This is not a joke. Today in the faculty room I discovered the secret to science teaching success. There on the front page of The International Educator’s monthly newspaper was an article celebrating a school presentation of a science show called Brainiac Live! In the presentation (which is based on a British television show) a guy who goes by the name Dr. Bunhead (not a joke either) lights his head on fire to inspire students about the wonders of science. So there you have it- being a great science teacher is simple. All you need to do is blow things up, create giant ballons, shoot lightning bolts out of your fingertips, but most importantly- light your head on fire!
I hope you notice a slight hint of sarcasm here. It actually seemed highly ironic that this newspaper which celebrates best practices in education would be highlighting something that I consider worst practice. Don’t get my drift? Read on…
Science shows like these are intended to get students excited about science, right? And there’s no question that they’re exciting- who doesn’t want to watch Dr. Bunhead nearly sear his scalp?? But what exactly are the students getting excited about? As teachers we would hope they’re getting excited about scientific ideas, scientific thinking, in short- excited about learning more science. But that’s not the case- instead students are only focused on the awesome scientific phenomenon in front of them (in this case Bunhead’s flaming head). They’re excited about the explosions, the noise, the surprising result, but not about the scientific explanation that usually comes afterwards.
Using a show like this to inspire your students in science is kind of like coaching your high school basketball team by showing them the NBA slam dunk contest. Are they going to be excited? Sure! Inspired? You bet- they can’t wait to start practice the next day and spend an hour on… dribbling drills. NOT! In fact it could be argued that this approach to coaching or teaching could even be detrimental- because kids will come to expect the flash-boom-bang and never develop an appreciation for the less obvious excitements that take place inside one’s own head (as opposed to in a fiery ball above it).
Example: Last week my 4th grade students were super pumped when they discovered by themselves how to create an electromagnet with a set of materials I gave them without further instruction. The fact that their simple electromagnets were so weak they could only lift up a few metal washers did not dampen their excitement one bit- because it wasn’t the phenomenon they were focused on, but the idea they had come up with. Imagine if instead I had started the lesson with a wow me demonstration of electromagnets- say lifting up a car with a giant electromagnetic crane and letting it come crashing down when I turned it off, and then follow that up with some lecture or reading about electromagnets or even a hands-on activity building a smaller model of the one I demonstrated. What would students remember a week later? Of course they could all recall in detail how Mr. Mitchell totaled a car, but very few of them would remember much of anything about the scientific explanation afterwards, or the version they made that paled in comparison. They’d be stuck on the awesome phenomenon, and the idea behind it would be merely a forgotten afterthought.
For all you literalists out there, I’m not advocating that demonstrations be banished from current teaching practice, I just think we need to be more thoughtful about how we use them and what they will cause students to think about. We need to go beyond “whoa!” and get to “why?”. Going back to my actual 4th grade electromagnets lesson (which I should say was based on the great FOSS unit Electricity and Magnetism), I did actually start out with a demonstration: I showed students a video clip of magician Jean Robert-Houdin’s famous “Light and Heavy Chest trick“. In the trick, Houdin secretly used a hidden electromagnet to attract the small chest to the floor so that a burly audience member couldn’t pick it up, then he turned off the electromagnet so it could be picked up easily by a child. After showing the video I didn’t try to explain the trick (that would get me kicked out of the Alliance!), instead I had students think about it themselves. As a class they were able to figure out that some sort of special magnet must be involved that could turn on and off- viola- electromagnets. I then told them they could use their knowledge about circuits to try and turn a steel rivet into a magnet that could be turned on and off, gave them the materials, and let them have at it. Using a demonstration in this way, as a teaser to introduce a problem/question/challenge, is in my opinion much more effective. (The parallels with narrative are striking- you would never start a story with a resolved climax, so why would you start your lesson with the most interesting part first?)
So go ahead and enjoy Dr. Bunhead’s pyrotechnics, just don’t expect this approach to inspire the next generation of scientists, or expect it to work well in the classroom. Students (and adults) are already amazed by fiery explosions, and a bunch of wow me science demonstrations are going to result in excitement about more fiery explosions, but not kindle much learning. Our real challenge as teachers is to figure out how to get students amazed by their own observations, their own thinking, to spark that fire in their mind- not on their head.
(Short disclaimer: I have not seen Dr. Bunhead’s particular science show, but I have seen others which I believe are very similar. Perhaps while Dr. Bunhead’s head burns down he also engage his large student audience in hands-on inquiry-based activities that inspire scientific thought and discovery… but I doubt it.)
Erm, no – why does everyone assume that everything involved in the public presentation of science is instrumentalist and intended to support or further science learning for children? Bunhead and the things I stage are meant to be public science entertainment, if it informs and inspires too, great. It’s like saying theatres fail when they put on Shakespeare because it doesn’t make most of the children who attend want to be playwrights. Bit tired of teachers assuming its all about them and their agendas
Ian- I agree with you completely that science shows like this should be viewed as entertainment first, but that’s not the common perception or the reality of why these shows are brought into schools. School presentations should be educational first, and too often I think they are justified as educational just because the content is something scientific. The headline of the article I read was “TV Scientist Ignites Passion for Inquiry”, not “TV Scientist Entertains Kids””. Kids have plenty of outlets for entertainment already, in fact to use your own example- we can go to a movie or a play to be entertained, but you wouldn’t show a movie or play in school unless it had educational value.
To be fair to Bunhead and the school with this show, there were other activities beyond the show: Bunhead was apparently involved in some classroom lessons and PD for teachers as well. Students also had the opportunity afterwards to try one of Bunhead’s demonstrations by building there own versions. Taken as a whole then I think there was educational value, but this is definitely not the norm from my own experiences of stand-alone science shows, and I still stand by my original thoughts that a “showy” approach to science teaching is not effective.
I quite like the metaphor of Science Shows being like the NBA but I doubt it’s actually an accurate one. A Slam Dunk contest are the NBA’s top athletes at the top of their game doing amazingly difficult actions. Surely the science equivalent of this is taking your kids to the Large Hadron Collider and saying look what you could do if you practice practice practice.
I agree with Ian, I never try to teach anyone anything, thats the roll of the teachers. If I can give people a positive experience, linked to science and engineering, I’m a happy man.
I also worry about the idea of ‘only letting educational value material’ into schools. Who decides what is and isnt educational? I assume the government and teachers then are the enforcers of the rule. The fact is, everything is educational in one form or another and people who cant see educational value in a variety of materials should probably take a step back and look harder.
Great article, very thought provoking and a very heated topic, as we’ve all found! Completely disagree but kudos for putting your thoughts out there.
Huw- thanks for your thoughts, even if you disagree- I like the back and forth! I checked out your site, and Ian’s too, to try to get an idea where you’re coming from… obviously we have different lenses and I’ll admit I’m stuck in the perspective of a teacher. So I want to clarify that I’m only talking about the value of science shows in school, and using their whiz-bang demonstration method for teaching.
I don’t really get your claim that you never try to teach, since your videos are clearly teaching people about the connections with technology and science- I think your definition of “teach” is too narrow. To me, “teaching” implies anything that is done to enable learning- the trick for teachers is to figure out what teaching methods create the best learning possible. That’s what I meant when I used the tired term “educational value”, not something that necessarily has to come on direct issue from the government (though for some teachers there is a lot of constraint placed on them from this), but something that’s worth student’s time.
Given the limited time and limited resources of schools, these are tough decisions that teachers make every day. Sure everything has educational value, but a good teacher figures out the way to get the most bang for his buck. No matter how cool the demo, if the teaching part is just telling students and hoping it sticks, you’re not gonna get much return on that investment.
[…] Comments « Teachers: Light your head on fire […]