Professor Carl Wieman on how anybody can do science, if it is

taught correctly
October 22, 2017
|

Prof Carl Wieman

Prof Carl Wieman is the 2001 Nobel Laureate for Physics. He has made
path-breaking discoveries in low- temperature physics, subsequently
proving the presence of Bose-Einstein Condensates (a new form of
matter). He is a Professor of Physics and of the Graduate School of
Education at Stanford University. and served as Associate Director for
Science at The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
between 2010 and 2012. Originally from the wilds of Oregon, USA, he
studied Physics at MIT, followed by a PhD at Stanford University. Being
quite averse to the conventional examination approach of science
education, he has passionately conducted research on improving
undergraduate science education by developing new teaching
techniques and evaluating their effectiveness. In this interview, he
shares his very interesting journey into science, and makes a
compelling case for overhauling the way we currently teach science.
“..anybody can do science. It isn’t easy and you have to work hard, but you
don’t have to be unusual or special to do it.”
Why should people study sciences? How can we encourage the new generation to
choose to study and practise science?

Personally, I feel there are two major attractions:

The first one is that it is a great feeling to understand the world around oneself; that it is
not all mysterious and magical! Studying science helps explain why some things are the
way they are and how systems work, such as the plumbing in your house, or the electricity
powering everyday lives.
Science is all about figuring out answers to problems, and establishing a set of
understandings of the world around us.

The second one is that science has such and enormous impact on society, whether we
like it or not! Advances in science have resulted in the development of technologies which
have completely changed the way we live, for the better.

In order to encourage the younger generation to study science, it is essential to

relate to people’s sense of identity. It is particularly important for people, especially
children, to see someone like them, or from a similar ethnic, or socio-economic
background going into science and becoming successful. Finding such potential role
models is likely to be most effective in inspiring the younger generation to study science.
If wrong role models are chosen, young children might feel discouraged. Especially, for
children from a less privileged background, this can have a negative effect, since they
could be intimidated by people they cannot relate to. There shouldn’t be a sense that,” Oh!
The people who go into science aren’t like me at all.”

What should be done to improve the understanding, excitement and appreciation

for scientific research in society? Do you personally do outreach activities?

We should be able to show why science is of personal value to each individual, and
their experiences. For example, for people to appreciate the wonders of medicine, the
effect is more profound and relatable if they have a sick family member where scientific
research has a clear impact. It helps if everyday items like mobile phones are
deconstructed and portrayed as results of path breaking innovations which have resulted
from scientific research.

The media is a reflection of society. Most teenagers have a negative view of science
subjects, since they associate it with memorising and rote learning in high-school. The
classes make science seem mundane, artificial and completely un-relatable. The media
picks this up and then unfortunately makes it the narrative. For me, it is very important to
focus on how science is taught, and examined, since that strongly affects people’s views
towards the subject. There was a study where the winners of international science fairs
were tracked over the years and it was seen that almost half of them switched out of
science within five to six years. The culprit was the formal education system! In the United
Kingdom and Europe, the exam-focused system to permit students to study science is
flawed. In reality, such single, high-stakes examinations are quite poor predictors of
academic success. Doing well on them only means one can write examinations
well. Science isn’t about being locked in a room and taking an exam! It involves very
different thinking processes.

Especially in western countries, there is the misguided popular belief that scientific
achievements are some individual heroic deeds. Progress in science is almost always
a collaborative, collective activity. Even Nobel Prize winners have only contributed
incrementally to scientific progress. They contributed just the right part and got
attention, but anybody can do science. It isn’t easy and you have to work hard, but
you don’t have to be unusual or special to do it.

What do you work on, and how does it benefit humanity?

For many years, I did two kinds of research-one was blasting atoms with lasers, which won
me the Nobel Prize in 2001. The other is research on teaching and learning science. Which
area has a greater impact on society is a subject of debate. I feel the work on science
education is more important, but not everybody agrees.

The work I did to be awarded the Nobel Prize was devising a way to use the interaction of
light and atoms to cool them down to temperatures far lower than were previously achieved
(a tiny fraction of a degree below absolute zero).
We did this intentionally to try and isolate a new form of matter (Bose-Einstein
Condensates) which had been predicted by Bose and Einstein in 1924/25, but it needed
temperatures much below what were possible at the time. Once we managed to get to
these temperatures, we observed this form of matter, and confirmed that Bose and
Einstein were right. The importance of the finding wasn’t very significant from the physics
perspective. However, the new material had really unusual properties, since it belongs in
the quantum world, but exists on a much larger size scale where it can be seen and
manipulated in a far better fashion. It enabled physicists to visualise and study quantum
physics in a new way. Our work has thus enabled building a bridge between the sub-
microscopic quantum world and the larger size scale we see in the world around us.
Understanding this boundary area assumes a larger importance as we move onto ever-
tinier electronic devices.

The other work, done by another research group I run, looks at effective, evidence-based
science education. We investigate what students are learning or not learning based on
different types of teaching and why. We then try different, alternative teaching
methodologies and measure how much they learn. The part I really focus on is looking at
what unique thinking capabilities do scientists have, which allow them to understand things
differently. I focus in making predictions or decisions better, and how well students are
learning scientific thinking. We do case studies where we try different pedagogical
methodologies and probe their thinking, to see what is more effective. We then deploy
these new methods in the undergraduate classes to see how students respond to these
new methods.

When looking at developing capabilities in scientific thinking, is there an intrinsic

capability or aptitude which further enables them to study science? Could you just
take any person and train him or her to become a physicist? What are the challenges
in keeping students motivated?

This is one of the things our research does look at. We try to study what the inherent versus
developed capabilities are, and their impact. Our research shows that virtually every
capability needed can be developed. There are, obvious extremities at the ends of the
mental abilities spectrum, but generally almost everybody can learn any of the core skills
required.

However, if a person believes he or she lacks the required skills, they will never be
successful. Therefore, a key aspect of teaching is that the instructor must convey to the
learners that they have the potential to learn the subject and show them how they can then
go about it. Giving the right support and incentives at the right time, even only for a little
while can have tremendous long-term benefits.

In your interview to the Nobel Prize foundation, you attribute some of your interest
in science to your school teacher, Mr Ron Tobias. You also go on to say that the
less you liked a teacher, the worse you did. In high school, you enjoyed literature
and writing more than science. How important are good teachers during the
formative years of children?

Ron Tobias was a good teacher I had a long time ago. He was excited about science, and
conveying it to us. That was quite different to the teachers I had encountered before. In
college, I found classwork quite boring but what kept my interest in physics was doing
research in laboratories. In terms of those opportunities, Daniel Kleppner was a mentor to
me during my undergraduate studies. He gave me my first laboratory research experience,
which helped me to see what scientists really do, how they work and allowed me to
contribute towards the research being conducted in the lab. If I didn’t have that practical
insight, I am sure I never would have got into science further.
Were your parents involved in science as well? Does having parents in science
encourage children to pursue it?

No, my parents weren’t into science. My father was a sawyer in a sawmill and I grow up in
the forests of Oregon. However, my parents were very supportive and encouraged us a lot
to get a good education. My sister doesn’t have a PhD, but two of my brothers do. My
youngest brother doesn’t even have a college degree but he made more money than all
of us, because he became a software engineer. If you’re good enough at that, nobody
cares about what degrees you have! Having family members in science is a
tremendous benefit to people who want to take up studying the sciences.

How has your life changed after receiving the Nobel prize? How did it feel? Have
you received more attention for your work, especially with regard to the public?

Yes, being awarded the Nobel Prize has brought more attention onto my work in science
education. In many events, I get introduced as a Nobel Laureate who has started focusing
on education. To this I tell them that I had been working in education for a long time, but
nobody paid any attention to me, until after I got the Nobel Prize!
The Nobel Prize does indeed give a sense of credibility when I try to deliver a talk
on pedagogy, which would otherwise go largely unattended in universities.

Are there people who inspired you and shaped the way you think? And do/did you
have a mentor?

It is really important to have a mentor, and it is a tremendous advantage if you have a

good one. A mentor can act like an individual guide who can understand your
problems, and can give you guidance to help you succeed.

You are now working on improving undergraduate science education. How can we
encourage more girls to take up science, especially physics? Does your work
address this issue?

When an under-represented minority (like women, or those from some ethnic

backgrounds) sees the rest of the peer group, they begin to feel they lack some innate
talent and lose motivation. They also feel they don’t belong, especially if they feel they
aren’t accepted in a community and then they opt out of the course. This starts a vicious
cycle and the effect is seen quite often when a lecturer is not very effective in delivering
content. If some students of the class understand the material, but those from under-
represented minorities do not, then they feel even more out of place.
However, these issues can be fixed. Active learning methods based on greater group
learning seem to be much more effective at making people relate more to each other and
form a tight community. This is much better than a lecture theatre setting. I often give
students my own example. I wasn’t a very good student, in the conventional sense. I didn’t
fare very well in examinations. If I had been in the UK education system, I would have not
done well at all. However, I was very lucky that I was at the right place at the right time
when my exam results didn’t matter that much.

What do you think is the next big breakthrough/idea in science?

With great confidence, I can predict that any prediction that I, or any other old Nobel
Laureate makes will probably be completely foolish and wrong. So I cannot make any real
predictions on what discoveries may change the world and embarrass myself!

More information on Prof Carl Wieman can be found here. His opinion on how to change
teaching methods can be found here and here