Scientific literacy course for non-scientists

[dismalist]

As for truth... no doubt some.of you will try to make gleeful hay of this, but entire classes are taught on just what truth is (e.g. is it a correspondence relation, coherence, a redundancy, etc.). We all have an intuitive understanding f what it means, but we suck at actually articulating it.

A potentially very nice aspect of this forum is that various posters can contribute to the analysis of a problem from the point of view of their own discipline. We could all learn something that way.

So, please articulate. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Elementary teachers should be experts in teaching elementary science since that's nothing like being a professional scientist.  The course I have taught the most is science for k-8 teachers.  It does not require PhD level science knowledge to roll balls down ramps at different angles to talk about force, momentum, and energy with kindergarteners.  It does not require PhD level science knowledge to talk about Earth processes and show why earthquakes happen, volcanoes happen, and why the Appalachian mountains are much less high than the Rocky Mountains with second graders.

You're one of those personalities, Polly, who apparently thinks people do not share commonly held concepts, and so you state the obvious.

I hate to be flame-warry and adolescent, but (with love): Duh.

I liked learning about the science I had been exposed to in secondary ed in the college classroom.  It was much more indepth and interesting, and the learning was much more rigorous.  As a frequent online participant in Newberry Library seminars, no, these adult seminars are not the same thing as taking an actual college course for credit.

[polly_mer]

As a frequent online participant in Newberry Library seminars, no, these adult seminars are not the same thing as taking an actual college course for credit.

The course you are requesting and people are proposing also isn't really a college course for credit in science.  It is instead very much like a series of library seminars with grades.  You can tell the difference for the libraries because you are knowledgeable enough in relevant thinking.  It's harder for you to tell in science because you don't know what you don't know.

With all love, the problem to fix is elementary education to ensure that all the teachers are teaching science instead of going through the motions of demos and worksheets full of facts to memorize.

You as a HS graduate should know about 80% of the elementary material and only need to learn the pedagogy.  But, year after year, we as a society in many places get desperate enough that we don't prioritize exploring scientific thought as a coherent curriculum and instead focus on the boring parts to check the box because only basic literacy really matters.

[marshwiggle]

The posted schedule of topics bears an uncanny resemblance to the course I teach on Research Methods and Experimental Design.  That course if for STEM majors who are already 2 years into college science and a year into college math (including stats).  They still struggle with the concepts.

I can't imagine the typical pop'n of non-stem majors handling that well in a semester.

It depends a lot on the depth attempted. The difference between algebra-based 1st year physics and calculus-based 1st year physics is a simple example of how the same concepts can be presented in both, but the level of math required can vary significantly.

The Feynman video upthread was an amazing example of explaining the concepts without having to go into any math at all.

The point is that if it's the choice between something like this and a dumbed-down 1st year physics (or whatever) course, this would cover much more useful ground than something specific to a single discipline.

[Wahoo Redux]

As a frequent online participant in Newberry Library seminars, no, these adult seminars are not the same thing as taking an actual college course for credit.

The course you are requesting and people are proposing also isn't really a college course for credit in science.  It is instead very much like a series of library seminars with grades.  You can tell the difference for the libraries because you are knowledgeable enough in relevant thinking.  It's harder for you to tell in science because you don't know what you don't know.

With all love, the problem to fix is elementary education to ensure that all the teachers are teaching science instead of going through the motions of demos and worksheets full of facts to memorize.

You as a HS graduate should know about 80% of the elementary material and only need to learn the pedagogy.  But, year after year, we as a society in many places get desperate enough that we don't prioritize exploring scientific thought as a coherent curriculum and instead focus on the boring parts to check the box because only basic literacy really matters.

I'll ask the same question I asked on the other thread: how would we pay for and administer this retooling?  How do you get the inner-cities and isolated rural areas up to snuff?  Literally, realistically, I am asking.  No magical thinking, how are we going to do it?

[mleok]

As a frequent online participant in Newberry Library seminars, no, these adult seminars are not the same thing as taking an actual college course for credit.

The course you are requesting and people are proposing also isn't really a college course for credit in science.  It is instead very much like a series of library seminars with grades.  You can tell the difference for the libraries because you are knowledgeable enough in relevant thinking.  It's harder for you to tell in science because you don't know what you don't know.

With all love, the problem to fix is elementary education to ensure that all the teachers are teaching science instead of going through the motions of demos and worksheets full of facts to memorize.

You as a HS graduate should know about 80% of the elementary material and only need to learn the pedagogy.  But, year after year, we as a society in many places get desperate enough that we don't prioritize exploring scientific thought as a coherent curriculum and instead focus on the boring parts to check the box because only basic literacy really matters.

I'll ask the same question I asked on the other thread: how would we pay for and administer this retooling?  How do you get the inner-cities and isolated rural areas up to snuff?  Literally, realistically, I am asking.  No magical thinking, how are we going to do it?

How do you propose to pay for all the liberal arts education to correct for our woefully inadequate K12 education system? The reality is that it is cheaper to fix K12 than it to remediate its inadequacies at the college level, not even taking into account the opportunity costs for our students.

[jimbogumbo]

As a frequent online participant in Newberry Library seminars, no, these adult seminars are not the same thing as taking an actual college course for credit.

The course you are requesting and people are proposing also isn't really a college course for credit in science.  It is instead very much like a series of library seminars with grades.  You can tell the difference for the libraries because you are knowledgeable enough in relevant thinking.  It's harder for you to tell in science because you don't know what you don't know.

With all love, the problem to fix is elementary education to ensure that all the teachers are teaching science instead of going through the motions of demos and worksheets full of facts to memorize.

You as a HS graduate should know about 80% of the elementary material and only need to learn the pedagogy.  But, year after year, we as a society in many places get desperate enough that we don't prioritize exploring scientific thought as a coherent curriculum and instead focus on the boring parts to check the box because only basic literacy really matters.

I'll ask the same question I asked on the other thread: how would we pay for and administer this retooling?  How do you get the inner-cities and isolated rural areas up to snuff?  Literally, realistically, I am asking.  No magical thinking, how are we going to do it?

How do you propose to pay for all the liberal arts education to correct for our woefully inadequate K12 education system? The reality is that it is cheaper to fix K12 than it to remediate its inadequacies at the college level, not even taking into account the opportunity costs for our students.

I guess you are trying to merge the two threads. How do YOU propose to retool the K-12 system? And try to propose something that scales, and pay for it.

[Wahoo Redux]

How do you propose to pay for all the liberal arts education to correct for our woefully inadequate K12 education system?

I don't.  I think lib arts are about to die, or at least be seriously maimed.  And I think education overall will suffer.

We have the wealth in America to fix education at all levels.  We just want it cheap and yet "quality."

I think the conversation hits a wall as soon as we start talking about how we will pay for change.  Even the myriad editorials are big on the rhetoric, thin on the actual action items.

Let it all die.  Rebuild it once we hit a crisis is the only thing I can think of.  Leave it up to our children to fix the mess we make.

[mleok]

I guess you are trying to merge the two threads. How do YOU propose to retool the K-12 system? And try to propose something that scales, and pay for it.

Well, as I alluded to, the core general education which currently is in our college courses should be moved into K-12, which is what happens in practically every other country. We have armies of underpaid adjuncts at the college level, why can't we move them to high school education instead? As for paying for it, if we can't get people to pay for decent K-12 education, then we have even less hope of getting them to pay for it at the college level.

[Wahoo Redux]

We have armies of underpaid adjuncts at the college level, why can't we move them to high school education instead?

Funny, but I used to work for an under-funded state licensing agency for K-12 education.  The binders full of rules created their own small library.  You can walk into a university with a master's degree and teach as an adjunct; to teach in public K-12 school there are endless hoops and requirements.  A simply subject-area masters does not qualify most people to teach high school unless the state (like was Florida at one time) is desperate for teachers.

But fine.  Move the adjuncts to K-12.  I don't suspect you would have that many takers.  I believe there are different personalities drawn to these two educational spheres.  I wouldn't teach high school.  No way.  Not interested. 

And I suppose you could prop up the schools with the money once used for colleges.

You may do some damage to the local economies of small to mid-sized towns which survive on the micro-economic climate of the university.  But if college was cheaper I can't imagine many politicians would object.

Go for it.  Let's see if it works.

As for paying for it, if we can't get people to pay for decent K-12 education, then we have even less hope of getting them to pay for it at the college level.

Agreed.  As I've said, I think we will be the era that badly damages North American education at all levels.

[jimbogumbo]

I guess you are trying to merge the two threads. How do YOU propose to retool the K-12 system? And try to propose something that scales, and pay for it.

Well, as I alluded to, the core general education which currently is in our college courses should be moved into K-12, which is what happens in practically every other country. We have armies of underpaid adjuncts at the college level, why can't we move them to high school education instead? As for paying for it, if we can't get people to pay for decent K-12 education, then we have even less hope of getting them to pay for it at the college level.

I think that could be workable, with a big but...
The adjuncts may or may not be able to work with US high school kids. There is a big difference in what we (the country) thinks re the importance of schooling vs Europe and SE Asian societies. That's why I was intrigued by the MOOC idea, because so many people of all ages pay attention to things they see on YouTube, TikTok name your platform. For example there is a science guy (forgot his name as I type) who dedicated one of his shows to trying to create the squirrel-proof bird feeder. I watched it twice because I was enthralled with all the Physics via measurement and video of squirrel antics with actual formulas explained. How did I find him? From my 11 year old granddaughter, who watches him religiously and wants to be a scientist. Just try get her to  complete her homework. I dare'ya.

[Caracal]

I guess you are trying to merge the two threads. How do YOU propose to retool the K-12 system? And try to propose something that scales, and pay for it.

Well, as I alluded to, the core general education which currently is in our college courses should be moved into K-12, which is what happens in practically every other country. We have armies of underpaid adjuncts at the college level, why can't we move them to high school education instead? As for paying for it, if we can't get people to pay for decent K-12 education, then we have even less hope of getting them to pay for it at the college level.

Well, we've bene over this before. There really aren't as many long term adjuncts with phds as people imagine they are.

As one of those adjuncts, I can tell you that k-12 teaching doesn't particularly appeal to me, nor do I think I'd be particularly good at it. Besides, while I'd get benefits as a teacher, in my state I wouldn't really make a lot more money. Perhaps 5 or 10k more per year. Not a particularly appealing alternative career when you consider that it would involve a lot more hours with a lot less flexibility.

[Wahoo Redux]

Didn't the first great wave of MOOCs crash and burn after a lot of hype?  The market is predicted to grow something like 300% in the next ten years because of corporate interest in training employees. 

[marshwiggle]

Didn't the first great wave of MOOCs crash and burn after a lot of hype?  The market is predicted to grow something like 300% in the next ten years because of corporate interest in training employees.

I think the big issue was that only a tiny percentage of people actually "finished" MOOCs, because it requires a lot of self-discipline. This tracks with online learning in general. But for the right audience, it has value. (Like in the case of corporate training, where presumably companies will provide *incentives to make employees complete the training.)

*Like not getting fired.

[mleok]

I guess you are trying to merge the two threads. How do YOU propose to retool the K-12 system? And try to propose something that scales, and pay for it.

Well, as I alluded to, the core general education which currently is in our college courses should be moved into K-12, which is what happens in practically every other country. We have armies of underpaid adjuncts at the college level, why can't we move them to high school education instead? As for paying for it, if we can't get people to pay for decent K-12 education, then we have even less hope of getting them to pay for it at the college level.

Well, we've bene over this before. There really aren't as many long term adjuncts with phds as people imagine they are.

As one of those adjuncts, I can tell you that k-12 teaching doesn't particularly appeal to me, nor do I think I'd be particularly good at it. Besides, while I'd get benefits as a teacher, in my state I wouldn't really make a lot more money. Perhaps 5 or 10k more per year. Not a particularly appealing alternative career when you consider that it would involve a lot more hours with a lot less flexibility.

We don't actually need PhDs to teach high school, as you've said, most long-term adjuncts only have a Master's, which is more than adequate to teach in high school. But, you're right that the issue in high school teaching is not the lack of qualified teachers in the fields associated with the adjunct armies, but in the quantitative fields.