A post I published last month considered the past 10 years of math instruction and what the next 10 might look like.

Today, we’re doing the same thing with science.

‘Socialization Is Vital for Students’ Learning Experiences’

Stephen Fleenor, Ph.D., is the co-founder and CEO of Constructed Learning:

I began my teaching career in 2014 in what felt like was the midst of a major wave of change in science instruction. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) had just been released, emphasizing hands-on, student-centered learning, connections across units and science topics, and depth of understanding rather than breadth of content. I had just finished my Ph.D. in developmental neurobiology, and these changes resonated with me deeply.

In my educational training as a laboratory research scientist, I had seen both ends of the pedagogical spectrum: on one end, old-school, text-heavy lectures in which I learned very little and on the other, collaborative projects guided (but not directed) by content-area experts, in which I learned in exactly the way the NGSS envisions.

What I underestimated as a scientist-in-training, and what science educators have increasingly emphasized over the past 10 years, is the importance of peer-to-peer collaborative learning. When I started teaching, quick partner talks were popular as a way to check for understanding and give students some processing time, with instruction very much still teacher-centered. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and we collectively came to two important realizations.

First, socialization is vital for students’ learning experiences. Frequent, structured academic conversations, not just as breaks for processing throughout the lesson but as the essential frame of the lesson in which the real learning occurs.

Second, the explosion of information technology in the past 10 years, most notably with the advent of AI chatbots, has made us rethink the kinds of assignments we give students: less fact-regurgitation, more connection-making; less closed-ended, more open-ended; fewer simple responses, more academic, thoughtful responses. Science educators now understand that when we let students first try to make sense of phenomena in a collaborative setting, then misconceptions, interesting inferences, and novel connections can be expressed, which can further drive the lesson.

Which brings us to the future: 10 years from now, in which we can only imagine that AI technology will be both more sophisticated and more infused into our daily lives. What, then, should science instruction look like?

First, students’ development of inferencing and critical-thinking skills will need to be a primary focus of lessons. Whereas science instruction has previously focused on building a foundation of students’ ability to remember, understand, and apply, teachers will be able to leverage AI tools to support the lower levels of Blooms’ taxonomy so that they can focus students on the higher levels: analyzing, evaluating, and creating. And a large part of these analyzing and evaluating skills will be practiced on determining the validity and making sense of AI outputs.

Second, a greater emphasis on the development of written and spoken scientific communication skills will be necessary. One of the greatest risks of overdependence on AI is the proliferation of meaningless, empty language—fluff, in other words. Clear and precise language has always been important for practicing scientists and engineers, and in a world saturated with AI output, students will need to learn to not just be clear and precise but to also be meaningful in what they say.

AI is a powerful technology, but it will only ever be as powerful as the collective knowledge of human society. In order for us to make scientific and technological progress, we will depend on novel and innovative human ideas and the clear and meaningful expression of those ideas.

Lastly, science instruction should continue to trend away from individualized learning in a vacuum toward community-based learning. From research and the experience of countless teachers with whom I’ve talked, it is abundantly clear that the quality of a student’s educational experience is dramatically enhanced when they are forming collective meaning by contributing to small-group and whole-class discussions.

Instead of assessing by asking, “Who can tell me … ?”, we should move toward lessons in which we say, “Let’s brainstorm ideas and form an understanding together.” After all, this is how scientific and technological innovation happen: Many scientists debate and discuss theories and models and, in the process, refine ideas, find new insights, and ultimately form a consensus. When we do this, we will create a sense of belonging and community for our students, making every student feel seen and as though their voice matters.

Yes, I am very much looking forward to the next 10 years of science instruction.

‘Science Lessons Should Be Engaging’

Lauren Morse is the senior education editor, STEAM, for Scholastic Magazines:

It was September 2012, my first month teaching science. I stood ready to amaze my students with the perfect hook. I grabbed my water-filled bucket and confidently swung it around and around, staying perfectly dry as students gasped. This was what I thought science teachers were supposed to do—show students something exciting and seemingly inexplicable before explaining it.

I experienced these types of lessons as a student and did them as a teacher: blowing up balloons with baking soda and vinegar, shrinking marshmallows in a vacuum, egg drop challenges, owl pellet dissection. Most of us have crossed paths with these classic science activities. These engaging moments felt successful yet typically centered the teacher as the expert dispenser of facts.

Scientific knowledge usually traveled a one-way street, from teacher to student, from expert to nonexpert. Interesting phenomena were woven throughout much of the learning but didn’t drive instruction. Students could get excited about science, but were they truly understanding it, both as a body of knowledge and as a rigorous approach to knowledge-building?

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), released in 2013, shifted the how and why of science instruction. These standards integrate disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts into performance expectations. This meant students should be doing science to learn the content and using the content to learn more about science practices. Going far beyond a hook, students would unpack a rich phenomenon, like what happens to communities when a tsunami strikes, across an entire unit.

These differing approaches have far-reaching consequences. They impact how people perceive and apply science in their daily lives. Years ago, I saw this in stark relief during a training I facilitated with science and general educators. I asked, “What does science mean to you?” Participants responded to the question by crafting a poster or collage using art supplies and magazines. The science educators tended to express joy and wonder; their posters were filled with colorful images and warm language. That was in stark contrast to the posters made by the general education teachers, their work brimming with snippets of dense text, rules, and negative associations.

Ten years from now, my hope is that same question would spark wide-ranging conversations among all participants. Maybe they’d share warm memories of their experience with science in school or connect over groundbreaking scientific discoveries that engaged them as lifelong learners. Or they’d eagerly dive into a discussion about how science and engineering solve problems in their communities. Science lessons should be engaging, filled with awe-inspiring moments, but they also should welcome all students into the process of figuring out the world around them.

After years laying the foundation, science instruction will bring the promise of the NGSS to life in classrooms over the next 10 years. Students will explore fascinating phenomena locally and globally. Science instruction will build on students’ interests and strengths, providing a solid foundation of skills and knowledge to better prepare them for a rapidly changing world.

Phenomena-based teaching will open students’ eyes to what science means for their lives far beyond the classroom walls, whether they pursue a career in science or use it as informed participants in public life. Students’ understanding of how science affects society, both historically and in today’s current events, will deepen and expand. Students will feel empowered to make sense of the world around them.

If their science teacher swings a water-filled bucket around and around, they will take a learning journey that zooms into tiny particles and all the way out to planets orbiting stars—questioning, talking, writing, investigating, drawing, and working through their ideas together. It will be so much more meaningful.

Thanks to Stephen and Lauren for contributing their thoughts.

Responses today answered this question:

How has science instruction changed in the last 10 years, and how should it change in the next 10?

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on X at @Larryferlazzo or on Bluesky at @larryferlazzo.bsky.social

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 13 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here.