I have had homeschooling
friends who argue against a formal study of science at the grammar stage. These
friends believe that children are not developmentally ready to think like
scientists at such a young age. Others say in condescending tones that it is a
very American thing to teach science at the elementary level. There is
too much of a push for kids to learn advanced science in high school, they
argue.
On the contrary, I think that
science is one of the most natural disciplines for children. Think of an infant
exploring his world. We know that much of the information he gathers is through
his sense of taste. So what does he do? He puts everything he can reach to his
mouth, discerning its taste, texture, temperature. Watch. He will pull the
object out, look at it, then taste it again. As soon as possible, the baby will
propel himself toward new objects and continue this process of discovery.
The scientific process is a
careful approach to the unknown. It requires that one look, really look,
and that looking is called Observation. It requires that one continue looking,
with fingers, nose, and questions, and it calls this prodding Gathering Data. Finally,
the scientific process asks for participation: what do you think? It
asks that you become a giddy partner in a game of Imagination. Unlike experts
and books that only publish the findings of elite academians with expensive
tools, the scientific process befriends all who are willing to play its
game. Like Jesus sitting on a hillside and welcoming the twangy tongues of toddlers
when other teachers would have only heard the Pharisees, the scientific process
is equally available to all.
One’s ideas about the data
form his or her Hypothesis, even when that hypothesis is that the noise in
my closet must be coming from yellow-eyed monsters. The difference between
a scared child and a scientist is that the scientist then tests the hypothesis.
Really, though, the child often does the same--he just calls in a bigger
scientist to hold his hand. Together, then, you turn on the lights, open the
closet door, and look into the Dark Unknown to test the monsters and form a
Conclusion. Like Edison testing the filament for the electric light bulb, you
may have to look and look again, lighting closets and lifting bed skirts before
arriving at that blessed Conclusion that…perhaps…just maybe…there are no
monsters. Any more.
A good scientist then goes
back to the drawing board, to observe again, to ask again. If not monsters,
then what makes those curious noises in my closet at night? A good scientist
will not accept that tree branches are scratching the roof of the house unless
you show him. An imaginative one may begin to worry about aliens,
however.
When does this curiosity
fade? Perhaps when information is harder to access; perhaps when the call of
commercial entertainment becomes too loud. Sating curiosity is a process that
requires energy and patience that one must cultivate to maintain. Experts
themselves are tempted to say, “There are no monsters in your closet. Now go
back to bed!” But testing hypotheses, sating curiosity, and slaying monsters
are worthwhile endeavors because it is this curiosity that is the root of
scientific discovery.
Children are natural
scientists. When my oldest children were small, I overheard them talking about
some hand soap that had been spilled on the kitchen counter. Naturally, I hid
behind a counter to record their conversation:
John, six at the time, cried,
“Eeew!”
“What is it, John?”
three-year-old Grace asked.
“There was something on the
counter,” he replied. Observation.
“I thought it was water,” he
said. Hypothesis.
“So I put my finger in it.” Experiment.
“How did it taste?” Grace
asked. Gathering data.
“I don’t know,” John said. Thank
goodness.
“Does it come off?” she
asked. Gathering data.
He wiped it on his pants. “Yes.”
Experiment.
Then they both stuck their
fingers in it. Experiment.
“I think it’s glue,” Grace
said. Hypothesis.
They decided to wash their
hands. John pumped the soap dispenser into his hand and noticed that it looked
and felt the same as the mystery substance. Observation.
“Grace, look! It’s soap!” Conclusion.
They continued washing their
hands and making messes. Being kids.
My conclusion? The scientific
process is profound because it is so natural. Curiosity propels children toward
discovery, and if we as parents and educators offer our shoulders for a better
view, they will be delighted. They will grow.
Science may not rank with
reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic, but it is a key component of a well-trained
mind. Perhaps it is more naturally dubbed, ‘curiosity.’
