that could have been corrected in 30 seconds?? Why wasn't there some court of appeal that would overturn this cruel outcome?
But the more I thought about, the more I LIKED this "cruel" world--even though I was still bitterly disappointed by my destroyed airplane. I LIKED the fact that the fine opinions of my fellows had made absolutely NO difference. I LIKED the fact that there was truth that was utterly independent of what anyone believed. And I especially loved the idea that while the laws of nature were utterly unforgiving, if you knew them well enough, you could do "impossible" things like fly.
I would go on to build dozens of model airplanes. Most flew beautifully. And NONE of them ever lost an elevator pushrod connection. This is the best part of science--if you actually learn from the disasters, even mistakes are not a waste of time. It is this self-correcting feature that keeps science as the premiere human endeavor--no matter how arrogant and unpleasant some scientists are. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
If your pretend baby-experiment gets the wrong answer in secondary school, you're not supposed to stop and ask why. At best you'll write it off as 'experimental error' and at worst you'll be marked down viciously for being incompetent and stupid.
This is not a good way to persuade people that some uncertainty is not just acceptable, but necessary.
As no one else has stuck their head above the parapet and admitted to actually teaching science...
A big chunk of the primary curriculum is about designing 'fair tests' and evaluating results, as well as producing critiques of other experiments and conclusions.
We didn't do that when we were at primary school. Sometimes I wonder if that's part of the problem- that we're trying to get kids to do these things at an age when they'd really rather be doing labelled diagrams of volcanoes.
Sometimes, we just put a big pile of apparatus in the middle of the table and let them get on with it. We circulate, ask "What happens if...?" and remove the funnel from the boy who thinks it ought to go up his nose, but that's about it.
And absolutely yes, we do let them fail. And we respect unexpected results. This term we've had plants with their roots removed that grew better than those with roots intact, and sandy soil that has absorbed more water than clay soil.
As far as I'm concerned, that gives us (the adults) a chance to model behaviour when experiments don't concur with predictions. That is, we're intrigued rather than defensive...
There are rather a lot of us out here doing our best...sigh...
</weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth>
I'll admit this diary may make more sense to readers of a certain age who grew up drawing labelled diagrams of volcanoes. (Or in my case, sneaking out of fingerpainting classes to go find interesting books in the library.)
But how long have the changes been in place, and has it made a difference to perceptions of science?
And what happens at secondary school?
(I can't get much out of my daughter beyond "Boring" and a deep resentment that her teacher's idea of 'fun' today in the last lesson of term was a worksheet...I found it difficult to summon enthusiasm, however, when she brought home two plastic cups of cress seeds/cotton wool, one of which had to be given water and one not. I've done that experiment with seven year olds.)
The National Curriculum was introduced in 1988, so anyone 24 or younger will have had their entire school career under its aegis. As there's been a decline in takeup of science A levels in that period, it doesn't appear to be enthusing children about science.
One thing I find interesting is that, although science is popularly believed to be difficult, the science SAT at age 11 is the 'easiest', ie schools generally achieve a higher pass rate in science than in English or maths...
Maybe we should be pointing this out more enthusiastically?
I like that post! -----sapere aude
