Panic in the middle school science classroom?

According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) released last week, New Zealand's 9 to 13-year-olds are declining in science and maths. The assessment focuses on the ability of students to master “factual and procedural” knowledge in science and maths classes. Mirroring similar international studies, such as PISA, the top-performing nations were east Asian countries Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.

New Zealand is well down in the global rankings, trailing our nearest neighbor Australia. Our beginning high school students showed the biggest decline in their knowledge of fundamental scientific and mathematical knowledge – falling 14 points to 499 in science and 11 points to 482 in maths. The midpoint mark in the index is 500.

According to Stuff science columnist Peter Griffin, this is not necessarily a cause for concern. His argument is that the TIMSS assessment is not a valid measure as it measures the ability of students to retain science and mathematical knowledge e.g. facts. He questions that while it is useful to know about the dispersion of light or how to convert percentages to decimals, this lack of retention of declarative and procedural knowledge may not lead to failure.

This is the modern mantra of "why know something you can google?" If I can just google the answer or how to do something, then why waste my time remembering it? That the understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed and applied to the world around us is equally, if not more important and has more utility. That unless you are going to be a rocket scientist why learn about parabolic arcs? This utility view of knowledge is short-sighted. If this global pandemic has taught us anything, a little knowledge about germ theory can go a long way. 

Additionally, as a science educator myself, I find this view of knowledge as utterly frustrating. Students in answering questions, google the answer, and copy and paste the response. There, I have answered the question, sir. Question them about what the answer means, they have no idea. This is because knowledge is needed to critique knowledge. When we google a term, we get thousands, if not millions of hits. Without declarative knowledge to act as a marker for the new information providing some context and a starting point for validity, students can come to erroneous understandings. 

There is also a clear advantage to having prior declarative and procedural knowledge when learning which is outlined in the unified learning model which is based on cognitive load theory. First, learning requires attention which is determined by the working memory. This memory is a cognitive system with a limited capacity that can hold information temporarily. Too much information and we lose attention. Second, that working memory's capacity for allocation is affected by prior knowledge. Finally, that working memory allocation is directed by motivation. Humans don't like to think, we like to be on autopilot which does not require thinking. Too much effort and we get demotivated. 

So this is where those pesky facts and procedures that we remember comes in. Cognitive load can be divided into three forms. Intrinsic cognitive load is the effort associated with a specific topic, extraneous cognitive load refers to the way information or tasks are presented to a student, and germane cognitive load refers to the work put into creating a permanent store of knowledge, or a schema. Through learning the declarative and procedural knowledge which TIMSS assesses, the knowledge moves from the working memory to the long-term memory. This reduces the extraneous cognitive load on the working memory when introduced to new information, we maintain attention, and motivation is enhanced. Learning occurs when we think about new information in regard to our original schema, a more diverse schema increases our germane cognitive load allowing more connections between new information and the original schema,, therefore, a less cognitive effort is required when knowledge is embedded and therefore new information more likely to be assimilated. 

I agree with the author, that the TIMSS study can help identify areas where school curricula may not be hitting the mark. Also, like the author, the information can be used to direct teachers’ access to professional development. As part of this, there has to be a drive to have science and maths specialists in primary and intermediate schools. Too many primary school teachers are uncomfortable in teaching these subjects, in part due to a lack of their own content, pedological, and procedural knowledge. Having specialists to mentor and support primary educators is one way to start alleviating this gap.

I also agree that we need to figure out how we best nurture inquisitive young minds. This requires them to have a solid background of scientific knowledge. We need creative solutions and critical thinking in an uncertain future. Creativity requires a broad knowledge base to implement knowledge in new contexts and see novel connections between different knowledge domains. Critical thinking requires background knowledge to critique new knowledge. Learning those googlable answers allows our students to be scientifically literate and numerate and allows them to engage with science and mathematics in meaningful ways to find creative solutions and lead to their success and our also our society.