Science Education: 1990 to 2017

In 1990, Shelia Tobias published “They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier.” Billed as “An occasional paper on neglected problems in science education,” the book was published by Research Corporation, a foundation for the advancement of science. I vaguely remember reading the book around 1998 at the beginning of my teaching career; however, after deciding to leave academics, there was no need to think about the topic. Until last year, when I met the author at a national meeting focused on Professional Science Masters programs, and I decided it would be interesting to revisit the book.

Anyone who is preparing students for college should read this book – particularly, if your students are in the typical “college prep” track course work in calculus, physics, chemistry, etc. The book not only attempts to address why able students don’t pursue careers in science but also why students leave the sciences and pursue other studies.

The methodology was unique with seven recent, non–science graduates hired to “seriously audit” first–year chemistry and physics courses. The practices described by the participants are in line with my experiences as an undergraduate science major, with my observations as a Teaching Assistant in graduate school, and as faculty at a state university. As I started my teaching career 20–years ago, making changes to the status quo was not overly encouraged and this was one factor in my decision to leave academics.

So what’s happening today?

Unfortunately, in some areas, not much has changed. Although my impression is akin to someone looking through a single, transparent pane in a broad framework of stained glass, discussions with both my daughters during their first-year chemistry courses indicate the primary focus is still on problem-solving. To be successful, you need to recognize the problem and have the right tools in hand to solve it; asking “why” is less important than asking “how.” Why is it important for citizens to understand science? Why do scientists challenge the status quo? Why is the scientific method important? However, on a positive note, the uber–competitive environments of the past seem less so, and student collaboration is encouraged. (Maybe, over encouraged.) Additionally, the number Department, University, and online resources allow students to learn the topic in ways that better fit their learning style, although making students aware of these resources is difficult.

That college students from 1990 were turned off by the teaching pedagogy was my main take away from the reading. The importance of strong math skills being the second. I don’t believe a revolution occurred during my absence from the University classroom; furthermore, the need for strong mathematical skills is still important and should now include vital digital tools such as spreadsheets and graphical analysis. Reading this book only reminded me of the enormous amount of work still needed to improve science literacy and participation in our country.

First-year Environmental Chemistry After 30 Years

As both of my daughters are now in their first year of college and having a Ph.D. in Chemistry, there is an assumption that you can be a helpful resource with basic chemistry. (For the record, this is not a safe assumption.)

In my efforts to be helpful, I pulled out my first-year Chemistry text. In the spring of 1987 I was completing my second semester of Chemistry, and as I reviewed the old class syllabus, I noticed that Environmental Chemistry was one of the chapters covered. In thinking about the course, I specifically remember Professor John Hubbard making the analogy that the environment was like a buffer. I don’t recall the particular system, but the analogy applies to both the atmosphere and oceans.

The definition of a buffer solution is pretty simple; it’s a solution that resists change in pH upon addition of either an acid or a base. In a broader sesnse, we use the term to describe any system that resists change upon addition of a compound that would alter the equilibrium of a system.

A single section of the chapter discussed the topics of acid rain, photochemical smog, carbon monoxide, and climate. Within this text, a single paragraph summarized the role of carbon dioxide and its role in maintaining surface temperatures. Within this one paragraph, there was the warning “If the calculated effect of doubling of CO2 level on the surface temperature is correct, this means that the earth’s temperature will be 3 degrees C higher within 70 years.” (Chemistry: The Central Science, T. Brown and H.E. LeMay, Jr., 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1985, p. 393.) Current CO2 levels are 405 ppm (parts per million) compared to 330 ppm as referenced in the 1985 text.
( A 23% increase.

I was curious… can I see this prediction in data from my home locale of Salt Lake City, Utah?

I pulled a simple data set from NOAA’s website–annual averages from 1948 through 2016. Here are the data and a simple analysis.

SLC annual temperatues 1948-2016Annual Average Temperature (°F) for Salt Lake City, UT

It’s pretty remarkable. Over the past 69 years, the average annual temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.05 °F/year (0.028 °C/year).

The average (mean) value over this period is 52.4 °F (11.33 °C) with a 95% lower and upper confidence limits of 52.0 °F (11.33 °C) and 52.8 °F (11.54 °C), respectively. The top and bottom traces on the graph show the 95% prediction intervals.

So what does this mean? If we look at temperatures from 2012 through 2016, they all fall inside the 95% prediction intervals. So, no problem! (Right?)

But go back to the initial premise that the atmosphere is a buffer, when will we know that we’ve exceeded the “buffer capacity” for CO2?

buffer example rev00An example of a buffer curve showing the variable
under observation versus percent completion.

And that’s the problem, we don’t know how much of the buffering capacity we’ve consumed, and we probably won’t know where we are on the curve until after we’ve reached a tipping point, and temperatures accelerate beyond the slow, apparently linear trend we observe today.