Few people question the importance of science education in American schooling. The public readily accepts that it is the key to economic growth through innovation, develops the ability to reason more effectively, and enables us to solve the everyday problems we encounter through knowing how the world works. Good science teaching results in all these benefits and more -- or so we think. But what if all this is simply wrong? What if the benefits we assume science education produces turn out to be an illusion, nothing more than wishful thinking? In Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should), former high school teacher and historian of science education John L. Rudolph examines the reasons we've long given for teaching science and assesses how they hold up to what we know about what students really learn (or don't learn) in science classrooms and what research tells us about how people actually interact with science in their daily lives. The results will surprise you. Instead of more and more rigorous traditional science education to fill the STEM pipeline, Rudolph challenges us to think outside the box and makes the case for an expansive science education aimed instead at rebuilding trust between science and the public -- something we desperately need in our current era of impending natural challenges and science denial.

Offering a fresh take on inquiry, this book draws on current research and theory in science education, literacy, and educational psychology, as well as the history and philosophy of science, to make its case for transforming the way science is taught. Re-thinking the Way We Teach Science addresses major themes in national reform documents and movements--how to place students at the center of what happens in the classroom; how to shift the focus from giving answers to building arguments; how to move beyond narrow disciplinary boundaries to integrated explorations of ideas and issues that connect directly with students; and most especially, the importance of engaging students in discussions of an interactive and explanatory character. Deeply anchored in the classroom, highly interactive, and relevant across grade levels and subject matter, above all this is a book about choosing to place the authority of reason over that of right answers.

A former Wisconsin high school science teacher makes the case that how and why we teach science matters, especially now that its legitimacy is under attack. Why teach science? The answer to that question will determine how it is taught. Yet despite the enduring belief in this country that science should be taught, there has been no enduring consensus about how or why. This is especially true when it comes to teaching scientific process. Nearly all of the basic knowledge we have about the world is rock solid. The science we teach in high schools in particular—laws of motion, the structure of the atom, cell division, DNA replication, the universal speed limit of light—is accepted as the way nature works. Everyone also agrees that students and the public more generally should understand the methods used to gain this knowledge. But what exactly is the scientific method? Ever since the late 1800s, scientists and science educators have grappled with that question. Through the years, they’ve advanced an assortment of strategies, ranging from “the laboratory method” to the “five-step method” to “science as inquiry” to no method at all. How We Teach Science reveals that each strategy was influenced by the intellectual, cultural, and political circumstances of the time. In some eras, learning about experimentation and scientific inquiry was seen to contribute to an individual’s intellectual and moral improvement, while in others it was viewed as a way to minimize public interference in institutional science. John Rudolph shows that how we think about and teach science will either sustain or thwart future innovation, and ultimately determine how science is perceived and received by the public.

Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should) provides a historical overview of the reasons science has been included as a school subject in the United States and examines them in light of research on how people use science in their daily lives and future occupations. The book argues that all the various reasons can be broken down into two primary purposes: teaching science to prepare future scientific and technical workers and teaching science for general public understanding. Data on educational attainment and career outcomes show that only a small fraction of school students end up in technical occupations. Yet, schools routinely teach science for content mastery with the assumption that this will prepare students for technical careers. This suggests that the primary goal of science education should focus on public understanding instead. However, research from the fields of cognitive psychology, science education, and science communication reveals that the primary general-education goals of teaching science for everyday personal use, better thinking skills, or democratic decision-making (what are sometimes referred to as scientific-literacy skills) are poorly served by the prevailing content-mastery approach. The book suggests that, given the current social challenges society faces, science education should instead focus on building public trust in science. Such an approach would require a radical departure from both the traditional science teaching we have grown accustomed to and the current recommendations being made by policymakers.