Discovering how to learn science

David Porter, is L'Oréal Young Scientist Centre Manager at Royal Institution, explains how to teach science without ‘teaching’ There are many challenges facing science teachers in a school but without wanting to get into the old arguments about over prescriptive curricula or lack of guidance as to what should be delivered I would say one of the greatest obstacles is communicating exactly what science is all about and how a scientific mind thinks differently to your ‘run of the mill’ mind. Anyone who has ever worked in a laboratory, be it commercial, academic or R&D knows that to develop a rigorous methodology, will, apart from a good mind, require various amounts of trial and error, stabs in the dark, being in the right place at the right time and probably some luck. It will also require a firm grasp of the scientific method. To do all this in a 40 min lesson (100 if you are lucky) which also includes a starter, assessment opportunities and evaluation seems impossible. What we do in the L’Oréal Young Scientist Centre at the Royal Institution is to try and give the students a bit more time, our workshops run between two and six hours, to develop their ideas and realise that science is a process of discovery and not just a body of knowledge to be absorbed and regurgitated for exams (or in later life the dinner party/pub quiz /trivia game). Even when you have access to high quality equipment and real life research or experiment it is easy for a workshop to develop into a rigid step by step process. An example of this is Bacterial Evolution (BE), a workshop we do that could easily fall into this trap. BE looks at the emm gene of Streptococcus pyogenes that controls the hyper variable part of the M protein that protrudes from the surface of the bacteria. Students are have to determine if bacteria from four outbreaks are likely to be relatively benign and cause nothing more than a sore throat or have the potential to cause something more serious such as necrotising fasciitis (flesh eating disease). If we just followed the methodology for this workshop, with students who were already proficient in the use of micropipettes, it would probably still take nearly two hours but it would be difficult to justify in terms of real impact on the students. Simply following steps is not a path to personal discovery. What we do instead is twofold; we involve the students in every step from making their own (electrophoresis) gels to activities simulating the action of restriction enzymes, then we ask the students to enter a scenario where they are responsible for what happens next. As pathologists for the day they have to evaluate the results they get, accounting for any inconsistencies with other groups, and report back on what they think should happen next, issuing recommendations to the doctors and health workers who ‘sent the samples in’. I also think that a major reason for the success of our workshops is the enthusiasm of our facilitators, students get a real buzz from talking to people who have experience of ‘real science’ and are always interested in personal stories describing the highs and lows of research. I would urge all professional research scientists to get involved in communicating their work to the public and young people in particular. It is incredibly rewarding when someone you didn’t expect to take an interest suddenly asks you an incisive question that cuts to the heart of your work. Don’t just tell them about your work, but show them or even better let them do it. Most importantly, offer them choice, creativity and an element of discovery so that you can share your enthusiasm with them.