THE RICHNESS OF TWO CULTURES
Science and education are two very rich cultures. They each have values,
traditions, goals, and needs that have evolved over time and that, by and
large, are effective. While these two cultures have long been connected,
the relationship has generally been in one direction—science gains
knowledge, and education passes it on to the next generation. We propose
a new paradigm in which the connections are interwoven—in which students
and scientists work together in authentic scientific research, contributing
both new knowledge and new ways of learning.
This shift from the "student as recipient" to the "student
as partner" model can be of real and substantive benefit for both the
scientists and the students. The primary and most obvious benefits for the
students are the excitement of doing authentic science, a new context for
hands-on experiential learning, and the linkage of school learning with
the "real world." For the scientists, the primary benefits are
the help of student partners who enable the scientists to do research that
might not otherwise be possible and the personal rewards of supporting education.
Beyond these primary benefits, however, is a secondary and perhaps deeper
level of benefits, resulting from the cross-fertilization between these
two rich cultures.
Similarities Between the Two Cultures
Both Cultures Are Interdisciplinary
A biologist cannot do his or her work without a parallel understanding
of biochemistry, earth science and physical geography—so too in education.
Students learn best in an interdisciplinary context. Elementary schools
are especially effective in recognizing this—one teacher teaches all
subjects, interweaving among science, math, language, history, and art.
Even secondary schools, which have long taught separate courses in physics,
chemistry, earth science and biology, are moving toward integrated science
courses. Student and scientist partnerships will certainly reinforce this
interdisciplinary focus.
Both Cultures Are Collaborative
The recent discovery of possible evidence of past life on Mars was done
by a team of collaborating scientists that included a geologist, chemist,
paleobiologist, and planetary astronomer working together—so too in
education. Often students learn better when they work in collaborative groups,
extending their own learning and investigations by a division of responsibilities
among the team members. With SSPs the collaborations are extended even further,
outside of the classrooms and research labs that are the traditional boundaries
of their respective cultures.
Both Cultures Use Technology
Scientists and students use computers for communication with colleagues,
access to information, data analysis, visualization, and preparation and
dissemination of reports. With partnerships, there are some novel opportunities
to benefit from the other's experience and expertise with technology. Students
use new more advanced tools for assessing information, such as real-time
satellite weather maps. Scientists can gain insights from students who have
played with computer games and will not put up with a poor user interface.
Would weather forecasts become more accurate if scientists could use computers
to fly through and around the satellite weather maps?
Important Cultural Differences and Misperceptions
We also have to be aware of some fundamental differences in the science
and education cultures and the potential of partnerships to help scientists,
students, and teachers overcome subtle misunderstandings.
What Do Teachers and Students Think a
Scientist Does?
A recent issue of Science and Children (September 1996) described a survey
in which students were asked to draw a scientist. Think about it. Would
you draw a person in a lab coat, probably white male, with glasses, at work
in a lab? Television and popular culture certainly convey that impression.
Perhaps even more dangerously, years of traditional science fairs have given
students the impression that "scientists use the scientific method."
Students are taught to begin immediately with a hypothesis as if it were
the first step in scientific research, then design an experiment, then collect
data, etc. In fact, real science usually begins with a deep interest and
curiosity about a topic, followed by a period of "messing about"—exploring,
learning, and finding anomalies. Only then do scientists deal with hypotheses,
trying to understand something that does not make sense. Through partnerships
in authentic research, students will observe and experience this reality
of scientific research.
What Do Scientists Think a Teacher Does?
If a similar survey asked scientists to draw a teacher, we might see
a woman, standing and talking in front of a class, with chalk and a chalkboard,
while students sit in rows listening. Popular culture has given people the
impression that "teachers teach." In fact, the best teachers know
that the real issue is not teaching but helping students learn. Ideally,
classrooms are lively places with hands-on inquiry-based learning, dialogue,
creativity, and problem solving. For scientists who are helping develop
learning materials, the danger of the misperception that "teachers
teach" is that the scientists might develop lectures or written materials
that are accurate but do not engage the students in hands-on learning. On
the other hand, if the cross-cultural experience is effective, scientists
will gain a better understanding of the teaching and learning processes
and may even move from lectures to participatory learning in their own work
with colleagues and college students.
On closer inspection, it is striking how similar the experiences of students
and scientists are as they explore and learn. On this and the previous page
are two pictures that illustrate this similarity. One is a picture of scientists
at the Jet Propulsion Lab as they examine and wonder about the latest images
from a planetary spacecraft. The other is a picture of students as they
examine and wonder about images of Earth taken from space. Notice how both
are actively engaged in exploring, investigating, speculating, and sharing
their ideas. Scientific research and science learning may just be flip sides
of the same coin.
Different Time Scales
Both scientists and students have to think of their work in a time frame
of decades. Students will spend 13 years from kindergarten through high
school graduation, and longer if they go on to college. Similarly, scientists
will often spend a decade or more pursuing their research, with increasing
levels of sophistication and understanding as they proceed. On the other
hand, the units for measuring short-term progress are quite different. For
scientists, the short-term cycles tend to be measured in three-year increments,
corresponding to the common cycle for the grants funding their research.
For students, the short-term cycle is either a learning module a few weeks
in duration or possibly an ongoing project over the 10-month course of a
school year. Rarely do student projects extend from one year to the next.
These two different time scales present a problem—it is difficult
for scientists to have meaningful results from research within a few weeks
or months of the launching of a collaboration. Without this feedback, students
might lose interest. Therefore, scientists need to provide interim progress
reports to students or, even better, engage students in other phases of
the research, such as data analysis and data visualization, on an ongoing
basis. Conversely, schools need to work on linking the work of students
from one year to the next. This long-term continuity will be a significant
enrichment of the education culture.
Attitudes Toward Errors
For scientists in the data collection phase, errors are an anathema.
For students, errors are a powerful way to learn. While this is a very important
cultural difference, ultimately the two can enrich each other. For example,
in the GLOBE program students measure daily high and low temperatures. To
do this, they put a digital thermometer into a standardized weather instrument
called a Stephenson shelter. The shelter is supposed to be painted white
or else the data will be in error. Rather than simply being told to paint
it white, the students can do experiments with comparable containers painted
different colors. They will find that a container painted black reads warmer
temperatures than a white one. They also begin to get a sense of ranges
of variability of temperature readings, which in turn helps them be more
accurate in their data collection.
Communication
Both science and education have a strong focus on communication. For
education, communication is focused on the teaching and learning processes.
For science, communication is focused on working with collaborators and
disseminating results through conferences and journals. In a sense, we have
the potential for a three-way enrichment of the cultures in terms of improving
communication skills. Scientists are masters of precision. Teachers are
masters at clarity. And students are masters at spontaneity. Working together,
this is a potent force for more effective communication. For example, scientists
giving papers at conferences might find that engaging the audience in some
data analysis activities and letting the findings emerge in a sort of "guided
discovery" might help improve the audience's understanding and retention
of the findings.
Authentic Science, Authentic Education,
and Authentic Partnerships
The cultural gains are not automatic. Even with the best intentions,
it takes time and energy to understand each other's culture, to learn how
to work together, and to reap the tremendous potential of cross-cultural
enrichment. Sometimes the immediate demands of the collaborative work at
hand—designing experiments, developing protocols, preparing curriculum
materials—blind us to the subtle and not so subtle misperceptions
we have about each other's domain. Yet if we take the time and use our best
skills of communication and empathy to better understand each other, all
participants gain. In each partnership, it helps to recognize and articulate
what I call "the three authentics."
Authentic Science
The science must be real science. It must contribute new knowledge. The
research must be central to the scientists' work, and the student participation
must contribute in a meaningful way to this research. Notice that the students
do not participate in all of the research (although the richer the student
participation, the better the experience for the students). The scientists
typically are leading experts in their field, and we should not expect precollege
students to have the wisdom, knowledge, experience, and insights to do the
full research. Nor should the scientist lower his or her standards to support
student involvement. In other words, the research must be authentic and
fully compliant with the culture, values, and methods of the science community.
Authentic Education
Similarly, the learning experience for the students must build on "best
practice" in education. Students should not simply be "data robots"
for the scientists. Students need to learn key science concepts in the domain
of the research. In addition to working with the scientists, students should
do their own related investigations, so that they participate in effective
inquiry-based learning, developing both content knowledge and skills of
scientific investigation. The fact that they are contributing to the scientists'
research is an exciting and compelling context for their learning, but it
cannot be the only learning. The learning activities need to prepare for
and build on this experience in deep and powerful ways that meet the goals
of the students' education program. The gains for the students must be clear
and authentic, and fully compliant with the culture, values, and methods
of the education community.
Authentic Partnership
And the partnership among the scientists, students and teachers must
be a real partnership. Each partner must have a sincere and personal desire
to participate in the partnership—an enlightened self-interest. Each
must also have a respect for the other's domain and a willingness to learn
more about it. Neither partner can blindly relinquish its own core values.
Each should, however, be prepared for new ideas and a few paradigm shifts,
both in his or her perception of the other's domain and even in one's own
field.
When my wife and I got married, my father gave us some wise advice. He
said "Now you need to pay attention to three things: the wife, the
husband, and the couple. If you do this well, all three will grow"—so
too in student and scientist partnerships. We need to pay attention to authentic
science, authentic education, and authentic partnerships. If we do, then
all three cultures (science, education, and the partnership) will grow.
We'll be feeding several birds with one seed.
