“As a historian of science and a former physical science teacher, I was convinced that if students knew something about the history of science, their understanding of science concepts would improve. It seemed to me that bringing in the dramatic context of making a particular discovery or using a scientific principle in a new way could be the difference for students — especially for kids who didn’t consider themselves good at science — by giving them a comfortable, familiar way into the science itself.

“When I examined post-Sputnik-era science instruction, I found that there were many successful history of science-type projects at that time. People today have the impression that those projects weren’t very effective, but that’s not actually true. Despite their positive impact, they were abandoned as part of the overall interest in going back to basics, and science took on an ‘engineering’ style of teaching.

“I wanted to use my expertise to make science come alive again. So I submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation. The plan was to recruit a team of really great science teachers and together develop an interactive instructional program that would introduce students to core concepts in physical science with the real drama — both personal and historical — that surrounded a number of key scientific ideas and advances.

“The teacher-developers were a powerful team and we spent five years creating lessons, scripting video dramas [that were produced by KCET in Los Angeles], and piloting the program in a broad range of California schools. When we compared MindWorks students with control students, it confirmed our view that we were giving kids more to chew on and more to keep in their memory, more deeply. The other big thing we found — I don’t know why I’m surprised — was that the MindWorks teachers were much more excited about their teaching. And they seemed to have conveyed that enthusiasm to their students. Compared with the control students, MindWorks students not only retained more of what they learned, their attitudes about science were more positive.”