The misrepresentation of Science in school: neglecting 3D thinking

High school science curricula have largely sucked the essence and the fun out of science in school by neglecting the 3D nature of science. This allows

-3D spatial thinkers with the best aptitude for science often become disengaged because the essential 3D element of science is not even presented let alone explored

-Meanwhile, people without 3D spatial ability who don't really understand the science but mastered the jargon and the equations often get As (and even go on to become doctors because they "did well in science").

Where's the beef?

Remember this commercial from the 1980s? That's how I felt when I recently opened up an AP Study Guide to Biology. Inside were lots of vocabulary and concepts but hardly any diagrams--in Biology! Apparently you didn't have to know much about the shape of the heart, the brain, etc. to pass the AP Biology exam.

The AP Chemistry Study Guide was at least as puzzling. Chemistry is inherently about the funky traits of atoms, molecules, minerals, etc. which exist, move, and operate in 3D. Chemistry is about crazy reactions, stuff blowing up, heating up, lighting up, bubbling up, eroding away, dissolving, etc. But inside the AP guide was hardly any mention of this. There were also hardly any 3D diagrams of molecules and structures, it was mostly vocabulary and math equations. Chemistry was reduced to an unending array of vocabulary and calculations, similar to an accounting exam.

One could easily see

1. A student memorizing all these equations with absolutely no idea what the reactions would look like in real life. (That student may end up being a doctor.)

2. A student with 3D intelligence completely turned off by this barrage of calculations. He'll go spend his time playing video games and daydreaming. He could have been a great doctor--but he didn't get good grades in chemistry, and the essence of chemistry was never really presented to him.

Bring back the colored pencils

How should science be taught? One thing I am sure of: drawing should be involved. Simple drawing/sketching was a staple right of passage for medical and scientific trainees for centuries. I had a Coastal Geomorphology graduate class in which the project and the exams all involved drawing with colored pencils. And it was challenging--and I learned a lot. It's a totally different skill to draw a correct diagram of the ocean floor than it is to simply memorize a vocabulary list of ocean floor traits. Drawing the ocean floor inherently and fundamentally requires a spatial understanding of where the elements are and how they fit together. You have to navigate the ocean floor in your mind to draw it. The same is true of drawing the heart in biology or a pendulum or a cannon firing in physics. None of this spatial intelligence gets tested if the test is just vocabulary and equations.


At the end of the day, you simply should not be able to get an A in biology without being able to show that you can visualize cells, brains, organs, bone structures, etc. My feeling is that none of these visualization skills even comes up on many biology tests.