So I am in the midst of reading this book, published last year, written by a husband-and-wife team of scientists, named Gorman, title of which is (I do not have book with me here) something to the effect of 'why we believe stuff that will kill us/ refuse to believe stuff which would save our life', etc., and it goes through a litany of stuff like confirmation bias, other heuristic fallacies leading to acceptance (or refusal to accept) various true and false scientific claims, etc., and also goes into a section that probably actually went easy on the lousy state of k-12 science education in American schools, especially with regard to teaching kids critical thinking skills in scientific areas, general stem skills, the scientific method, and various serious data necessary to study science competently and make such study accessible, interesting, and possible (as opposed to sad drill-type exercises, like making 5th graders collect fallen leaves to tell apart tree species, to make hs chem students memorize the periodic table (really, does anyone actually do this?). And I gotta admit that the book is interesting, and the notion that our average science education given to kids who will not be going into any stem field, is poor, and contributes needlessly to 1) people thinking science is too hard to seriously study, leading to 2) refusal to seriously engage in scientific claims encountered in the world, but rather defaulting to 3) bad, but easy to grasp claims, many of which will have very negative consequences on those who end up believing them. So...
My question(s) here, posited especially to our stem colleagues (though all are eagerly invited to answer) are 1) what should proper scientific background education for high schoolers in general (not necessarily kids in advanced AP-style tracks who have serious plans to major in some stem field) consist of, and how should it be conducted and 2) (and probably most importantly for the purposes of these fora) what should the average undergrad who is not now AND is not going to transition into being any sort of stem major, properly be exposed to, and required to study, in terms of general stem preparation in the interest of fostering scientific literacy, in adulthood, and, of course, how much (if any)) of this could properly be given to high school students, including those who are not going to be going to college, as well?
I confess that I found this book following amazon 'those who bought this book also bought....' suggestion threads, and that these issues are increasingly interesting to me. I have long, as a humanities scholar/ teacher-cum-professional librarian, taught critical thinking and reading, and research skills, but these efforts have never really included any scientific components, and, in reading this particular book, some of the case studies given require serious intelligence and some real scientific literacy just to have a hope of grasping the real scientific conclusions (as opposed to defaulting to the much much easier answers given by the Jenny McCarthys of the world, and I have a PhD in a hard humanities field (and did take several hard stem distribution req classes at dear alma mater, too, after having won the 'Bausch and Lomb' Science Award in high school.). I can but imagine what, ahem, many Americans, clearly undereducated in basic stem literacy, must have to be confronting in these areas...
I will mention two subjects in response to (1) as important for a basic understanding of science and for ability to function effectively in the modern world:
- Biological evolution in terms of natural selection -- here's why those pathogens keep getting resistant to antibiotics, and here's why you should get vaccinated.
- Basic concepts of descriptive and inferential statistics -- how to distinguish between "this is the completely specious belief that makes me feel good" and "this is the belief that is reasonabiy supported by evidence."
The most straightforward fixes involve being embedded in a community that values scientific thinking with sufficient adults demonstrating scientific thinking as normal daily life.
Formal classes are much less useful than a steady diet of the good science television in the home, room to explore with adult support, and getting to participate in ongoing deliberate discussions of why. I would sign up more people for maker spaces and similar ongoing direct experiences over additional well-meaning direct formal classroom experiences about scientific thinking.
Teaching the science for teachers course intended for aspiring k-8 teachers in college was often difficult because the students really didn't want to do the explorations that teach scientific thinking and then talk about pedagogy, but instead wanted to sit quietly to listen to a lecture on science facts they could then repeat later.
Even showing the state requirements/guidelines/expectations for elementary science was not enough to overcome years of lived experience of what science class is 'supposed' to be.
The problems I see even among educated adults are related to the mental split between what people can do on a formal test like they took in the classroom and what translates to something they really know.
It's the like the family members in my life who can give chapter and verse on germ theory, but will still visit each other without masks because 'it's dear daughter who is only one person' instead of 'dear daughter because part of her job is probably the most exposed person in the social circle'.
I would add that one of the biggest problems I see now is the anti-scientific bias in society, including the media, where any scientifically-established knowledge which some may find "offensive" is completely supressed.
For instance, if you're trying (in some sort of science education class) to examine whether or not some problem is disproportionately present in certain populations, (and you can pick your favourite left or right issue on this), it will be totally pointless if every message students are given by media, activists, and everyone they consider to be somehow "authoritative" presents the results as a forgone conclusion, one way or the other, with no room for discussion. (And it's even possible that that "authoritative" voice actually comes from another course they are taking, from an academic who has abandoned any attempt to practice, or even value, objectivity.)
When we teach critical thinking courses in my field, we pretty much all include elementary statistical reasoning and basic scientific literacy. Shrug.
For (2), I think every undergrad should read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, plus some selections from Popper on method in the sciences. They'd all be much better off for it, and besides, Kuhn's a joy to read even if you're not all that into the STEMmy subjects.
I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.
To build on what marshwiggle said. The issue as I see it is that science is both a process and a set of resulting facts. Current K-12 education focuses almost exclusively on the facts aspects, with the exception of the dreaded science fair week. There are several reasons for this, but one of them is the lack of science training by teachers. It's much easier for a teacher to hand out a worksheet to memorize stupid saying like "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" than to devise a really good investigative activity to learn what this really means. This aspects kills all enthusiasm for science.
Another issue is that teaching science as a process requires more resources. You need time, and equipment, and a smart teacher who can help students through the frustration of determining how to answer a question. It's critical thinking at it's best, but as we all know, critical thinking is haaard.
One of my best HS science teachers had a lab he was famous for. Weigh your car, using a bath scale, a stopwatch, and a measuring tape. No other instructions. You got together in teams and had to figure it out using what we had learned in physics. For many it was frustrating, because they weren't just being told what to do. Many of us came up with bad ideas that would not work. My teacher knew how to let you know that and to try again- something many students today also can't handle. Science is a lot of trial and failure.
So what would I like to see- more tinkering and experimentation by students. This requires the time, space, equipment, and oversight than schools are currently willing to give.
I echo the nomination of several here for basic statistics, but not the "cookbook" way it is too often taught at the beginning level, which doesn't lead to conceptual understanding. In fact, I don't think it's particularly important that they get the computations at all and that level, just the concepts. I'm thinking of something like a "consumer statistics" course for HS students that would focus more on how to interpret statistics and understand probability.
Beyond that, I think it's important for people to understand the scientific process, not as the idealized "scientific method" we sometimes teach but in the messy way it actually works--people see contradictory conclusions in science reporting all the time (especially areas they care about like nutrition-- eat more of X. No don't, it turns out it's bad for you! No, it's actually good!), and because they don't understand how science actually works, they tend to conclude that either people are lying to them, or don't know what they're doing. They need to understand how to evaluate evidence, the cumulative nature of science, how things self-correct with more evidence, as well as the limitations to that and what scientists are trying to do about it (reproducibility revolution). To understand that, I do think you need the elementary statistics and probability first though, so that's step 1.
People for whom new information is threatening (because it implies they don't have a total lock on understanding the world) don't want to engage with something slippery like experimental data that might not only change, but be analyzed in different ways or admit of various interpretations.
They are drawn to false authorities because those individuals don a prophetic mantle (one that honest, actual scientists OR theologians know better than to take on as if by right), and assuage their followers' anxieties by overgeneralized, fascized bundles of ideas, presented as "a system you CAN understand!" (subtext: I will re-enforce your low self-image while giving you a glittering bauble of self-assurance--that will net more attacks and more occasions for outrage--in its place)
Then their "TrueBelievers" (we need to re-read Hoffer: see: https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/09/04/summary-of-eric-hoffers-the-true-believer/) scurry about, studying and proclaiming the webbed mess of half-truths to each other in a further, extended form of anxiety-assuagement.
Traffic calming by loud, echo-chamber glossolalia.
M.
Quote from: polly_mer on July 30, 2020, 07:15:23 AM
I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.
I dunno, I think Kuhn's pretty fun for a general audience, and a good entry point for students who aren't going to think about this stuff any further once they leave the classroom. But sure, you could do some fun, more contemporary stuff with Longino, Cartwright, and Hacking. Or with some of Gould's popular science essays.
We could probably all do with reading Elisabeth Lloyd's excellent article "Pre-theoretical Assumption in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality," too. The cases she dismantles are hilarious and shockingly bad science, and make for fun teaching material on scientific method and statistical reasoning.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 30, 2020, 09:28:50 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on July 30, 2020, 07:15:23 AM
I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.
I dunno, I think Kuhn's pretty fun for a general audience, and a good entry point for students who aren't going to think about this stuff any further once they leave the classroom. But sure, you could do some fun, more contemporary stuff with Longino, Cartwright, and Hacking. Or with some of Gould's popular science essays.
We could probably all do with reading Elisabeth Lloyd's excellent article "Pre-theoretical Assumption in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality," too. The cases she dismantles are hilarious and shockingly bad science, and make for fun teaching material on scientific method and statistical reasoning.
Kuhn was required reading in my first semester of grad school in
history.
Quote from: apl68 on July 30, 2020, 09:45:08 AM
Kuhn was required reading in my first semester of grad school in history.
That's pretty interesting. TSSR was a largeish intro course at my undergrad institution.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 30, 2020, 09:28:50 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on July 30, 2020, 07:15:23 AM
I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.
I dunno, I think Kuhn's pretty fun for a general audience, and a good entry point for students who aren't going to think about this stuff any further once they leave the classroom. But sure, you could do some fun, more contemporary stuff with Longino, Cartwright, and Hacking. Or with some of Gould's popular science essays.
We could probably all do with reading Elisabeth Lloyd's excellent article "Pre-theoretical Assumption in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality," too. The cases she dismantles are hilarious and shockingly bad science, and make for fun teaching material on scientific method and statistical reasoning.
Who are we assigning the reading? College is far too late as an introduction. I'm picturing middle schoolers who are still at a point where they could decide to become scientists or at least explore the possibility.
One of the biggest mistakes in thinking about curriculum is keeping the interesting parts of science until college instead of being a normal part of elementary and middle school.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 30, 2020, 07:11:59 AM
When we teach critical thinking courses in my field, we pretty much all include elementary statistical reasoning and basic scientific literacy. Shrug.
[. . . ]
Does the "we teach . . . courses" refer to college students? I think only ~ 35% of the U.S. population gets a bachelor's degree. My guess is that if associate's degree-holders are included, we're still at less than 50% of the population.
And a disturbingly large portion of the college students I encounter actually don't have a good understanding of basic scientific principles or the scientific process.
Quote from: polly_mer on July 30, 2020, 03:48:29 PM
Who are we assigning the reading? College is far too late as an introduction. I'm picturing middle schoolers who are still at a point where they could decide to become scientists or at least explore the possibility.
One of the biggest mistakes in thinking about curriculum is keeping the interesting parts of science until college instead of being a normal part of elementary and middle school.
I was just answering this part of the prompt:
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 29, 2020, 10:19:37 PM
2) (and probably most importantly for the purposes of these fora) what should the average undergrad who is not now AND is not going to transition into being any sort of stem major, properly be exposed to, and required to study, in terms of general stem preparation in the interest of fostering scientific literacy, in adulthood,
Quote from: spork on July 30, 2020, 04:08:25 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 30, 2020, 07:11:59 AM
When we teach critical thinking courses in my field, we pretty much all include elementary statistical reasoning and basic scientific literacy. Shrug.
[. . . ]
Does the "we teach . . . courses" refer to college students? I think only ~ 35% of the U.S. population gets a bachelor's degree. My guess is that if associate's degree-holders are included, we're still at less than 50% of the population.
And a disturbingly large portion of the college students I encounter actually don't have a good understanding of basic scientific principles or the scientific process.
I was referring to university courses, yes. That's pretty standard content for a 'critical thinking' course run out of a philosophy department. Whether they retain anything--or pass through our classes to begin with--is another matter entirely.
Thanks all for answering. Additional thoughts and questions include:
1) I am gratified to hear several of ye mention statistics-- I had forgotten to bring this up myself. Do any American hss regularly require any stats courses, or place a significant stats component in another math class? I took the honors math track (public hs class of '85), and it was pretty standard what was done in hss then-- Algebra I in the 8th grade, then algebra II, geometry, trig ('pre-calculus'), and then AP calc. Nary a mention of stats of any kind anywhere, including in any science class. I know that dear alma mater had stats classes, indeed each natural science dept and social sci dept more or less taught their own stats classes required for their own majors, and of course the math dept had a general stats class that I suppose could have been taken by non-majors, I guess (though I would not have the foggiest notion of what the prereqs would have been). But the science distribution classes I took had no stats components ('Intro to Astrophysics', which actually was the course that was the first in line for those who would be majoring in astronomy, though most of the students were people like me, and 'Evolution and Natural History', which IIRC was heavy into the latter and not so heavy on the former, and had no math whatsoever (I did get an A, which I probably would not have had there been such a component, though I did get a B+ or A- in the astrophysics class, but there was no calc used in it, IIRC, just regular math). So how do we get these stats into the average undergrad's background, if they are not going to be taught in hs? There is no question that, in this book that I am reading, when the authors demonstrate their points about scientific illiteracy, and how not to try to explain things to the average bloke, they start to use statisitical arguments and my eyes just start glazing over (and another point they make is that people who are making bad, and even overtly bogus, scientific assertions often use bad statistics. I know and teach the 'fallacy of illegitimate use of statistics' in general study skills and critical thinking class, but have to do so with minimal actual statistical examples, not only because of my background, but because I know my students' backgrounds as well.
2) Would you all be amenable to the development of something like a 'scientific literacy 101' class, as a requirement, perhaps team-taught not only by natural science professors, but even by librarians, philosophers, and historians? what would be the plusses and minuses of such a class, and what should it entail? And if no such class is going to be offered at one's institution, what could people like me, who teach crit thinking classes in non-scientific-based areas, be legitimately able to incorporate in such classes, in the way of adding a basic scientific literacy component into them?
3) I am afraid I gotta disagree with the idea that hard books like Kuhn, and similarly difficult scientific literacy content could and should be added into middle school curricula, or even say 9th/ 10th grade. There are two reasons for this 1) most kids that age are not intellectually developed/ mature enough to proft from such instruction, and giving it to them anyhow runs the risk of actually encouraging and strengthening the 'I hate science/ it's too hard' mindset, which in virtually any subject area becomes very very hard to overcome thereafter, once the student has actually developed the requisite intellectual maturity, and 2) like it or not, kids in these earlier years are very good at memorization, and should be given real opportunities to memorize the needed basic scientific facts they will have to have to undergird any potential serious scientific studies later. As a language teacher, I know that you have to learn, well, grammar and vocab, in any language you want to learn. This is especially important in the cases of ancient, non-spoken languages-- you gotta know the grammar, or you will just be guessing. I see little reason to suspect that science learning works fundamentally differently here.
Nephew's high school offered two statistics courses. One was aimed at students not planning to attend college, focused on probability and descriptive statistics, and was taken by 5-10% of students. The other was an AP course, taken by a handful of students who were also taking geometry or pre-calculus. My brother's children do not have option of taking statistics in high school.
For the record, I mentioned Kuhn et al. in relation to university courses, not tenth grade or lower.
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 07:35:03 PM
[. . .]
As a language teacher, I know that you have to learn, well, grammar and vocab, in any language you want to learn. This is especially important in the cases of ancient, non-spoken languages-- you gotta know the grammar, or you will just be guessing. I see little reason to suspect that science learning works fundamentally differently here.
In the USA, the approach to educating people in languages other than English and in science is very similar, in my opinion. It ought to start in third grade, with people who know how to teach these subjects (read up on how little former education majors know about how people learn, for example, to read), and continue through college. Instead we have post-secondary curricula that require a single semester of math (where options often include something like "math concepts"), a single semester of whichever science course sounds easiest, and one or two semesters of a foreign language. It's check the box and move on, with the outcome being a lack of literacy in all three areas. Meanwhile I regularly encounter international undergrads who are trilingual and whose high school educations are for the most part equivalent to three years of college in the USA.
You cannot wait until college to teach scientific literacy.
Teaching basic science facts doesn't teach scientific thinking or literacy.
The systematic problem-solving parts of scientific thinking are much more important than any body of facts, particularly for those who will not become professional scientists. Kindergartners can design the systematic explorations with minimal guidance. Science isn't hard if you start early enough on the what-if exploration instead of disconnected random facts.
Basic statistical ideas require very little math because you can talk about consistency in results of someone else's analysis and goodness of assumptions.
Real statistics require calculus. One ideas I'd like to see get more traction is calculus is basic math. Calculus is the language of physics and other scientific knowledge. You can't understand many topics with differential equations, the fourth semester of calculus.
My daughter goes to a private school, but what I see in her science curriculum is mixture of old school fact based worksheets, maker space stuff, and investigative questions, such look for and describe different types of clouds or rocks or whatever.
List differences and similarities, hypothesize as to what leads to similarities and differences, then do research as to what experts say. This is elementary education.
MS and HS introduces traditional lab science.
Seeing basic stats earlier and at every level would be very helpful. Our graduating science majors don't know crud about stats. Also agree about calculus. Relatively easy graphing and basic spreadsheet stuff in EXCEL can help students solve differential equations at a fundamental and closer to conceptual level.
Quote from: spork on July 31, 2020, 03:59:20 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 07:35:03 PM
[. . .]
As a language teacher, I know that you have to learn, well, grammar and vocab, in any language you want to learn. This is especially important in the cases of ancient, non-spoken languages-- you gotta know the grammar, or you will just be guessing. I see little reason to suspect that science learning works fundamentally differently here.
In the USA, the approach to educating people in languages other than English and in science is very similar, in my opinion. It ought to start in third grade, with people who know how to teach these subjects (read up on how little former education majors know about how people learn, for example, to read), and continue through college. Instead we have post-secondary curricula that require a single semester of math (where options often include something like "math concepts"), a single semester of whichever science course sounds easiest, and one or two semesters of a foreign language. It's check the box and move on, with the outcome being a lack of literacy in all three areas. Meanwhile I regularly encounter international undergrads who are trilingual and whose high school educations are for the most part equivalent to three years of college in the USA.
This is because rampant collapse of family structures in the U.S. has resulted in a horrifying percentage of American students having essentially zero support at home for their education. The children come to school not even knowing what books and numbers are, how to sit still and listen, or how to have a conversation that doesn't consist of shouting and arguing. Most public schools have to deal with a significant percentage of these students who start out desperately far behind and with no foundation of learning to build on. It's small wonder we spend 13 years trying just to teach the three Rs. Not all American students are in such dire straights, of course, but the presence of so many classmates who are has the effect of lowering standards all around. It creates a tyranny of low expectations for American youth, in educational achievement and in much else.
Quote from: polly_mer on July 31, 2020, 06:06:22 AM
You cannot wait until college to teach scientific literacy.
Teaching basic science facts doesn't teach scientific thinking or literacy.
The systematic problem-solving parts of scientific thinking are much more important than any body of facts, particularly for those who will not become professional scientists. Kindergartners can design the systematic explorations with minimal guidance. Science isn't hard if you start early enough on the what-if exploration instead of disconnected random facts.
Basic statistical ideas require very little math because you can talk about consistency in results of someone else's analysis and goodness of assumptions.
Real statistics require calculus. One ideas I'd like to see get more traction is calculus is basic math. Calculus is the language of physics and other scientific knowledge. You can't understand many topics with differential equations, the fourth semester of calculus.
I can see some of what your talking about as I look back on the science education I received in school. I've mentioned on another thread that we were fortunate to have science teachers who cared about their subjects and could stimulate interest. But we didn't have any science at all until seventh grade. Our classes also consisted mostly of learning scientific facts, and not so much observation and the scientific method. The interest it stimulated had the potential to encourage students to become informed laypeople, but gave limited preparation for actually going into science.
Nor was our math instruction all that good. Math classes were mostly taught by coaches and such who'd been through a brief math teacher course. I only recall one math teacher who ever showed much personal enthusiasm for the subject. It was just something you had to get through as an arbitrary requirement. The most advanced math our school offered was trig. I could have taken calculus in college. But it wasn't required, and I wasn't on a natural sciences track, and so I didn't take it. I regret that now.
While we're on the topic, another annoyance is focusing on a number with no awareness of how the number was generated. Often the mathematical operations to get the number is much less useful than the assumptions that went into the calculation.
For example, if you only surveyed people who answered the phone on a Tuesday afternoon, then the questions include:
* How did you select the phone numbers? Cell phones aren't always in the relevant local database. Unlisted numbers are excluded. The not-answered calls need to be accounted for to ensure a big enough sample.
* Is there any reason to believe that the people who can answer the phone on a Tuesday afternoon and are willing to complete a ten-minute survey are different than the general member of the community? For example, many of us work without access to a personal phone during that time. The parent wrangling multiple little ones or doing other caretaking duties may not deemed the survey worthwhile.
* Is there any reason to believe that some answers will be less truthful than other answers or that the answers will reflect the whole range? For example, asking about sexual activity or other highly personal detail is not neutral, especially with a live interviewer.
I have taken political surveys and given up because the questions assumed false dichotomies (e.g., will you support the candidate in favor of schools or the candidate in favor of libraries) or neglected most of the answers in the actual possibility space (e.g., are you voting for candidate A or candidate B when there are six people running for the local office?)
These aren't math questions, but are accessible to even elementary schoolers.
They aren't math questions, but they are scientific questions, especially social scientific. But I have noticed that many undergrads in physical sciences don't know squat about bias (nowhere near as much as psychologists, etc.), so they could use a "soft" introduction. I know, Polly, that you were thinking of elementary schoolers, and this would be accessible to some, but for some college students, this would be a nice intro too!
My 5th grade teacher focused on hands-on basic science (building a device to protect an egg when being dropped; dissecting a cow's eyeball; looking at the sun with a filter on a telescope) but I found this not terribly interesting----I think I remember this guy and his lessons because he was such an obnoxious, demeaning jackass to his students. I took biology in high school. It was interesting, partly because the teacher was one of my coaches and I really liked him, but I don't remember much about class material. I don't think I found it particularly inspiring. I know nothing about stats.
Then I took geology in college because it was the only science open for enrollment and found it absolutely fascinating. The class changed me. I've never looked at rocks, rivers, or mountains the same again.
I was lucky because I grew up in a family with a number of M.D.s and science Ph.D.s and parents who took us frequently to kiddie museums, but I didn't comprehend the brilliance of science until I was mature enough to appreciate it.
The point of good science education isn't to be inspiring in the sense of finding a calling.
The point is to give the habits of mind to systematically problem solve and to ask questions about why someone claims something is true. Explanations should involve cause and effect with plausible mechanisms. Some of the mechanisms are unexpected (for example the quantum mechanics that leads to the photoelectric effect (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/photons/a/photoelectric-effect) or why heavy objects don't fall faster than lighter objects), but much is within grasp of people under the age of 18.
One of my biggest frustrations recently is how many people readily accepted the extraordinary claim that children don't get and therefore can't transmit the corona virus. If we go just by normal experience, kids get and transmit viruses all the time, particularly respiratory illnesses.
Thus, when the first claim came in March that was so far outside what we know about about respiratory illnesses, kids, and germ theory, the questions should have been fast and furious about what is different. As the information keeps rolling in because people are actually doing research instead of just making assertions, the questions change, but still are within the realm of what normal people should think to ask regarding mechanisms and why covid should be different than other closely related viruses.
The standard news outlets couldn't write the overly credulous minor rewrites of press releases if they asked just the mechanism type questions that a good k-12 education should provide.
I'm all for anyone who can teach kids how to do science and how to appreciate science whether or not they actually become scientists.
It amazes me, when we live in an era in which science has made our lives so much better and actually dominates every aspect of our lives, that we have people denying the science of virology. I suspect this has a lot to do with the steady diet of conspiracy and suspicion we've been feeding ourselves since the Cold War. How does one counteract this?
I don't know how you do this with immature minds or the people who have little use for things not associated with sports, popular entertainment, or jobs. We have the same problems with classical music, poetry, theater, and a host of subjects. Education is always the target. I was just lucky because I grew up surrounded with interesting people who knew science and appreciated the rest of the world too.
More random thoughts wrt this very good discussion:
1) I just have to disagree with polly here-- it just ain't true that the average 10-12 year old kid can handle some of the key concepts she thinks should be taught then. Some, especially those whose moms are PhD chemical engineers, would be able to do so, but many, if not most, will not really be intellectually mature enough to profit from this sort of instruction at this stage, and I contend it is very much better to give them the basic scientific facts to learn, and learn well, as it is certainly true that kids this age can memorize effectively, and a lot.
2) apl is exactly right, and sadly. Raw intelligence ('IQ') notwithstanding, there is a vast difference in home environments wrt educational fittedness, respect for the idea of getting an education, etc., and the vast differences in the amount of $ spent in various public school districts here only exacerbates this hideous problem. Indeed, another factor that we will have to be taking into account (and hopefully committing to try to ameliorate) will be the hideous effects of the corona layoff.
3) like it or not, all college kids are not of equal intelligence. How much of the sort of sci literacy/ critical thinking training we all advocate, is likely to be accessible more or less to any undergrad, vs, how much is probably going to shoot above some? Recalling my days trying to teach Latin 101 at a mediocre slac that had a language req, well... let's just say that not all my students, like it or not, were up to the task.
The last two posts still miss the point of science education as part of general critical thinking for everyone and not anything to do with being on the path to becoming a professional scientist. Again, my direct professional experience of teaching all those science for teachers classes means I have a very different perspective based on research and experience than people who are just spitballing. That doesn't mean there's no room for discussion, but some assertions by laypersons are generally sighworthy because they just don't know.
A few years ago, the science education community spent a lot of time and energy on the Next Generation Science Standards. The standards themselves are written like regulatory standards and are not all that accessible to the general populace. However, summaries exist that can be useful.
The Next Generation Science Standards summary for kindergarten:
QuoteThe performance expectations in kindergarten help students formulate answers to questions such as: "What happens if you push or pull an object harder? Where do animals live and why do they live there? What is the weather like today and how is it different from yesterday?" Kindergarten performance expectations include PS2, PS3, LS1, ESS2, ESS3, and ETS1 Disciplinary Core Ideas from the NRC Framework. Students are expected to develop understanding of patterns and variations in local weather and the purpose of weather forecasting to prepare for, and respond to, severe weather. Students are able to apply an understanding of the effects of different strengths or different directions of pushes and pulls on the motion of an object to analyze a design solution. Students are also expected to develop understanding of what plants and animals (including humans) need to survive and the relationship between their needs and where they live. The crosscutting concepts of patterns; cause and effect; systems and system models; interdependence of science, engineering, and technology; and influence of engineering, technology, and science on society and the natural world are called out as organizing concepts for these disciplinary core ideas. In the kindergarten performance expectations, students are expected to demonstrate grade-appropriate proficiency in asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Students are expected to use these practices to demonstrate understanding of the core ideas.
Reference: https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/K%20combined%20DCI%20standardsf.pdf
Let's just focus on "Students are able to apply an understanding of the effects of different strengths or different directions of pushes and pulls on the motion of an object to analyze a design solution" as being physics related to forces and motion. In a college physics class for those on the path to becoming a physicist or engineer, I would use differential equations to acculturate the students to the language and ways of thinking about the forces. Even the statement that Newton's second law is F=ma that many of you may remember from some class is an approximation that ignores having a varying acceleration in time and/or direction.
For a kindergarten class, we can roll balls down ramps of different heights to see the effect of a different strength of push on the ball's motion. This doesn't have to be fancy: a board on bricks or stacked books with any old ball lying around can show the effect. One can even use the ladder on the playground slide to hold a board at designated heights and a kickball to get a pretty good demo. The kindergarteners tend to pick up pretty quickly that height at the top of the ramp matters, but length of ramp does not. Kindergarteners can understand that a higher slide means you go faster at the end than a lower slide. Turns in the slide tend to be a slower slide at the end, but a funner ride due to the effect of changing direction (an acceleration in physics parlance, but we don't need to use the term at all).
It is in fact completely wrong to call these activities a "strength of push" because the physics is conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy with a constant force of gravity, but the observations and the questions that kindergarteners can ask will be good enough in terms of thinking of the effect of forces. You can get kindergarteners to predict what will happen when the ramp is midway between two positions. You can get kindergarteners to accurately predict approximately how far the ball will go by moving the ramp to a slightly different position between other known positions (e.g., where do we have to put the ramp so the ball will end up near the big tree?).
For looking at effect of direction of force on motion, one can use an air hockey table or any other really smooth surface and a ruler to start a "puck" into motion. Collisions are fun and again, after just a few scoping activities, kindergarteners are often pretty good at predicting how the puck has to hit another puck or the wall to get to a specific position. The math on this can be very complicated, but the observations, questions, and predictions by eye are pretty good.
What good does this do the average person outside of ball rolling and air hockey playing? Being able to predict where objects will end up without doing the math helps with many daily activities outside of sports. While many of us can recite the memorized six simple machines (wheel and axle, the lever, the inclined plane, the pulley, the screw, and the wedge) (https://www.livescience.com/49106-simple-machines.html), the point is that many times you can make a given task easier by using what we know about how force affects motion and select the appropriate simple machine or use something that reduces contact friction. If all you do is write the six options on the test and then never think of a ramp and putting wheels under the large
heavy object to move it, then your critical thinking education has failed you.
We can do similar things at a kid level for, say, electrical circuits. The basics of "there has to be a complete path from the energy source to the device and back. In addition, the resistance along the path has to be lower than the effective push of the power source" is pretty easy for little kids to understand. A more powerful energy source (measured in the mysterious-for-now volts) can power more or better devices. A tiny AAA battery doesn't power nearly as much as a car battery, but if you hook up a car battery to something that only needs a AAA battery, then you will overload your devices.
Even series and parallel wiring as an effect is easy to see with something like snap circuits (having enough hand strength to pop in and out tends to limit this to second grade and above). (https://www.amazon.com/Snap-Circuits-SC-100-Electronics-Exploration/dp/B00008BFZH) Again, you want to do this as a guided activity with the teacher, but the basics require zero of the math I would use to teach aspiring engineers.
Where is this useful? How do you troubleshoot when an appliance that worked yesterday doesn't work today? You check that it's plugged in; you wiggle some connections to ensure the path is complete. You go check the breaker box to ensure that the room circuit is getting power.
How else is it useful? Talking on a wired landline during an electrical storm means you can be electrocuted because the phone works by electricity. However, a cell phone doesn't have any of that same problem. The wiring from a cell phone is self contained and the phone works as a phone by transmitting on the electromagnetic spectrum like a radio broadcast.
How else? Many of the safety requirements related to what you should do in a thunderstorm if you are caught outside are related to reducing the electrical path possibilities or ensuring that the resistance to flow is much higher.
What about series and parallel circuits? Who cares? Well, you might if it becomes important that any failure along the path should result in a complete shutoff of everything (series) or if you want the other devices to keep going even if one fails (the tragedy of old-school Christmas tree lights where one burnt bulb meant a search for the culprit instead of an obvious dark bulb in a string of bright lights).
The tragedy of treating science as something to appreciate like art is exactly that scientific thinking is something everyone can and should be doing for their own benefit as part of their daily life. You don't have to be a great singer to enjoy singing in the car and you absolutely don't have to be a professional scientist to realize you need a ramp and a cart to get all that furniture into your house with a minimum of people and effort.
Quote from: polly_mer on July 31, 2020, 04:09:37 PM
The standard news outlets couldn't write the overly credulous minor rewrites of press releases if they asked just the mechanism type questions that a good k-12 education should provide.
I think that is a misdiagnosis of the problem. Most of the bad articles I've seen about studies are bad because they assume that the latest study is the best and final word on the issue. This isn't really about scientific literacy, it is about the need to explain why the most recent study changes everything. The problem is that most studies don't change everything, because they are one piece of evidence. I find following epi people on twitter helpful because they tend to respond pretty cautiously to most new studies.
I'm not even sure how much of this is really about "scientific literacy" versus basic critical thinking.
Quote from: polly_mer on August 01, 2020, 07:20:51 AM
The last two posts still miss the point of science education as part of general critical thinking for everyone and not anything to do with being on the path to becoming a professional scientist.
I am not thinking of professional scientists at all. I am thinking about average everyday citizens who have nothing to do with science in their daily lives but who contradict climate scientists and virologists.
I'd love to see science education which instills respect for science among the populace so that the next time a politician throws a snowball on the Senate floor he is immediately voted out for being an idiot.
There are lots of ways to learn to problem solve and investigate, science is just one way. I'd just like us to trust our scientists.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 01, 2020, 08:35:35 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 01, 2020, 07:20:51 AM
The last two posts still miss the point of science education as part of general critical thinking for everyone and not anything to do with being on the path to becoming a professional scientist.
I am not thinking of professional scientists at all. I am thinking about average everyday citizens who have nothing to do with science in their daily lives but who contradict climate scientists and virologists.
I'd love to see science education which instills respect for science among the populace so that the next time a politician throws a snowball on the Senate floor he is immediately voted out for being an idiot.
There are lots of ways to learn to problem solve and investigate, science is just one way. I'd just like us to trust our scientists.
I'd like people to trust scientists, but I would like this to be well-founded trust. They shouldn't be believing in science just like our bad caricatures of how people believe in bad religion.
That means having some understanding of how scientists come to their conclusions, and why, in what circumstances, and for what purposes those methods are useful.
Quote from: quasihumanist on August 06, 2020, 08:13:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 01, 2020, 08:35:35 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 01, 2020, 07:20:51 AM
The last two posts still miss the point of science education as part of general critical thinking for everyone and not anything to do with being on the path to becoming a professional scientist.
I am not thinking of professional scientists at all. I am thinking about average everyday citizens who have nothing to do with science in their daily lives but who contradict climate scientists and virologists.
I'd love to see science education which instills respect for science among the populace so that the next time a politician throws a snowball on the Senate floor he is immediately voted out for being an idiot.
There are lots of ways to learn to problem solve and investigate, science is just one way. I'd just like us to trust our scientists.
I'd like people to trust scientists, but I would like this to be well-founded trust. They shouldn't be believing in science just like our bad caricatures of how people believe in bad religion.
That means having some understanding of how scientists come to their conclusions, and why, in what circumstances, and for what purposes those methods are useful.
Sure. Seems to me that goes hand in hand. Not sure there's any way around that. I don't think people do understand science, and that's why they mistrust it.
Anybody seen
Behind the Curve documentary about flat-earthers? The main flat-earth argument is that, hey, these scientists keep "throwing math at us," and I can look right over there and see that the Earth is flat.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 06, 2020, 08:38:52 PM
Anybody seen Behind the Curve documentary about flat-earthers? The main flat-earth argument is that, hey, these scientists keep "throwing math at us," and I can look right over there and see that the Earth is flat.
I believe I did (at any rate, I saw some sort of flat earth documentary recently). I was surprised to learn, actually, that they're not all illiterate, innumerate imbeciles. In fact, they're quite clever. What struck me is that what's missing is meta-level reflection: they haven't really given much thought to what counts as an explanation, or what makes some explanations better than others. So when they conduct their own (ingenious!) experiments, and find that the data don't support the hypothesis, they start drawing the wrong conclusions.
They're rather like the kooks who write treatises on physics and send them to the Cal Poly physics department (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSgp755DSA) (and others, I'm sure!). They're not stupid, and some of them are very fine engineers, great crunchers of numbers. Their theories are extraordinary achievements. The problem is just that they only ever had to take Physics I, and Physics II is where the answers to their questions are to be found.
Quote from: polly_mer on July 30, 2020, 07:15:23 AM
I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.
Agreed. Despite having two undergraduate degrees in STEM fields (I had do a second undergraduate degree to qualify for my chosen profession as there is no master/PhD entry possible) I didn't read Kuhn until the first semester of my doctoral program.