Hi Miranda,

I'm not sure whether the question in the form you asked it is meaningful. What bothers me most is the question of what actually constitutes Science curriculum. Is it the topics/applications such as you describe (nanotechnology) or is it the fundamental concepts on which these are based. Or is it the processes of science? In my teaching in the middle school, I focus on a combination of thinking skills, processes, concept development and what could be termed loosely 'scientific literacy'. Students learn by responding to problems, contexts, issues that are as current as possible. So for example genetic technology is an important issue that they respond to through ethics. Also, if they personally have a burning issue of their own they can use that as the vehicle for learning. What I do as their teacher is help them develop the most important concepts etc from their study. I also teach chemistry in the upper secondary area and in some ways that is more conservative, but still the focus is on contextualisation, which can be as up to date as I can make it, and concept development (eg we examine and compare quantum and string theory, albeit at a superficial level as part of concept development in atomic structure). So, in summary, here at least, I think there is a change in the contexts to be more modern but at the same time, not much change in the concepts because tey do not cange so quickly. That being said, I think that our politicians want us to be more conservative and here they are looking to have more control over exactly what we teach, so i may end up agreeing with you in the end.

United States have an answer...

The year is 1959. Caltech physics professor and Nobel Laureate, Richard P. Feynman delivers a stunning lecture on the possibility of science research from the bottom up. The lecture, cleverly titled, “There is plenty of room at the bottom”, suggests that there are no limits on producing things from the atomic level up. He is quoted as saying, “The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom”

So the real question is: If I teach nanotechnology in my classroom, am I teaching to the national standards? The answer to this question is ...YES!

So how does nanotechnology fit in? Below is a chart comparing various nanotechnology ideas and applications with the National Physical Science Content Standards

Nanotechnology Ideas

1.The idea of “Nano” (being small)

2.Nanomaterials have a high surface area (nanosensors for toxins)

3.Synthesis of nanomaterials and support chemistry (ie. Titanium Dioxide)

4.Shape Memory Alloys and Smart Materials

5.Nanocrystalline Solar Cells

6.Nanocoatings resistive to bacteria and pollution

7.Nanomaterials, such as MR (magneto-resistive) fluids in security, and nanoclothing

8.Richard P. Feynman’s talk, “There is plenty of room at the bottom”. Feynman had a vision.

9.Nanotechnology and Science Ethics

Standards they can address

1.Structure of Atoms

2.Structure and properties of matter, Personal and Community Health

3.Chemical Reactions

4.Motion and Forces, Abilities of technological design, Understanding about science and technology

5.Conservation of Energy and increase in disorder (entropy), Interactions of energy and matter, Natural Resources

6.Personal and Community Health, Population Growth, Environmental Quality, Natural and human-induced hazards

7.Science as a human endeavor, Science and technology in local, national, and global challenges

8.Science as a human endeavor, Historical perspective

9.Nature of scientific knowledge

Because of it’s impact on society, nanotechnology should be rather interesting to most students as it can usually be related to almost any individual. Nanotechnology has also been the subject of numerous articles as well as the subject of fictional literature. So not only can you discuss the interesting topics of nanotechnology you can also teach the age old reading, writing, and arithmetic.

(Teaching Nanotechnology in the High School Curriculum: A Teacher’s Guide)

Thanks, Mark and Eleftherios. My question is simple. It's only in the Explanation part where I express what I think and feel. (I can't say much now, because I'm working with my little tab. But I will get back to you all when I can work on my desktop.) But one thing I must say is that I must not expect everyone to agree. Even good friends don't agree on many issues :)

To answer the simple part of the question - yes and no.

I agree with Thomas Mohr. The "syllabus" is just a guide. You can teach advanced topics and ideas (even "cutting edge" science!). You can also mention and discuss current economics in a classroom. It depends on your methods and the feedback you will receive.

Having taught in the university system and mature age students, and reflecting on my time as a student in high school, the basic skill of being able to research, to be able to think outside the box and to construct arguments/discussions/hypothesis are critical key basic skills. Regardless of the topic, it is in being inspired to find out more, to be curious and to be taught the skills on how to satisfy that curiosity through the search for knowledge is the key to this question. In reality, all i remembered of my primary and high school is the fun times i had making relationships with other students and teachers and being supported on the processes on how to find out more information if i was curious or inspired about a topic. Acknowledgement, mentoring, support and inspiration is what i look for in a teacher. With that context being answered, the content will just follow.

Thanks, I see the points that you make. I'm just concerned that with the leaps in knowledge, and the increase seems to be exponential, we are still providing just the basic in school science.

Yes Thomas, thanks for pointing out that the curriculum was about the same all this while.

It seems that this topic remains discussed in a small circle of few people, but the problem started by Miranda is much wider. I am in physics and I can tell you from my personal experience (although I always liked physics, especially the abstract theoretical part of doing exercises) that almost all physics taught is BORING. If a teacher does not make references to every day life phenomena it is even more so. Students today have an access to practically any information, they spend hours and hours in colourful and shiny computer games but in school they have to push wooden blocks and study the acceleration, which is already known few hundreds of years. Is there a science out there in physics (for example) at all? Why my teacher does not tell me anything about it?

Here we run to a next level of a problem. Advanced science is not taught to teachers at the University. Advanced science is published in scientific papers understandable to specialists only, so teachers do not have sources to inform themselves. Finally, researcher have to publish or perish you know where, and (almost) nobody cares about preparing the information about research results in a form understandable to non-specialists or to adapt it for using it in a classroom. Teachers need special in-service trainings, lab seminars and similar to be enough confident to go with a new topic to the classroom. But researchers do not care for something like that, authorities do not support and finance neither teacher, nor researchers for such work. There are few enthusiasts out there trying to prepare advanced materials for schools, but to be properly done it requires more - an obligation for a scientist to present her work over the high walls of scientific conferences.

Mojca, thanks for your views. I have been getting several viewpoints on this column. I have been hoping that Biology, Chemistry and Physics teachers at school and high school will express their views here. I also liked Physics, and I agree heartily with what you have expressed, BUT I have to understand the views that are contrary. Because each one of us is different :)

(Mojca, I hope you can get into my 'Questions' page, and provide some answers to the other questions that I have asked touching mainly on Physics. Sometimes it's hard to find questions on RG. The 'silos' have very high walls. Thanks.)

Miranda, I am a Chemistry teacher at high school and our current curriculum treads a fine line between new & old. We do examine quantum theory & string theory at a superficial level, but also try to cover those basic chemistry concepts on which new ideas are based. Too much new risks losing basic concepts. Too little new risks boredom. We (think we) manage it reasonably by contextualising our teaching. So we teach eg equilibrium in the context of maintaining a swimming pool, which is quite complex, but students find interesting. Quantum & String theories are taught in the context of 'things we haven't been able to explain yet! ' eg aspects of the P.T., Atomic behaviour, double slit conundrum etc.

Thanks Mark. What you are teaching is a lot more interesting than the teaching in some other places. In my country, it is closer to what Mojca has described. But as you say, we are just the educators; we didn't have a say concerning the syllabus specifications.

Much has been said by the other colleagues, I can only repeat. I believe that very much depends on the teacher. The skeleton of the curriculum is given by the textbook, all the rest should be provided by the teacher. If the teacher is good enough, examples will be taken from the everyday life (i.e. it can be actualized). Sometimes the knowledge of the students is not enough to explain everything in detail, according to the latest achievements, but at least the method, the way of thinking, the approach can be explained. if the student specializes to the given scietific discispline he/she will be able to build upons a good secondary school teaching. At this age, I think the most important is to raise the curiosity of the students and make science attractive to them.

Actually with the adoption of the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) the topics are more interesting and grade level relevant. Many of the concepts are integrated in the total curriculum, so it may seem like less science is being taught. The important factor will be at the elementary level in getting more teachers to change their teaching styles to include science in interesting and unique situations..

I had the same question myself when i saw my daughter's Physics lessons over 30 years on - actually it was a shock to me! The reason could be that in education we have many times resisted change and this has resulted that instead of preparing children for the future or at least the present, we are stuck in the past!

It needs a culture change in teachers who are willing to risk and start including new aspects of science education - new topic areas etc.

Thanks Suzanne. That is what I thought. But quite a few of those who responded on this thread have shared their views with us. I think that some teachers have added or touched on the more current info with which students can more easily relate. But I don't know the percentage of such teachers.

As for students who feel the need to get current knowledge and info, I encourage them to search and compare info on some web sites. Thanks :)

Over the years of working with schools I am coming to the conclusion that schooling as we know it today is a waste of time. When in research we ask students how they learnt things, they never mention school but direct experiences. My conclusion is that we need to forget having students sitting on benches - and to start dedicating more time to giving students throughout their education more and more experiences outside school. This of course would mean longer school days but less homework - and teachers definitely do not like that!! That is why we are stuck with our old fashioned schools. Also our teachers have never really lived a life outside school - and so how can they prepare generations for life - I do not have a solution for this except that we need to have teachers going into teaching after a number of years working in the outside world.

Dear Suzanne, I really hope our students won't come to his conclusion as you have expressed, 'I am coming to the conclusion that schooling as we know it today is a waste of time...'

Let's see what we can do in our particular circumstances.

I have a different opinion Miranda. In India school curriculum and text books are revised every 5 years and they tries to touch very advancement in science but everything cant be included in a school text book. It is upon a teacher, who is directly in contact with students, to deliver suitable quantity of details.

I think school curriculum can have only basic things, it is the teacher who have to update him/herself to update their students.

If a student has good understanding of basic concept, he will take no time to understand advances later.

@Darasingh: congrats! GOOD for you and for INDIA :)

I believe that OLD topics are still of big importance! Human knowledge is a giant building consisting of many-many blocks. Old topics represent blocks that are closer to the foundation while up-to-date knowledge is on the top. And without these bottom blocks the whole building will not survive... So, there is no question to me if we should keep teaching old topics. But the good question you raise is WHY don't we teach students newer topics as well? Perhaps, it requires modernization of the educational system as a whole... Anyway, I am going to teach my kids at home in addition what they will learn in their school - only then they will get good education, I think! :)

Yes, Pavel. It is good to keep the fundamentals. What I am very concerned about is how some students can develop science literacy. One of my students died of dengue fever at 14. It's tragic, it happened around 2009. That incident is always on my mind although I left that school the following year.

Last year, there was an increase of about 10000 cases of dengue as compared to 2012, with corresponding increase in deaths due to this.

Yes, fundamentals are to be there, but as Miranda rightly pointed out new technology/diseases/issues shall be included in the curriculum. I can say that, in India it is changed, I can see these things in the syllabus of my daughter. It is practical and updated, according to me. I am taking about school. No much idea of college level.

You are very right Miranada. In my country the problem is same and i feel that syllabus needs to be revised. All recent health and social issues should be incorporated now.

Oh yes, Miranda!

The answer to your question is very easy:

Older in age Professors do not want to change the glory of their unprecedented contribution to science: They have written all, they have thought all, nothing new (which btw will be taught by a younger professor) exists at all.

So, why to teach something new?

You have to wait until they will retire, then new objects will be taught!

@Ansu, Sahifa, Demetris: thanks. In certain places (countries), it seems to be better, and more forward looking. If nothing is done, our students may not enjoy their schooling as much as they should. When they come to colleges, we are in for a tough time, to motivate them all over!

Being more positive and trying to find new solutions to promoting science literacy, research shows that students tend to rely more on real life experiences than schooling when retrieving knowledge. We should get students to experience science directly. My argument is that rather than sitting down all day at desks in classrooms, students should only be given direct teaching for the basic writing and numeracy skills - and the rest should be based on project work where students pursue interests - but they take responsibility for their learning - for conducting research on internet, talking to experts, consulting books,carrying out investigation and then based on the information and evidence gained - to present their findings to other students and teachers and be ready to be questioned and challenged. This means that students need learning spaces - computer points, laboratories, opportunities to go out of school on specific tasks, sit in groups...tools to prepare presentations and to debate.

Sometimes it does not much different from our present resources - but it needs a complete detachment from our current way of thinking about curriculum....inquiring minds with inquiry mentors and not teachers who dish out information.

But it is difficult to convince teachers, and it is even more difficult to change education systems - the latter to me look impossible unless there is really some great crises!

This seems extreme in view but after over 30 years in the education system, with no specific change achieved, I have arrived to such conclusion...

In my country, curricula are revised regularly and science and mathematics have always been at the forefront of these enhancements. The K-12 program of the government has practically downgraded college science and math subjects to basic education level. The technical working group involved in the K-12 program also gives emphasis to science and mathematics. So, Miranda, I guess our situation seems different, although your country may have done this ahead.

Dear friends, I have a thread on scientific literacy. Please view at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/As_you_see_it_what_is_the_level_of_scientific_literacy_in_your_community_and_or_in_your_country

Yes you are right Miranda, students have been teaching the same syllabus at school level since many years without having any modification. And this leads to not making them perfect for international competition. We seriously need to look at this aspect taking the contemporarty situation of technological advancements and learniong.

Thanks Abdalla. Most of my threads are related to my teaching, or research or interactions on RG :) I have a feeling that there is some inertia to changes, and when changes are made by copying other countries, it may not work so well. In my own sphere of duty, I will do my best for my students.

@Ayesha, my students are very interested in nanotech. They are concerned about their skin care products :) Boys are also keen on nanotech for other reasons.

But the thing that grabbed my attention was dengue. I had a very mild attack of dengue, some years ago. But I had 1 student and 1 neighbor who died of dengue. Sometimes they don't even know they have contracted dengue, but I could guess it accurately and got good treatment; I could continue working because I didn't feel too unwell.

Yes, for last few decades there is no change especially upgrading in the science topics being tought at school

There have been definitely some changes in our school science curricula and it is the upgraded version, but not to the extent that it should have been. It was a thought long back in my mind, that all syllbii should be universally at par, so that anyone can study anywhere and get the same knowledge! I M not sure if its being too ideal ?

@Md Ayaz, Md Bhatti and Jaya: thanks. When school science stays about the same while knowledge grows exponentially, we all who are teaching at college or university have a great challenge; and so do our students.

Dear friends, how can this inertia and reluctance to change be moved? We can continue to do our part for our own students only, because we are in this position of an educator.

The school curricula must has the balance of basic concepts and the recent trends. The teachers have more to do with the later.

Who is responsible of the education program contents, are administrative staffs from universities, ministry advisers or teachers and the scientific council they belong to it. The problem of programs upgrading is crucial into many developing counties as i see (the same in my country too), i do not think this case could happen in serious universities and countries

@Fairouz et al.,

' Who is responsible of the education program contents' ?

The drafting of the syllabus is done by the Education Ministry in my country.