science teaching methods and goals

[kaysixteen]

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...

[spork]

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."

[polly_mer]

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'.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[polly_mer]

I would pick something more modern and more conversational than Kuhn or Popper for general audiences.

[mythbuster]

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.

[Puget]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[spork]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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:

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,

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.