Great Beginnings: How to Engage Students in Life Science
The start of a life science curriculum offers many and varied approaches to capturing
student attention. One highly successful approach has involved a direct challenge to every
citizen. We live in an age of incredible availability to information, though few truly recognize the
awesome challenge that naturally ensues. How much of that information is accurate, or supported
by evidence, or even meant to reflect physical reality? Can our citizens effectively discriminate
between well-supported, weak, or fraudulent claims? Can our young and relatively inexperienced
students be expected to have honed this skill? I believe that the lack of formal training in this
regard is one of the greatest failures of our educational system. I personally can recall no time in
my education when this was deeply addressed. While access to information appears to expand
almost exponentially, little is being done to train our students in the skill of information
discrimination. One might rightly ask, “Who should be responsible for such valuable training?”
Most would agree that it is all of our jobs; parents, leaders, teachers, coaches, and so forth.
Although that is generally accepted, I believe that science teachers share a special relationship
with the interpretation of physical reality. We, representing the work of scientists, are often the
conduits between information (evidence) and societal interpretation of that information. I
propose that this presents an opportunity of immense value to us, and an immediate means of
exciting and engaging our students in science process.
I recommend that the start of a life science curriculum begin with the recognition of this
challenge, what has clearly become a double-edge sword. Remind students that they are
privileged to live in a world with such great access to information. After all, most have probably
been told time and again that knowledge is power, that greater information allows them to make
better decisions, etc, etc. However, it does not necessarily follow that more information provides
a clearer picture of reality. Perhaps challenge them to list a number of claims that are accepted by
people that might very well be false. This exercise can be highly illuminating, both for the
students and the instructor. I would also recommend that the discussion be steered toward claims
regarding physical reality, those that reflect some important aspect of the behavior of our
universe. News items, such as the personal troubles of a celebrity or the result of sporting events,
would probably best be avoided. This powerful discussion can lead to their first assignment, one
which I tell them might well be the single most important assignment of their young careers. In
“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” students are challenged to find three claims of physical
reality. One (the Good) represents a claim that they place great credence in, and would be willing
to wager a great deal on its veracity. One (the Bad) they deem false, though they are unsure. The
last (the Ugly) they completely reject, and would wager whatever they hold most dear on its
falsehood. Most importantly, they must examine their thoughts in assigning these claims to a
given category. In addition, they are to formalize these thoughts by constructing a list of at least
five questions that they posed regarding the claims. This set of questions should also be
applicable to virtually any physical claim (therefore, questions such as “How much did it cost?”
might not apply). In essence, students are creating what Carl Sagan called ‘A Baloney Detection
Kit,’ and what Michael Shermer modeled so effectively in his Scientific American column. I
recommend that a lively class discussion ensue, wherein students cooperate to create one
effective kit for the class to share. It should come as no surprise that the questions in the kit bear
a strong similarity to features of the scientific method.
At this point, options abound as to the order of presentation. Some prefer to engage
students directly in science process by evaluating claims related to advertised products. Two
recommended activities are ‘Bubbleology’, which examines relative cleaning power of dish soap
brands, and ‘Paper Towel Efficiency,’ which evaluates paper towel brands’ ability to absorb
water. These are fine exercises, reinforcing virtually all aspects of science process (including
stats, if desired). However, some prefer to excite students with an exciting, engaging ‘X-Files,’ a
paranormal investigation. This is a highly rewarding exercise that certainly reinforces science
process, but it also exposes the many pitfalls and potential problems facing researchers. Students
typically make a number of mistakes on this lab report, including incomplete or unclear
descriptions of procedures, faulty data analysis, and poor experimental evaluation. However,
allowing the students to correct these problems has proved to be rewarding and to create a lasting
impression.
It is also recommended that this introductory unit be reinforced with fascinating excerpts
from books, video clips, and teacher demonstrations. Many books are available that explore
beliefs in irrational physical claims. I highly recommend Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted
World, Science as a Candle in the Dark,” a best seller with priceless chapters. Recommended
films include a Nova Special called “Secrets of the Psychics,” a tribute to the great work of James
Randi, and “Beyond Science,” a Scientific American Frontiers episode that is simply wonderful.
The latter includes an analysis of healing touch, with a segment describing a 12-year old girl who
designed a study to test these powers and whose work was published in Time magazine. Perhaps
the most powerful ‘hook’ within this introduction to science is a personal demonstration of
psychic powers. The “hooey stick’ has yet to be solved by more than 1,500 students, the
balancing utensils continues to amaze, and the card memory trick puzzles many.
One immediate question from the many educators that now utilize this introductory unit
has been the relative ordering of the activities. I have tried many variations on this theme and
here are some recommended sequences:
1. Psychic Demo – Randi Video - SAF Video – Good, Bad, and Ugly – X-Files (with stats
rationale) – Bubbleology or Paper Towel
2. Good, Bad, and Ugly – Psychic Demo - Randi Video - SAF Video - X-Files (with stats
rationale) – Bubbleology or Paper Towel
3. Bubbleology or Paper Towel - Good, Bad, and Ugly – Psychic Demo - Randi Video - SAF
Video - X-Files (with stats rationale)
4. Psychic Demo - X-Files (with stats rationale) - Randi Video - SAF Video – Good, Bad, and
Ugly - Bubbleology or Paper Towel
5. Randi Video - SAF Video – Good, Bad, and Ugly - Psychic Demo - X-Files (with stats
rationale) - Bubbleology or Paper Towel
Recently, I have followed sequence #1 and found it to be quite effective. It should also be noted
that a discussion of the scientific method often follows this sequence, and is at times incorporated
throughout. One valuable and highly recommended discussion involves the strengths, limits, and
scope of the scientific method. The question of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (or Creationism)
has been incredibly effective in this regard, and the recent Nova special “Judgment Day” (Dover
case) has some fantastic segments. In any case, good luck, and I hope you enjoy this unit as
much as I have over the years. Please feel free to contact me at any time.
Mark Krotec mckrotec@yahoo.com 412-963-1273 home 412-916-2439 cell