Interesting Article on Science Learning

[Brenda in MA]

I found this article about how children learn science very interesting. The authors purport that 95% of the science knowledge of ordinary citizens is learned outside of school.

 

What do you think?

 

http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/FalkandDierking95perc.pdf

 

Brenda

[KathyBC]

I enjoyed the article. It rings true to me. As educators, we focus so much on what our children learn during school. It can be easy to forget that our children will continue learning for the rest of their lives. We should be encouraged as most of us, by default, have a family culture that values informal learning.

[cathmom]

I loved this article! Thanks for posting it. :001_smile: I printed it out.

 

I definitely think that if access to science museums and centers was increased, it would really help low-income/disadvantaged children. I would also like to see libraries focused on specific topics, ie, a science library, a history library, etc., with books at all levels and DVDs, audio courses, etc.

[Corraleno]

Excellent article!

 

I really believe that if students were given more choices in HS science — allowed to choose from Geology, Marine Biology, Astronomy, Zoology, Ecology, etc — instead of just Bio/Chem/Phys, they would be more likely to find things of interest and to continue to read and learn about science throughout their lives. Even the 3 core sciences could be taught in much more engaging ways: The Physics of Star Trek or Physics in Your Life (a fantastic TC course); Kitchen Chemistry or Caveman Chemistry; Hoagland's The Way Life Works instead of an 1100-page textbook that tries to cram a million facts (that can be assessed with multiple choice exams) into disinterested students in a single year.

 

We force students to study subjects they have no interest in, taught in ways that seem designed to make them as dull and dry as possible, and then we (as a country) lament the fact that we've fallen behind other countries in science. Instead of making the courses more interesting, we dumb down the textbooks (which are still 1100 pages) and add lots of study guides and vocabulary lists and spoonfeed the testable facts. If we hired the Mythbusters guys to develop a HS science program, I bet the number of kids choosing science careers would skyrocket. ;)

 

Jackie

[Gratia271]

nm

Edited December 9, 2010 by Gratia271

[cathmom]

Excellent article!

 

I really believe that if students were given more choices in HS science — allowed to choose from Geology, Marine Biology, Astronomy, Zoology, Ecology, etc — instead of just Bio/Chem/Phys, they would be more likely to find things of interest and to continue to read and learn about science throughout their lives.

 

We force students to study subjects they have no interest in, taught in ways that seem designed to make them as dull and dry as possible, and then we (as a country) lament the fact that we've fallen behind other countries in science. Instead of making the courses more interesting, we dumb down the textbooks (which are still 1100 pages) and add lots of study guides and vocabulary lists and spoonfeed the testable facts. If we hired the Mythbusters guys to develop a HS science program, I bet the number of kids choosing science careers would skyrocket. ;)

 

Jackie

 

I agree! I have always loved animals, and I enjoyed (and did pretty well in) Biology. When I had to choose classes for junior year, I wanted to take Biology 2, but the school would not let me. I had to take chem instead. I was mad about that, chem made no sense, and I did really badly. Yeah, that really served a purpose there. :glare:

[justamouse]

I think Karen posted this same article on one of the other boards? Awesome article.

[regentrude]

I did not have time to read the article - but I am not surprised at all, because what passes for science education in schools is not really science.

Things like memorizing vocabulary words for parts of a cell, converting units and memorizing the periodic table are not science. Cramming large amounts of unrelated facts is not science - even if the facts are about rocks or planets or animals.

The reason why school "science" is so boring is because no actual science is being taught (there are brilliant essays by Feynman about this topic; he was on a review board for textbooks and they were unbelievably bad)

 

Science is all about asking "how?" "why?" and "what if?"

Unfortunately, there is no time for this at school. If a person becomes scientifically literate, it almost HAS to happen outside of school.

[Corraleno]

I did not have time to read the article - but I am not surprised at all, because what passes for science education in schools is not really science.

Things like memorizing vocabulary words for parts of a cell, converting units and memorizing the periodic table are not science. Cramming large amounts of unrelated facts is not science - even if the facts are about rocks or planets or animals.

The reason why school "science" is so boring is because no actual science is being taught (there are brilliant essays by Feynman about this topic; he was on a review board for textbooks and they were unbelievably bad)

 

Science is all about asking "how?" "why?" and "what if?"

Unfortunately, there is no time for this at school. If a person becomes scientifically literate, it almost HAS to happen outside of school.

:iagree: 100% with ALL of this.

 

Jackie

[KathyBC]

We force students to study subjects they have no interest in, taught in ways that seem designed to make them as dull and dry as possible, and then we (as a country) lament the fact that we've fallen behind other countries in science. Instead of making the courses more interesting, we dumb down the textbooks (which are still 1100 pages) and add lots of study guides and vocabulary lists and spoonfeed the testable facts. If we hired the Mythbusters guys to develop a HS science program, I bet the number of kids choosing science careers would skyrocket. ;)

 

Jackie

 

:iagree: A Mythbusters science program would be anything but dull! The fact that our country (or countries since I'm in Canada) no longer falls behind other countries in science once citizens reach adulthood - and can pursue knowledge that is relevant to them - was eye-opening.

[Hunter]

It's funny that many people measure high school academic rigor, primarily by what type of science class a student is taking.

 

When I got totally overwhelmed, when homeschooling my youngest, the first thing I decided to drop was the chemistry textbook. We started aggressively mastering everything in Science Matters read real books to supplement it, and focused on the scientific method, research, and writing about science.

 

I sensed we were not getting enough payback for the time and money we were investing in trying to keep up with the high school science Jonses. I knew others thought I was crazy...but...I had to follow my gut. He had all sorts of other advanced things to do that produced a better payback, that validated to me that we were not slackers, and would produce a better quality of life for him as an adult.

 

Copying PS science methods is just not a good investment of resources for many, many homeschooling families...but...most of us have been conditioned to fear skipping it, and use it to disproportionately measure our success.

[regentrude]

It's funny that many people measure high school academic rigor, primarily by what type of science class a student is taking.

 

 

I think that may be partly because it is easier to distinguish between more and less rigorous science or math classes as opposed to English literature or history. If I want to compare English lit classes or history classes, I would have to look at a very detailed syllabus to be able to discern the level of reading, analysis and writing assignments. OTOH, the content and level of science classes is more standardized and people know that, for instance, conceptual physics is less rigorous than a calculus based physics class, and that precalculus is harder than algebra I.

Does that make sense?

 

Now, of course, even among science classes of same title, there will be differences. But a course title "World Literature" does not even give a hint of the level.

[justamouse]

I did not have time to read the article - but I am not surprised at all, because what passes for science education in schools is not really science.

Things like memorizing vocabulary words for parts of a cell, converting units and memorizing the periodic table are not science. Cramming large amounts of unrelated facts is not science - even if the facts are about rocks or planets or animals.

 

The reason why school "science" is so boring is because no actual science is being taught (there are brilliant essays by Feynman about this topic; he was on a review board for textbooks and they were unbelievably bad)

 

Science is all about asking "how?" "why?" and "what if?"

Unfortunately, there is no time for this at school. If a person becomes scientifically literate, it almost HAS to happen outside of school.

 

I'm very early into this with my own children (dropping all curric sciences), but I've also found this to be 100% true.

[Nan in Mass]

Doing something alternative for science in 7th-10th grade for a child headed for engineering is the scariest homeschooling thing I have ever done, and I have done some pretty alternative things. I have the guts to do it only because next year and the year after, he is (hopefully) going to go to the CC and do chem and physics there. Nothing else alternative that I've done even comes close. Everyone here has had to talk me down out of the tree (as Lisa/swimmermom named it my periodic panics) at frequent intervals over this issue. I'm doing it, and I'm liking the results so far, but it is very scary. I think the problem is that I can see how this would be so much better if I could offer more guidance. I'm working on that but it is hard.

 

-Nan

[Susan C.]

I thought cramming the chemistry and physics into ds's head would prepare him for college chemistry. He was still snowballed. I do think he would have been more prepared if he had taken more concepts and more "scientific method" out, but get this, maybe still not prepared enough for that advanced chemistry class. The reason: that class was worse than the high school chemistry!!! Brutal!! Too much too fast!! Then you get the "your son is not math/science oriented." What? He LOVES the subjects. He just couldn't do them at the breakneck speed they wanted. The reason there aren't more math/science people in the US is that they only allow the faster math/science people to do it. They throw everyone else out of the field.

[Laura in CA]

:iagree: A Mythbusters science program would be anything but dull!

 

WTMers in the San Francisco Bay Area should look into these guys:

 

QuantumCamp

 

They are fantastic. They are also realizing that homeschoolers are the perfect fit for their exploration-based classes (of course, b&m-schooled kids find their summer or after-school classes a wonderful, vastly different, stimulating experience). My son is taking chemistry at QuantumCamp right now. Two of his friends, who *hated* biology last year done from a dry textbook, consider their QC chemistry class their favorite class this year. What's *not* to like about messing about with chemicals and seeing what happens?

 

Also, their facilities are a few feet from the Berkeley BART station. Super convenient, for anyone thinking about this. OK, they're not cheap, but it's high quality, run by scientists who have a passion to make kids excited about science and who've made this their full-time jobs, and it's worth it to me to see the absolute joy in these kids as they discover and learn.

 

I think the author of the "Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture," Robert Bruce Thompson, has lamented the demise of the chemistry set. Yes, here's a video of him talking about the unfortunate demise of the chemistry set. Also, in the article posted above, one of the photos' captions quotes a Nobel laureate saying that over half of the Nobel laureates he knows became interested in science through fireworks ;-)

 

~Laura

Edited December 10, 2010 by Laura in CA
typo

[Jane in NC]

While I agree that how science is taught in the US is far from ideal, I am left scratching my head about some of the article's assertions. There is a reference to US adults outperforming adults from other countries in science literacy. I would love to know the basis for this statement since I have always heard this is not the case. There is an assertion that students who have had more formal mathematical training perform poorly in everyday math, providing the examples of candy vending and shopping. What?? The latter may use arithmetic but I do not see counting or percentage calculations as important applications of math. Sure, they are everyday things but so is computer networking where having math skills is a necessity.

 

My son had the good fortune to learn a great deal of science outside of "school". He attended an experiential summer science school, participated in several Envirothon competitions, as well as First Lego League, 4-H forestry competitions, etc. There are some terrific science museums but all too often I have seen children dash through them, hitting every button, turning every dial, but not reading about what is happening at the particular exhibit. How much is absorbed?

 

I think the key to understanding science is to keep the conversation going in the home. (I've posted about keeping the conversation going in mathematics in an old thread called Talk, Talk, Talk...--those of you who struggle with math education in your homes might want to read that thread for some ideas.) But, in my opinion, science requires hands on. I fear for a generation of children who watch science being done on TV and have not crawled on their bellies in a back yard to watch ants and bees.

 

Revamping science education is a noble pursuit. Just making science "fun" is not the answer though since science requires more than "fun".

 

Am I babbling again?