Why did people hate science in school?

[Blandmum]

Follow on from the cross country thread and others.

There are lots of people on mn who hated science in school, I find this hard to understand mt self

But an honest question, and the answer would be useful to me to help stop kids now from hating it.

Why did you hate it in school? It would help if you can be specific in your answers, so if 'It was boring' is the answer if would be useful if you could also tell me why it was boring IYSWIM

Many thanks!

My first "general science" teacher, who became my chemistry teacher when I was older, was a nasty vindictiv old cow who made my very existence unbearable. I gave up chemistry rather than suffer under her. Mind you, I now realise I should have continued under her as she was one of very few teachers who knew me for what I was: a lazy, undisciplined girl who needed a kick up the arse to achieve anything. I would have done well if I had had no choice but to be taught by her.

Anyway, that is an aside. Despite having very scientific parents (2 doctors) I have never had a scientific bent and that, coupled with appalling teachers that should never have been let loose in a classroom (the above described dragon aside) meant I failed my biology and physics O levels. I am just naturally much better at languages and history.

MB, just occurred to me, you are a science teacher aren't you?

Did you hate the subject or was it that you suffered under bad teachers?

I'm asking because I find that lots of kids 'switch off' (especialy girls in years 8-9) and I'd like to get some ideas as to why that is

Yes I am!

Don't worry tho, I also had crap sceice teachers in the past So I wil not take offense at your answer

If you ask kids they just give the 'because it is crap' answer which although interesting isn't helpful! I though I might get some more ideas if I asked adults IYSWIM

I think the biggest impact is the teacher. I 'liked' the subjects that had teachers i liked teaching them.
I liked my biology teacher and so enjoyed that but did not get along in physics and chemistry.

And of course the other reason behind a lesson being 'boring' is if the lesson is going to fast for the pupil. Having a good teacher who can pick up on this and provide a bit extra help (without drawing attention) would help.
I clearly remember lessons where what the teacher was saying would go straight over my head, and so of course that impacts on the following lessons also.

I loved physics and chemistry but biology was dire. All I remember is labelling and colouring in diagrams of animals, plants, etc. I don't rmemeber doing anything practical in the class except amoebas. Most stuff was set for homework e.g. cut a root veg in half, draw and label. Could have been just as easily in class and further research set for outside class.

Chemistry was cool cos we did lots of practical. Physics (in spite of about 6 teachers in five years) was also cool with magnets and meccano etc.

Revising for my third year science exams made me ill - and the same happened in the fourth year. I had just moved from a secondary school to a grammar school and was convinced I would be bottom of the class, especailly in science.

I do not have the sort of brain that retains factual information and found the only way I could 'do' science was to revise things word for word. I could get the general concepts, but was hopeless with the all important details.

I revised like fury, passed the exams, came top of the whole year in biology, near the top in physics and chemistry. Forgot all the facts I had learned parrot fashion with a month.

For me science at that level means knowing lots of facts and learning a new scientific language. I could not remember that sort of info long enough to relax and enjoy the subject.

It was boring - in that it was taught by teachers who were boring and presented it in a very dry manner. We were very rarely allowed to get hands-on, and the lessons were straight from a text book - nothing to allow us to relate what we were learning to the the real world. When I was at school lessons weren't meant to be fun; they were about facts and figures, and I was hopeless with figures.

Since I left school I've seen things like the Faraday lectures which have not only made things fun and interesting, they've made things make sense. If science had been taught like that when I was at school - in an interesting, lively way, showing how it affects everything about our lives, and how relevant a subject it actually is - I might not have found it so boring.

Lessons were very much aimed at boys and those with a scientific bent, and as I was far more comfortable with English than anything scientific it felt alien to me - it wasn't aimed at me, and I couldn't see its relevence to me.

I love science these days, particularly the earth sciences ... shame that a combination of boring lessons and bored teachers meant that it took me so long to realise how interesting it actually is.

it all depended on the poerson teaching it. i love chemistry and biology but hated physics. chemistry and biology was very hands on experiemts and the teachers loved the subjects as well, Mr tyler was great, he used to set alight to the benches, thatsd always one way of getting the kids attention.

So, some themes are emerging

If you want to keep the kids interest you have to

Be intereted in it yorself and be able to pass on the enthusiasm

Do practicals (becoming ever more difficult in these litigious times)

Make it relevant to every day life.....cross curricular links?

help students to access the new language.....so would using key word stratagies help, do you think?

TBH I didn't like the subject. I found the whole thing boring, in much the same way I found Maths and Accountancy boring. Now I know that all these subjects have practical applications in life, but I don't see why I personally have to know about them except the very basics of maths, perhaps.

On the other hand, I quite liked biology, (though there is no need for me to know the lifecycle of an earthworm).

One of my science teachers was boring, and the other was boring, with no discipline, so no one bothered to work in his class. I do think that having an interesting, and enthusiastic teacher can help make a subject more interesting.

And isn't part of it, that you either are scientifically, mathematically minded, or you are English, Languages, History etc. minded?

I have to say I hated physics. I just don't care why an object moves when it is pushed or how fast something accelerates when dropped. The very little information I picked up in physics just has no every day application in my life. Ditto, plant biology. I really don't care about that either although I suppose some knowldllege of that might have made me a better gardener - I doubt it though: my grandmother was an excelletn gardener and left school at 12 with clearly no formalteaching of plant biology.

I am interested in human biology (a bit!) and I do think chemistry hasa certain logic about it that, if it does not appeal to me directly, would have, at least, allowed me to understand it and remember it, but as I said, I am more inclined towards the languages and Arts. I am fascinated by what motivates people and communicating ideas, not really interested in how things work.

I agree that a good teacher would have made all the difference though. I worshipped my history teacher and went on to do history for A level and degree (and it is still my main interest in life) on the strength of the inspiration she (and others) gave me.

om your last point, mb, it was the sheer number of new scientific words and terminology that threw me. I don't know how you'd deal with that except by cutting them down. If the scientific jargon was linked to equivalent everyday phrases - simple cookery, gardening or sports phrases say - that might have helped me.

Zaphod, I think that you can feel as if you're not scientifically minded, but I've come to be interested in sciences later in life, and it's only now that I realise it's not so clear cut. I think the reason I didn't think I was scientifically minded was because I was treated that way at school; if I didn't autmatically "get" it then there was no encouragement to learn it. The fact that the teachers were only enthused by facts and figures didn't help!

snap lonelymum, my history teacher was inspirational. I am still in awe of him. I too went on to do history at degree level, due to his influence. I use what I first leaned in history at school (research and analysis) in my job every day.

I remember being told off (by my dragon chemistry teacher) for drawing a diagram more as a sketch (obviously had just learnt to sketch in little wispy lines in Art and wrongly transferred that technique to my science diagrams!) I mean, is that important in the long run of things? I do hope teachers these days are more encouraging and allow their pupils to feel they can access this new information, rather than cracking down on minor errors in drawing.

WWB, that was true in our school too. Teachers encouraged you to concentrate on what you were good at, rather than what you found a struggle, where the encouragement would have been more useful.

Also, that teacher made me believe I was categorically incapable of holding the test tube in the right part of the flame. I swear she would walk around when we were doing practicals, and as she approaoched me, I would start shaking with nerves and my test tube would slip. She was also telling me I was not holding it in the right place. And my mixtures always congealed into hard masses!

It astonsihed me the other day to hear my ds1 (9) confidently say that the blue part of the flame was hotter than the orange. I wondered a) how he knew that (although dh is scientific and all my children seem to be taking after him rather than me) and b) how he could be so confident with what I still consider rather strange and uncertain knowledge.

As a number dyslexic (actually not true, I CAN do maths, but think I can't IYKWIM)I was frightened by chemistry equations. I enjoyed biology and sometimes liked physics due to good teachers, lots of practicals (V early GCSE syllabus). I have a very retentive memory so did well in sciences at Y9 (recall exams - like someone else I came top of the year in biology!) but found it harder once I had to get concepts in yrs10 and 11.

Dropped chemistry at end of yr9, took physics and biology - despite advice to the contrary. But I already knew my strengths lay in verbal stuff - ended up doing English, History and Econmics at A level and now teach English - and have never regretted dropping chemistry.

My Mum was a physics teacher, BTW - without her help, I think I'd have switched off in physics as the GCSE got more technical.

An interesting thing I've remembered about my Mum's teaching experience which may help you..

She worked for a while in a small girl's independent school. The year she started, only 7 had opted for physics GCSE; by the time she left they were having to timetable 2 sets of about 14 each. She put this down to 2 things - a female role model (previous physics teachers had been elderly blokes) and dynamic, hands-on teaching.

interestingly, her position at the school became uncomfortable, as the gilrs and their parents started looking for her style of teachng elsewhere in the curriculum and it was too much for the mainly oldish, pedestrian teachers there. She was not sacked, but she was made so uncomfortable, she found a job elsewhere - back in state system.

Hope this rambling helps, MB!

We were also not allowed a sense of humour ... I can remember writing in a science essay once that Humphrey Davey had invented the thermos, but hadn't invented it to keep his tea warm, he'd invented it for ... and then went on to illustrate why.

It was a pretty good essay but I was given an F for it purely based on the fact that I had tried to be funny. I hadn't; it was just my style of writing. I was 11 years old, in my first term of doing "proper" science, and I just wrote in the way I had always written. Now, I understand that scientists work with facts and figures, and that in an exam I would probably not have been expected to write that way, but this was my first experience of scientific writing, and in removing any humour at all the teacher stopped any interest I had dead.

I loved biology but was put off from studying it at A-level because of the dissection element. I could not watch / take part in it (still couldn't now) and was made fun of by the teacher because of it. Still got an A at O-level, but at the time, dissection was a compulsory part of the course. Is that still the case? I would have made a fab biologist.

Sorry, I meant to say it was a compulsory part of the course at A-level.

Lonley mum, we do still ask children to draw everything with straight lines, with no shading.....but I would hope we would tell kids in a more polite way!

The reason, in biology, is that for example the cell membtain isn't made up of separate lines, so you don't represent it in that way (IYSWIM) and kids ad=re *astonishigly literal in Y7!.....they would see a deawing like that and take home the message that it was made up of lots of layers.

With the new words, I tend to make them part of the lesson plan, so give the kids a word search or cross word and then challenge them to put two words into a sentence that makes scientific sense

I had a great chemistry teacher who made his subject interesting because he was so enthusiastic about it. And he was one of those entertaining teachers who made stuff jokey (very sarcastic) and set light to things and made things explode. Physics was tedious - rolling things up and down slopes, yawn. Biology was interesting because you could see how it applied to the world.

I liked arts subjects because they were creative and about people. Sciences bored me (apart from above examples) because they seemed to be about rote learning and not creative at all. What I've discovered as an adult is that they are creative - but there was no glimpse of that at school.

Doing and writing up experiments was tedious because often the answer was blindingly obvious so I got bored witless by having to follow the very formulaic structure (I know that's a pun but bear with me). And if you didn't get the 'right' result you had to pretend you had.

I think you need a teacher who is enthusiastic about their subject and has good communication methods. Don't know what you do about school science being so not creative and formulaic but then, I'm not a science teacher. Maybe if they'd talked more about the history of science - the plant hunters, Galileo being persecuted, whatshisface discovering longitude - it would have brought it alive for me (but history was one of my favourite subjects so this might not work for everyone).