tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/health-of-australian-science-3040/articlesHealth of Australian Science – The Conversation2012-05-28T04:10:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/72782012-05-28T04:10:27Z2012-05-28T04:10:27ZTeaching the nature of science (and keeping students engaged)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11095/original/9fmnvhxh-1338169616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's knowing science, then knowing how to teach it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">B Rosen</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report-2/">Health of Australian Science</a> report, by the Chief Scientist of Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a>, has again highlighted the issue of declining student engagement in science in primary and secondary schools.</p>
<p>Why are we in this position? One factor is a fundamental misunderstanding, at all levels, of the “nature of science” – no small thing! We’ll get to the nature of science shortly, but first … </p>
<p>Declining student engagement has been a source of angst for scientists and educators for some time, and has resulted in no end of solutions being offered by no end of well-meaning individuals – solutions that include streamlining the entry of practising scientists into schools, <a href="http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=23744">paying science teachers more</a> than those of other subjects and improving pre-service <a href="http://www.iop.org/news/10/sep10/file_44832.pdf">teacher education</a>. </p>
<h2>Teaching teaching</h2>
<p>It’s important to understand at least two things are essential for effective teaching. The first is knowledge of your subject content and processes; the second is general pedagogical knowledge, which is to say an understanding of teaching. </p>
<p>Knowledge of a subject is what you might get out of a degree in a particular discipline; pedagogical knowledge might come from teacher training in the form of postgraduate qualifications or an education degree. </p>
<p>Anyone familiar with <a href="https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_hattie.pdf">the work</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hattie">John Hattie</a> – director of the <a href="http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/research/meri.html">Melbourne Education Research Institute</a> – knows how critical, and quantifiably so, a teacher’s pedagogical knowledge is to student success.</p>
<p>The overlap of subject knowledge and teaching knowledge is where we find what is known as <a href="http://www.leeshulman.net/domains-pedagogical-content-knowledge.html">pedagogical content knowledge</a> (PCK) – knowledge unique to, or at least characteristic of, a particular subject area. </p>
<p>Obviously it’s a different thing to teach chemistry than music, history than biology, and indeed physics than mathematics. PCK is something that begins in teacher training and is developed by experience in the classroom and discussion with colleagues.</p>
<p>Knowing which teaching techniques work well within your field, how students work with subject-specific concepts in terms of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and how to link and develop ideas as you guide students through a course of study, are part of what defines excellence in teaching.</p>
<p>But there’s something missing here – and it’s a biggie. What’s particularly disturbing about current science education at the primary, secondary and tertiary level is the almost complete lack of explicit consideration of what I’ve referred to as the “nature of science”. </p>
<p>Not only are many teachers unaware of the nature of science, they would have little idea how to teach it in detail even if their knowledge was developed.</p>
<p>This is a contentious claim, but it is <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/59177/">supported by research</a> and certainly matches my experience of teaching science in state and private schools over many years.</p>
<h2>Nature of science</h2>
<p>I mean something very specific by the term “nature of science”, as the following points will hopefully illustrate:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>it’s about the philosophical and practical understanding of the processes and reasoning of science, including its nature as a very human endeavour</p></li>
<li><p>it’s knowing what the difference is between <a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578">hypotheses, laws and theories</a> (and how most science textbooks get this wrong) and what the characteristics of a good hypothesis are</p></li>
<li><p>it’s about how the structures and processes of science are the way they are, in large part, to account for our <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/l/list_of_cognitive_biases.htm">cognitive biases</a>, and that unique subjective experience is not foundational in science as it is in other areas of knowledge</p></li>
<li><p>it’s about knowing that there is no one scientific method, but that there are many scientific methodologies and that what makes an idea scientific is the goal of maximum explanatory and predictive power combined with exquisite falsifiability</p></li>
<li><p>it’s understanding that solid scientific ideas have many defined parameters – the more the better - and that this is what separates them from pseudoscience, where goalposts are constantly shifted (ever seen a psychic renege on a promise to read minds because the presence of a sceptic is “disrupting the energy”?)</p></li>
<li><p>it’s being able to explain the difference between <a href="http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml">induction and deduction</a>, to characterise and instantiate the types of inferential reasoning that are acceptable in science and what problems and opportunities this presents in public understanding</p></li>
<li><p>it’s realising that the search for certainty in much of science is <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">a fool’s game</a>, but to ignore levels of confidence makes you a bigger fool.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thinking critically in science means, in large part, to be able to do such things.</p>
<h2>Moving forwards</h2>
<p>All the above and much more can be articulated and taught alongside traditional science content but hardly ever is. The pressure of content-driven standards, in which factual content is pegged out to signpost progress and the learning of which is the key indicator of success, is overwhelming and simply crowds out what are seen as less quantifiable aspects of science.</p>
<p>Even experimental work is all too often prescribed via worksheets that lay out methods to follow and hypotheses for testing that leave little room for serious reflection, imagination or understanding.</p>
<p>Some (many) even contain phrases such as “has the hypothesis been proved?”, which shows a miserable understanding of the nature of experimentation.</p>
<p>So discussion in classrooms about the nature of science is scarce because:</p>
<p>1) the nature of science is not well understood by science teachers or even scientists</p>
<p>2) the clear implication that without content knowledge in the nature of science there can be no pedagogical content knowledge </p>
<p>3) science curricula rarely articulate exactly what skills or knowledge are constituent of an understanding of the nature of science.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/">The Australian Curriculum</a> has developed what it calls General Capabilities (GCs) in <a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Critical-and-creative-thinking/Introduction/Introduction">Critical and Creative Thinking</a>, which are quite well presented but in very general terms. </p>
<p>How they link to what is a very ordinary content-based structure is indicated by an icon – and that’s it. There is no detail given and no guidance for developing PCK outlined, and no sense of how these GCs are to be understood or delivered.</p>
<p>Teachers need assistance to ask and answer pointed questions. How do you teach about the nature of science? What are the techniques, strategies, opportunities, unique mental processes to be aware of and best examples to do this within a curriculum that does not acknowledge its importance, as many do not? </p>
<p>This is a difficult challenge, and an important one, as it is very often these themes that students find engaging and which provide a narrative to their experience of science. It is almost farcical that these are seldom explicitly outlined in programs of work.</p>
<p>Knowledge of the nature of science is as least as important in creating scientifically literate citizens as factual content knowledge – perhaps more so. </p>
<p>Few of us can claim a deep knowledge of all the scientific knowledge relevant, indeed critical, to our lives. But at least through knowing something of the nature of science we can appreciate the epistemic credibility of what comes out of scientific inquiry.</p>
<p>The Health of Australian Science report laments that students are bored with, and do not see the relevance of, science. Conversation revolves around availability of teachers and delivery of standard courses, and curriculum design remains driven by factual content.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the potential to create more engaged, scientifically literate students who themselves might be more inclined to teach and communicate science sits relatively untapped.</p>
<p>We should change that – and soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton consults for the International Baccalaureate Organisation in science course design.</span></em></p>Last week’s Health of Australian Science report, by the Chief Scientist of Australia Ian Chubb, has again highlighted the issue of declining student engagement in science in primary and secondary schools…Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/71862012-05-23T02:40:40Z2012-05-23T02:40:40ZA prescription for healthy science? Chief Scientist’s report points the way<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10941/original/fcy26n8k-1337731541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=57%2C44%2C4071%2C2784&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chief Scientist Ian Chubb's report, released today, presents some serious concerns for the future of Australian science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chief Scientist Ian Chubb’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OCS_Health_of_Australian_Science_LOWRES1.pdf">Health of Australian Science report</a>, launched today at the National Press Club, starts on an optimistic note. Australian science is generally in good health: school students’ performance compares well internationally; university enrolments in science programmes are on the up; and Australian researchers tend to punch above their weight.</p>
<p>However, the report warns against becoming complacent. Senior school participation in science has declined in recent years; overall university science enrolments are up, but have not returned to their position in the late 1980s; and increasing demands are being imposed on available research funding. In particular, some disciplines have been declining for several years, including agriculture, and the so-called “enabling sciences” of chemistry, mathematics and physics.</p>
<h2>Science examination</h2>
<p>The report’s aim is to provide “a comprehensive assessment of the available data in order to develop a profile of the strengths and vulnerabilities of Australia’s current science capability” including within science education in secondary schools and universities and scientific research. </p>
<p>This is a big ask, some might say, but one that is achieved by the report.</p>
<p>The Health of Australian Science report has been built on the work of staff from the Chief Scientist’s office and from other government departments. It also incorporates the results of three pieces of commissioned work.</p>
<p>The first of these considered the attitudes of first year university science students. The second was an examination of senior secondary school staff and student opinion on learning factors that affected students’ choice to study science. Finally, a comprehensive data analysis of university science learning, teaching and course completions in the first decade of the 21st century.</p>
<p>I can claim responsibility for the third: it was an extension of work I first did for the Australian Council of Deans of Science between 1997 and 2007.</p>
<p>It is difficult to quantify the size of the science system, with functional elements being education (schools and universities), research and development (R&D), and the workforce. Educational and R&D outcomes are disseminated to all sectors of the economy.
In terms of R&D outputs, Australia produces 3% of outputs with about 0.3% of the world’s population. Seventy-five science-related policy programmes were supported by government funding for science, research and innovation.</p>
<h2>Problems in schools</h2>
<p>Attention to school science has been driven by concerns about declining proportions of students studying the enabling sciences and advanced mathematics. These concerns are not limited to Australia, and are part of a larger international trend. </p>
<p>The report shows that teachers saw time constraints as the main problem, including preparation, and time to cover the syllabus. Students could be encouraged to involve themselves in science to improve science uptake at school, and science teachers were seen by students as an important source of inspiration. </p>
<p>From some perspectives, enrolment numbers in senior school mathematics and science seem to be holding up, but as the report notes, there are difficulties of comparison in mathematics, for example, because of differences between jurisdictions and changes in mathematics curricula.</p>
<p>The report also mentions the difficulties in recruitment of senior science teachers, particularly their inclusion on the <a href="http://www.deewr.gov.au/employment/lmi/skillshortages/pages/skillshortagelists.aspx">Skills Shortage List</a> and the academic background science teachers have in science disciplines. For example, only about 54% of physics teachers have at least three years of university physics, although two-thirds have at least five years’ experience as physics teachers.</p>
<h2>University blues</h2>
<p>When it comes to university science, the report has more detailed information on enrolments, including in science, health, information technology and engineering. </p>
<p>The report importantly draws the distinction between domestic and international students. An uncertain proportion of international students pay for an Australian university education in order to enhance their chances of gaining permanent residency.</p>
<p>This explains the popularity of accountancy programmes, for example, a profession that is on the Skills Shortage List. However, in other cases, contemporary overseas students behave like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo_Plan">Colombo Plan</a> students of the 1950s and 1960s. Their aim is to acquire qualifications unavailable to them in their home countries, and their goal is to return to countries of origin once the qualification has been gained. </p>
<p>The report notes that commencements in science bachelor’s degrees were steady between 2002 and 2008 (about 17,000 per year), but there was a surge between 2009 and 2010.</p>
<p>Publicly funded research grew during the past decade, but this has been more than matched by increased competition for grants and decreased success rates. This situation is noted by the report as a potential source of vulnerability.</p>
<p>Australia is also doing well in international comparison in terms of research outputs. Australia has a global impact higher than the global average in most fields of research, and the main source of growth has been in internationally collaborative publications. The report also notes the changing patterns of collaboration, with faster growth now occurring with emerging scientific areas in Asia.</p>
<h2>Positive start</h2>
<p>The Health of Australian Science report is the start rather than the end of improving science learning and research in Australia. It identifies the need for further investigation, particularly into the possible impact of the decline in the skills base in agriculture and the enabling science disciplines on Australia’s food security and innovation. </p>
<p>It also points to the need for research into the alignment of student choices with the national interest, the match between Australia’s areas of research excellence and the areas necessary for sustaining its position in global science, and finding the right balance between basic and applied research. </p>
<p>The report’s finding that most fields in the natural and physical sciences demonstrate research performance at or above international standards is a positive one. But this is offset by declining participation in the enabling sciences and the ageing of the scientific research profile.</p>
<p>The report tells us a lot about where Australian science has succeeded and where we need work. But it also shows that complacency is not a viable option.</p>
<p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/health-of-australian-science-time-to-call-in-the-doctors-of-physics-7188">Health of Australian Science: time to call in the doctors (of physics)</a> – Peter Ellerton</li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>My research contributed to chapter 4 of the Health of Australian Science report. </span></em></p>Chief Scientist Ian Chubb’s Health of Australian Science report, launched today at the National Press Club, starts on an optimistic note. Australian science is generally in good health: school students…Ian Dobson, Research Director, Higher Education Governance and Management, University of HelsinkiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/71882012-05-23T02:39:29Z2012-05-23T02:39:29ZHealth of Australian Science: time to call in the doctors (of physics)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10968/original/hfbqxq22-1337740192.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are concerns about the take-up of science subjects by students.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ahd Photography</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Office of the Chief Scientist today releases the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OCS_Health_of_Australian_Science_LOWRES1.pdf">Health of Australian Science report</a> and it’s an intriguing read.</p>
<p>The report was compiled to help the office and the public understand the current state of Australian science. A large team of authors, led by Dr Michael Hughes, has done an admirable job of bringing together information from a variety of sources to form a coherent picture of much that is happening in science nationwide.</p>
<p>Understandably, there’s a considerable emphasis on the situation in our schools and universities.</p>
<p>There is much to digest – the report is over 200 pages long – and I recommend a thorough read as soon as you get the chance. I’ve gone through and picked out some of the salient points here, focusing, in particular, on the report’s findings about science education.</p>
<h2>Research</h2>
<p>The report bears good news about the success of Australian scientists in publishing, in both quantity and quality. Australian scientists produce more than 3% of the world’s scientific publications, despite Australia only making up 0.3% of the world’s population. Australian research also accounted for 4% of overall citations.</p>
<p>Strong international collaborations are maintained with Europe and the US, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/australia-in-the-asian-century">Asia is increasingly a focus</a>. In fields such as mathematics, engineering and chemistry, China is now the nation’s dominant partner.</p>
<h2>Funding and R&D</h2>
<p>In 2008-09 gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) was 2.2% of GDP at A$24.6bn. This puts Australia 14th among <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD countries</a> (see graph below).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10942/original/9nwsvnkc-1337732726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of the Chief Scientist</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of the A$24.6bn of GERD, business contributed 66% of the total, with other contributions from higher education, Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It’s interesting to note that countries recognised for their innovation, such as Sweden and Finland, have three times the R&D personnel in industry and commerce than does Australia.</p>
<p>While research funding through the <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)</a> and <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">Australian Research Council (ARC)</a> doubled between 2002 and 2010, success rates for funding applicants decreased from 32% to 23% for the ARC and remained constant for the NHMRC.</p>
<p>As is noted in the report, this has an effect on postdoctoral and early-career researchers – researchers that are subject to increasingly strong competition for grants.</p>
<h2>‘Basic’ vs ‘applied’ research</h2>
<p>To quote from the report:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Basic research adds to the bank of intellectual capital on which society draws in order to progress and transform. Applied research develops this intellectual capital into new technologies and innovative processes that directly improve the health, productivity and prosperity of Australia.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The proportion of higher education funding allocated to basic research has decreased steadily from 1992-2009. At the same time, funding for applied and experimental research has increased, keeping higher education’s contribution to research funding relatively constant. </p>
<p>While it’s unclear what the optimal ratio of basic to applied and experimental research is, the report’s authors have expressed concern about the future of basic research in Australia if this trend continues.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10943/original/zsfv3zxx-1337732760.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of the Chief Scientist</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Universities</h2>
<p>It’s a matter of concern that some areas of study that may be vital to Australian interests are experiencing diminishing university enrolments. These include agriculture, mathematics, physics and chemistry.</p>
<p>While enrolments in health-related courses increased by 73% from 2002 to 2010, enrolments in agriculture declined by 31%. Only 13% of university teaching of students continuing past first-year courses is in mathematics, with 10% in chemistry and 2.5% in physics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10944/original/jx7q4kwh-1337732774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of the Chief Scientist</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also concerning is the constant attrition rate of undergraduates after their commencement year, with 30-50% of students failing to complete or return to study in science.</p>
<p>The report suggests that the current model of funding areas as a function of student popularity (the most popular course get funded the most; the least popular get the least) may not be the best model to address the nation’s long-term needs.</p>
<p>Sure, international students may help fill shortfalls in enrolments, but there are problems if the sector becomes overly reliant on this solution.</p>
<p>It is noteworthy that there seems to be a peak in the relative numbers of level-E researchers (the highest ranking i.e. professors) associated with the older demographics. This would seem to indicate that a large percentage of these researchers may retire in the near future, without sufficient replacement numbers at lower levels to take leadership roles.</p>
<p>There is also a continuing and significant gender imbalance in senior academic levels. Apart from the clear loss of talent this produces, it also exacerbates the effect of decreasing enrolments in the enabling sciences. Increasing the number of women in these and other positions would go some way to addressing a shortfall in undergraduate intake.</p>
<h2>Secondary Schools</h2>
<p>Secondary science students maintain a high performance on tests of scientific literacy, but literacy rates are in decline. Also in decline are enrolments in the traditional science subjects: biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10945/original/hb5pznxz-1337732788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of the Chief Scientist</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The report has identified a number of potential causes and areas of concern in terms of science enrolments in secondary schools, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>Expanded curriculum choices (more choice, fewer choosing science)</li>
<li>Skewed science-teacher demographics (17% of science teachers are between 51-55 and 36% are over 50)</li>
<li>A pedagogical approach which emphasises content rather than scientific thinking</li>
<li>Less than half of teachers in years 7-10 having relevant science qualifications</li>
</ul>
<p>This last point is particularly disturbing as nearly half of students taking senior science said they first became interested in the subject in junior secondary school. The most common reason given for not taking science was that students either did not like it or found it boring (68%).</p>
<p>There is a significant focus in the report on the need to seriously consider the structure and pedagogical approach to science curricula. The report’s authors identify a “tension” between the attractors of teaching science to produce scientifically literate citizens and satisfying the needs of preparing students for university.</p>
<p>It is more than a little surprising that these aims are not better aligned. It also notes that a content-driven curriculum serves to promote and entrench traditional “chalk and talk” modes of teaching and an overly constrained assessment model.</p>
<p>In summary: we do well in research productivity and in international collaboration, achieving and maintaining an enviable reputation worldwide. There are, however, concerns with regard to student enrolment in science at all levels, even with an expanding education sector.</p>
<p>The need for qualified science teachers, particularly in physics, is severe.</p>
<p>Considering a career change?</p>
<p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-prescription-for-healthy-science-chief-scientists-report-points-the-way-7186">A prescription for healthy science? Chief Scientist’s report points the way</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7188/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Office of the Chief Scientist today releases the Health of Australian Science report and it’s an intriguing read. The report was compiled to help the office and the public understand the current state…Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.