What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Teach Science:
Few people question the importance of science education in American schooling. The public readily accepts that it is the key to economic growth through innovation, develops the ability to reason more effectively, and enables us to solve the everyday problems we encounter through knowing how the world works. Good science teaching results in all these benefits and more -- or so we think. But what if all this is simply wrong? What if the benefits we assume science education produces turn out to be an illusion, nothing more than wishful thinking?
In Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should), former high school teacher and historian of science education John L. Rudolph examines the reasons we've long given for teaching science and assesses how they hold up to what we know about what students really learn (or don't learn) in science classrooms and what research tells us about how people actually interact with science in their daily lives. The results will surprise you. Instead of more and more rigorous traditional science education to fill the STEM pipeline, Rudolph challenges us to think outside the box and makes the case for an expansive science education aimed instead at rebuilding trust between science and the public -- something we desperately need in our current era of impending natural challenges and science denial.
In Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should), former high school teacher and historian of science education John L. Rudolph examines the reasons we've long given for teaching science and assesses how they hold up to what we know about what students really learn (or don't learn) in science classrooms and what research tells us about how people actually interact with science in their daily lives. The results will surprise you. Instead of more and more rigorous traditional science education to fill the STEM pipeline, Rudolph challenges us to think outside the box and makes the case for an expansive science education aimed instead at rebuilding trust between science and the public -- something we desperately need in our current era of impending natural challenges and science denial.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published April 19, 2023
4 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 16, 2025
John Rudolph has set forth a clearly written and concise argument for incorporating more material from the history, philosophy, and sociology of science into the U.S. high school science curriculum, even if it must come at the expense of some classics from the 20th century curriculum. In short: leave out some details about the Krebs Cycle and stoichiometry – make room for some historical explorations of scientific discovery and classroom bull sessions about science policy. The gist of Rudolph’s argument is that most students (93%) aren’t cut out to pursue actual STEM careers and the purportedly salutary effects of providing a general science education to these future laypersons don’t hold water on close examination. It would be impractical and inequitable, he argues, to institute a dual-track educational system for science. Thus, he concludes, both the 7% (pre-professional) and the 93% (general population) should receive a science education that is re-oriented towards civic engagement and historical appreciation of science.
Rudolph starts with an historical review of the various promises that have been made on behalf of American science education since the 19th century. A sampler: (1) it will help you appreciate God’s grandeur; (2) it will help you understand humanity’s place in the universe, no God required; (3) it will hone your problem-solving skills; (4) it will make you a better citizen in our democratic society; (5) it will help you get stains out of your laundry; (6) it will help your nation win the Cold War; (7) it will help your nation compete in the post-colonial/globalized economy; (8) and (oh yes) it will land you a secure, high-status STEM job. This is all densely researched and clearly organized. The background chapter, standing alone, is a good enough reason to pick up Rudolph's book, even if you’re not persuaded by his later educational reform arguments.
Unsurprisingly, science education in practice has failed to fully deliver on the promises Rudolph catalogues. Rudolph is strongest in demonstrating why the citizenship rationale for science education has fallen flat. In the 1950s this meant learning to identify and trust experts; since the 1970s it has meant learning just enough scientific vocabulary to snatch policy-making power away from the administrative state. Regardless of framing, a high school science education cannot ever really deliver on its promise to protect us from false experts: to “enable someone to independently assess the validity or relevance of the science they encounter in the public sphere” (p. 62). Rudolph was very persuasive that we can’t educate our way out of our current crisis of misinformation just by teaching teenagers enough facts and problem-solving skills from the sciences.
But Rudolph is too quick to discount the collective economic benefits from training up 7% of our students to have successful STEM careers. We need to develop that 7% and there is no fairer way to identify them than to provide a pre-STEM career professional education to everyone and just see who flourishes. Rudolph is similarly too quick to assume that the other 93% of the students are being ill-served by getting 4 years of science education that won’t directly translate into their careers. Rudolph argues that science classes don’t contribute to these students’ effective thinking because they don’t succeed at conveying the scientific method. True enough, but that goal will always be an unrealistic mirage, at least until students are well advanced in their undergraduate studies. In high school, there is still plenty of cognitive and emotional benefit to be had simply from buckling down and memorizing some objective and internally coherent details about how the world works; from applying one’s math skills to the admittedly contrived problems presented by chemistry and physics.
High school students have lately been feeling demoralized about their humanities classes. Grading seems arbitrary, cheating is rampant with ChatGPT, and classroom discussions feel stifled and stilted. Even for students who have no interest in being doctors or scientists, the objectivity of the STEM learning framework can feel like a refuge and a ladder to economic opportunity. Rudolph discounts such considerations as bearing solely on the “exchange value” of a STEM education and would integrate science instruction more closely to the humanities. Fine. But at the end of the day, the history of science is history, not science. My thought is that we should keep our STEM classes as training for the sciences and introduce Rudolph’s proposed content into the history/social studies classroom.
Rudolph starts with an historical review of the various promises that have been made on behalf of American science education since the 19th century. A sampler: (1) it will help you appreciate God’s grandeur; (2) it will help you understand humanity’s place in the universe, no God required; (3) it will hone your problem-solving skills; (4) it will make you a better citizen in our democratic society; (5) it will help you get stains out of your laundry; (6) it will help your nation win the Cold War; (7) it will help your nation compete in the post-colonial/globalized economy; (8) and (oh yes) it will land you a secure, high-status STEM job. This is all densely researched and clearly organized. The background chapter, standing alone, is a good enough reason to pick up Rudolph's book, even if you’re not persuaded by his later educational reform arguments.
Unsurprisingly, science education in practice has failed to fully deliver on the promises Rudolph catalogues. Rudolph is strongest in demonstrating why the citizenship rationale for science education has fallen flat. In the 1950s this meant learning to identify and trust experts; since the 1970s it has meant learning just enough scientific vocabulary to snatch policy-making power away from the administrative state. Regardless of framing, a high school science education cannot ever really deliver on its promise to protect us from false experts: to “enable someone to independently assess the validity or relevance of the science they encounter in the public sphere” (p. 62). Rudolph was very persuasive that we can’t educate our way out of our current crisis of misinformation just by teaching teenagers enough facts and problem-solving skills from the sciences.
But Rudolph is too quick to discount the collective economic benefits from training up 7% of our students to have successful STEM careers. We need to develop that 7% and there is no fairer way to identify them than to provide a pre-STEM career professional education to everyone and just see who flourishes. Rudolph is similarly too quick to assume that the other 93% of the students are being ill-served by getting 4 years of science education that won’t directly translate into their careers. Rudolph argues that science classes don’t contribute to these students’ effective thinking because they don’t succeed at conveying the scientific method. True enough, but that goal will always be an unrealistic mirage, at least until students are well advanced in their undergraduate studies. In high school, there is still plenty of cognitive and emotional benefit to be had simply from buckling down and memorizing some objective and internally coherent details about how the world works; from applying one’s math skills to the admittedly contrived problems presented by chemistry and physics.
High school students have lately been feeling demoralized about their humanities classes. Grading seems arbitrary, cheating is rampant with ChatGPT, and classroom discussions feel stifled and stilted. Even for students who have no interest in being doctors or scientists, the objectivity of the STEM learning framework can feel like a refuge and a ladder to economic opportunity. Rudolph discounts such considerations as bearing solely on the “exchange value” of a STEM education and would integrate science instruction more closely to the humanities. Fine. But at the end of the day, the history of science is history, not science. My thought is that we should keep our STEM classes as training for the sciences and introduce Rudolph’s proposed content into the history/social studies classroom.
May 21, 2023
Spoiler warning: these are my take away points from the book.
* The book first explores the reasons why we teach science in the historical and present-day context, and invites us to think about why science education is important to our future. We are facing increasingly complex challenges like climate change, global pandemics, autonomous driving technologies, human gene editing etc. Yet, research shows that public understanding of science is severely limited in both depth and breadth.
* People say they teach science for culture, better thinking (developing critical-thinking skills), utility - such as for personal use (getting better jobs), national security, economic growth, and for democracy.
* However, there is a disconnect between what science education “says” it offers and what is actually taught in science courses. Only an estimated 7% high-school students end up working in science fields. The rest are “forgotten” by the current educational system. The author expresses some criticism for increasing policy emphasis on standardized assessments in schools that perpetuates this issue.
* The goal of science education should be to change the science-public relationship “from one of dependence and suspicion, to one of mutual support and collaboration”. This can only be achieved if science education is designed to rebuild public trust. Historically, certain economic and social forces have been working to slowly erode trust in science (e.g. tobacco and oil&gas industries, anti-vac campaigns, creationism).
* To build trust, we need a change in science education. Science courses/curriculum must not only include WHAT (content), but also HOW we know what we know (history and philosophy of science), and about the scientific entreprise in society (how science and society interact and shape each other).
* In practice, students should learn about the scientific method (Dewey, 1910) on “observation, evaluation, experimentation, [and] rational interpretation”, but also the history of scientific thought, about peer review, debate and argumentation, how research funding is done, and ethical concepts such as the nature of research (good and bad), regulation of scientific research, how science is represented/misrepresented in mass and social media.
* Such courses would promote a “greater understanding of the self and others, create social cohesion and highlight what humanity is capable of, both good and bad.”
* Science education should not be static and rigid, but reflective of human and society needs.
* Finally, in order to change science education, we also need to prepare teachers better. Current teachers teach the same way they’ve been trained to teach, so the current teaching practices continue.
I completely agree that all the above sound great in theory, but there is the realization that very few scientists think about the broader impacts of their research. I only got to learn and be aware of the mechanisms of science and scientific entreprise in recent years, which came with more experience and exposure to different roles in academia. Case stories are also field specific. For example, understanding the socio-historical context of the theory of evolution, continental drift, plate tectonics and more recent climate change (covered by historians such as Naomi Oreskes) has different goals and mechanisms compared to global pandemics or military-led science.
My one criticism of the book is that it is focused primarily on high school education in the US, with very little input into pre-school, primary and university education. Moreover, I think it’s necessary to take a more global view of approaches in science education, because the needs and challenges of modern society are everywhere. The internet and social media, pandemics and climate change are global issues. What do other countries do to improve science education and literacy? Some countries do better than the US, others worse; what can be done at the international level?
“Scientists must learn to teach science in the spirit of wisdom and in the light of the history of human thought and human effort.” Nobel Prize-winner I. I. Rabi
* The book first explores the reasons why we teach science in the historical and present-day context, and invites us to think about why science education is important to our future. We are facing increasingly complex challenges like climate change, global pandemics, autonomous driving technologies, human gene editing etc. Yet, research shows that public understanding of science is severely limited in both depth and breadth.
* People say they teach science for culture, better thinking (developing critical-thinking skills), utility - such as for personal use (getting better jobs), national security, economic growth, and for democracy.
* However, there is a disconnect between what science education “says” it offers and what is actually taught in science courses. Only an estimated 7% high-school students end up working in science fields. The rest are “forgotten” by the current educational system. The author expresses some criticism for increasing policy emphasis on standardized assessments in schools that perpetuates this issue.
* The goal of science education should be to change the science-public relationship “from one of dependence and suspicion, to one of mutual support and collaboration”. This can only be achieved if science education is designed to rebuild public trust. Historically, certain economic and social forces have been working to slowly erode trust in science (e.g. tobacco and oil&gas industries, anti-vac campaigns, creationism).
* To build trust, we need a change in science education. Science courses/curriculum must not only include WHAT (content), but also HOW we know what we know (history and philosophy of science), and about the scientific entreprise in society (how science and society interact and shape each other).
* In practice, students should learn about the scientific method (Dewey, 1910) on “observation, evaluation, experimentation, [and] rational interpretation”, but also the history of scientific thought, about peer review, debate and argumentation, how research funding is done, and ethical concepts such as the nature of research (good and bad), regulation of scientific research, how science is represented/misrepresented in mass and social media.
* Such courses would promote a “greater understanding of the self and others, create social cohesion and highlight what humanity is capable of, both good and bad.”
* Science education should not be static and rigid, but reflective of human and society needs.
* Finally, in order to change science education, we also need to prepare teachers better. Current teachers teach the same way they’ve been trained to teach, so the current teaching practices continue.
I completely agree that all the above sound great in theory, but there is the realization that very few scientists think about the broader impacts of their research. I only got to learn and be aware of the mechanisms of science and scientific entreprise in recent years, which came with more experience and exposure to different roles in academia. Case stories are also field specific. For example, understanding the socio-historical context of the theory of evolution, continental drift, plate tectonics and more recent climate change (covered by historians such as Naomi Oreskes) has different goals and mechanisms compared to global pandemics or military-led science.
My one criticism of the book is that it is focused primarily on high school education in the US, with very little input into pre-school, primary and university education. Moreover, I think it’s necessary to take a more global view of approaches in science education, because the needs and challenges of modern society are everywhere. The internet and social media, pandemics and climate change are global issues. What do other countries do to improve science education and literacy? Some countries do better than the US, others worse; what can be done at the international level?
“Scientists must learn to teach science in the spirit of wisdom and in the light of the history of human thought and human effort.” Nobel Prize-winner I. I. Rabi
August 21, 2024
The author is arguing for a sea change in how we approach science education in America. He lays out the history of science education and then examines its goals and whether they are a) appropriate and b) being realized. His main argument is that our current system of focusing solely on scientific facts and “reasoning” is not serving us well. Not only is it not what people need to function well in our society, but students retain so little of these facts that it is basically useless. While this is a rather dismal assessment- I think he is right.
As a long time science teacher, I agree that what students need is to understand how theories have formed over time, what scientists actually do, where research priorities come from and what role citizens have in trusting and holding science accountable. My students will probably never need to diagram a cell or draw a force diagram or solve a chemical equation. But if they understand how germ theory or climate change have come to be and how they have developed over time, they are much more likely both to appreciate the beauty of the scientific enterprise and to trust the CDC but doubt scientific claims proffered by big business or internet-quacks.
As a long time science teacher, I agree that what students need is to understand how theories have formed over time, what scientists actually do, where research priorities come from and what role citizens have in trusting and holding science accountable. My students will probably never need to diagram a cell or draw a force diagram or solve a chemical equation. But if they understand how germ theory or climate change have come to be and how they have developed over time, they are much more likely both to appreciate the beauty of the scientific enterprise and to trust the CDC but doubt scientific claims proffered by big business or internet-quacks.
May 8, 2024
Fantastic and insightful overview of the state of science education in the USA based in research along with some logical approaches to improve it.
Some important quotes:
"We need people to see science as an essential part of our common culture, an extension of ourselves that we can use to meet our needs and solve our problems, collectively and in all our diversity (pg. 167)".
"The primary purpose, though, would be to provide students with larger understandings of the scientific enterprise rather than isolated technical knowledge (pg. 159)".
Some important quotes:
"We need people to see science as an essential part of our common culture, an extension of ourselves that we can use to meet our needs and solve our problems, collectively and in all our diversity (pg. 167)".
"The primary purpose, though, would be to provide students with larger understandings of the scientific enterprise rather than isolated technical knowledge (pg. 159)".
June 4, 2023
Nice overview of the history, rationale, and problems with science education from multiple perspectives. If you're in science education you're probably aware of many of the points (Rudolph even states that this book isn't for you for this reason) but it's a good, succinct reminder.
February 5, 2024
THIS. Basically an argument for my graduate program but at the high school level. Expertly argued and supported, and easy to read.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews