More on teaching science

I've mentioned here that I don't think it's just teaching the basics--it's getting people interested in learning the basics

Yeah, I totally agree. We do need to get back to basics. For example, one strange phenomenom I see is that some people believe that X causes Y, although, for some reason they haven't read the underlying peer-reviewed papers that established X causes Y.

It's kinda strange, no?

Clearly, one of the basics in science is review the scientific data, before reaching scientific conclusions.

Hank B

I'm among those in the front lines, as it were, so this topic is close to my heart, too. I have often wanted to have enough time and funding to offer a lab- or activity-based course, in which students do actual experiments to see that the equations and laws as written in physics texts have some meaning. As it is, I manage a lab every other week, but I'd love to have the kids spend more time doing lab work than sitting listening to me. Beginning next August, I'll be teaching a 9th grade "physics first" course, so I'll get to put some of my ideas into action.

I like to approach physics from a sleuthing angle, as if deriving the laws of physics were like a detective story. Scientific conclusions depend on many different kinds of evidence. Too often, students get the idea that science progresses solely by way of the "scientific method" stated in texts. While a very solid process, the method does not explain how major developments in scientific knowledge occur. I like to point those discrepant events out.

Some of those important development were not peer-reviewed, by the way, Hank. Could you possibly avoid hijacking this thread, too, please?

I look back (not too far for me) to childhood and what drew me to science was a sense of wonder (I think Sagan had it right in this regard). I remeber being blown away by a hard core meteor shower at age 7, and chemistry camps at age 10.

I think the goal should be to try to capture that in the lessons. However, it puts an extra burden on the teacher to be creative, (shrugs) so it goes...

I taught introductory biology to a class of first-year college kids this past fall. I think I learned more than they did. For one thing, I'm now convinced that most of the scientific facts aren't all that important. Yes, they need to know the basics. But, before that, they need to learn how to think. A lot of my students, even relatively bright ones, had never been forced to think critically and carefully. They had just memorized stuff.

There's sort of a double deficiency going on here. Students are learning that "science" means a lot of facts and fancy words from Latin, when they should be taught that it's a way of asking and answering questions. The second shortcoming is that they've learned that, in science, you just memorize stuff, instead of weighing ideas and understanding their implications and doing (as wheatdogg very nicely put it) detective work.

I'm with B. Spitzer in believing that the most important 'fact' to teach students is that science is a way of asking and answering questions.

My experience with discovery oriented lessons is mixed. Very often, my students will already have made up their minds as to why things work the way they do. Even after completing an experiment demonstrating that their explanation does not work, they simply continue to believe what they thought before. This isn't true of all students but usually of most.

I think a strong introduction of controlled experiments and the use of numbers in early grades (3rd - 6th) would be the most opportune time to make significant headway. The largest stumbling block with that age is a general lack of teacher enthusiasm, training, or understaning for or with science/math.

Let's get even more basic. We start by teaching kids how to learn, and how learning can be fun.

I'm also for starting children in a formal educational environment at the age of 10; homeschooling those 9 and younger.

I agree that time spent teaching kids HOW to learn and think is an efficient use of time.

The basics of science aren't difficult to grasp: (a) formulate a hypothesis, (b) test the hypothesis, (c) review the data, (d) reach the conclusion.

The problem is in the application. Scientists and laymen get attached to pet theories and then they disregard the countervailing evidence, that doesn't conform to their theory.

The best scientific question ever is, What evidence would falsify your theory? You could ask this to William Dembski about ID, you could ask this to Richard Dawkins about evolution, you could ask it to anti-vaccination advocates.

You could ask it in other contentious areas, as well;)

Hank Barnes

"The best scientific question ever is, What evidence would falsify your theory ?"

So what evidence would falsify your theory that that is the best scientific question ever ?

Ha-hah, you are one funny, clever and charming dude, McKiernan! I hope Ms. McKiernan thinks so, too.

Hank B

It is an honest question, is it not ?

For teaching math, there are several methods that work. The biggest hurdle with arithmetic is that if you ad 2 + 3 and get 6 (which is close), it is still totally wrong. Since the techniques that are taught today are unreliable (mostly carries), this leads to fear of math. My favorite method for arithmetic is the Japanese abacus.
http://www.uitti.net/stephen/soroban/index.shtml

I went to a conference of area physics teachers (some teach
astronomy, a hobby of mine). They had some extraordinaryly good
ideas about how to make science exciting. In summary, more
hands on, less tests about facts.
http://rhic23.physics.wayne.edu/OSAPS-MAAPT/

An astronomy teacher is experimenting with an english teacher. The idea is to combine classes. Writing assignments are mostly about astronomy. Greek mythology, astronomy history, astronomy science, observation logs. This gives more time for both subjects. Many assignements are graded by both teachers, and one gets credit for both classes.

Higher math is unavoidable in majoring in science, but I recall one of my math professor's many years ago bemoaning the failure to teach logic before students are expected to deal with complex mathematical proofs.