Educators, i.e., science teachers, are not too unhappy about the change in taxonomy of planets. Some argue they can use it as a lesson in the way science always changes.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That nefarious leech of an organization, the Heartland Institute, the one that put up the billboards implying that people who think climate change is important are mad bombers, has done something really offensive, again. They made a fake packet of information with fake stuff about climate change…
Marie-Claire Shanahan teaches science education at the University of Alberta, and blogs about her own research and about the state of science education (and science education training:Â science education education if you will). Her latest post summarizes her findings from reviewing science…
In my mail today, I received a copy of the Bell Museum's quarterly, Imprint, which contained a fine article on the Bell's strategy for addressing the creationists. After summarizing some of the museum's efforts and recent national events, it concludes this way:
Bell Museum programs are one way that…
I found out about these two books from the Chronicle Review; haven't read either one, but they looked interesting and some of you may want to check them out.
Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing by Jane Margolis
The number of African Americans and Latino/as receiving…
teachers have a good point. what is true today in science may not be true tomorrow. certainly some things may always hold, but if we look back even a mrere hundred years there's a lot of scientific 'truths' that seem, well, ridiculous.
i think we have to remember that science, like most everything, is ever evolving. and..............i don't think i'll get into the politics of science :)
Columbia Law Professor Michael Dorf has a Findlaw Column about this that I really think hits the mark.
Thank you. That's a good one.
Better yet - they can use it to discuss what a planet IS, rather than just making students memorize a list of nine (or eight) names via some sort of pizza-related mnemonic.
The problem with this situation is that it's just a matter of changing a definition, and not actually an illustration of the tentative nature of scientific theories. Scientists didn't "discover" that Pluto wasn't a planet...they just accepted a definition in which it no longer qualifies. This is a part of science too (science can be messy and even arbitrary), but it should be made clear that when scientists talk of the tentative nature of science they mean that theories of how things are may change as new evidence comes to light and testable hypotheses confirmed for alternate theories.
I teach middle school science and on our first day last week a student said "I was glad school started today because I want to talk about what happened to Pluto." That is reason alone for me to be happy with the change.
Dead on the nose! These people get it.
I was so very disappointed every time I read some "Think of the schoolteachers!" lament in comments on Pluto's name change. Yes. God forbid our teachers actually have to teach something.
No, this is great. If I were a teacher, I'd definitely start up a discussion with my kids. Probably starting by asking them, "What do you think a planet is?" Heck, I'd probably just run with that for a while before getting into any discussion about what was actually decided. It's cool stuff to get kids interested, and when you compare the classroom discussion to the IAU conference, you can plant the idea, "Hey, I could do that, too!"