Sunday, July 7, 2013

We are all chemists

"In reality, science is of value because it gives the ability to interpret and control the experience already had. It should be introduced, not as so much new subject-matter, but as showing the factors already involved in previous experience and as furnishing tools by which that experience can be more easily and effectively regulated." - John Dewey, 1897, p. 7
I have already read Dewey's "My Pedagogic Creed" before, in my one education course before starting this program. Dewey's name has also come up many times in the course of the several classes we are taking in the MAC program. With that in mind, I found myself pondering, upon revisiting this piece, how unfamiliar his vision of a school is. Despite our continued admiration for his work, it seems little has been done to incorporate his ideas into the day to day reality of school life.

Then again, what would reality look like, if based completely on Dewey's creed? Might there be sewing classes that expand into lessons on mathematics and material science and culture? Could there be a class on cooking that opened a window into chemistry, history, and language? How would school be organized? Who would teach what and to whom? What role would student choice play in the design of their coursework or activities?

I'm sure Dewey attempted to answer such questions in his prolific writing, but so far all I have been able to derive about Dewey is that he espoused a way of thinking about education that many admire, but no one seems to really know how to implement. Certainly principles of experiential learning have worked their way into classrooms - labs, for example, are a crucial element of any science course. But to what extent do these labs fulfill Dewey's vision of "furnishing tools by which [previous] experience can be more easily and effectively regulated"? Have we managed to frame science education within the experiences of the students?

The answer is, in my opinion, not entirely. Efforts certainly are made, to differing degrees by different teachers, to draw connections with students' prior experiences. This is more easily done with some subjects than others. For example, biology comes with a host of obvious connections to the students - they are themselves biological entities, and they have interacted with many living things throughout their lives. But I think we have fallen down on the job a bit with chemistry, the subject which I am to teach. Certainly we do lab experiments, but how relevant are these labs to the lives of students? The high school lab I described in my previous post, about the exploding purple nitrogen triiodide, was only helpful in a very specific context later on - specifically, another chemistry lab. That experience would have had no bearing on my life had I not chosen to remain in the chemistry field.

So how can we make chemistry relevant? There are an almost overwhelming number of ways to answer this. We are all chemists, whether we like it or not. There are chemical reactions going on in our bodies every day, reactions which allow us to remain alive. We depend on the forces between molecules to stand upright, to walk and talk and see and think. We are composed of chemicals, as is everything around us. That chair you're sitting on is made up of chemicals, arranged in such a way that you can sit on the chair without it bending or falling apart. Chemicals aren't just oddly colored liquids in weirdly shaped beakers. Chemicals are everything. If, while teaching students about the structure of the atom, we emphasized that these atoms make up everything, that the table their notebooks are sitting on is mostly empty space, just like the individual atoms that compose it, perhaps they would approach the subject with more interest. Chemistry is scary, and many kids assume they can't do it. In my teaching, I hope to implement the Deweyan idea of science as "the materials and processes which make social life what it is" (p. 7) in order to show kids that they already are chemists, and that they can indeed master this fundamental and exciting discipline.

3 comments:

  1. "The high school lab I described in my previous post ... was only helpful in a very specific context later on - specifically, another chemistry lab." Love this. This really points up the difficulty in any discipline of making the materials relevant outside the discipline. I'm thinking of a chapter from Primo Levi's "The Periodic Table," in which he traces the life of a carbon atom from the rocks in the Earth through a bottle of wine and into his own brain. In fact, I'm sending that chapter to you in a moment...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which just begs the question... why do we teach "disciplines" in this way? Worth thinking about. Thank you for sending me the chapter, I will probably not have time to read it until this weekend but it sounds really interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  3. After I finished reading Dewey's creed, my mind went to the very same things you described at the beginning of your post. I thought to myself, "Wow, his beliefs make so much sense, so why do we hardly ever see any of this in action in America's classrooms?" I think that what you said about his beliefs presenting a way of thinking about education without any tools for implementing them in the classroom is the answer to that question. How often do we feel humbled by the novel ideas of another, only to abandon our attempts to apply them due to lack of information on how to do so?

    On another note, I definitely relate to your struggles in finding ways to make Chemistry relevant to students. I am having a hard time envisioning a math classroom that would embrace Dewey's beliefs. Math is obviously used quite often in daily life, but how can it contribute to community and social growth? I admire how much thought you have already put into this for your subject area.

    ReplyDelete