What should one remember from HS math/science education?

[Ester Maria]

I was prompted to open this thread by a private discussion I recently had with somebody about the concept of general education, a sort of intertwined net of knowledges and associations we expect an educated person to be familiar with. Not necessarily intimately familiar - of the kind that thirty years from graduation they would still be able to quote the entire Hamlet's monologue - but familiar in terms of educational / cultural landmarks which they recognize. Now, I realize this is a can of worms for many reasons, especially being that these tacit "canons" of "assumed knowledge" differ from culture to culture and even from subculture to subculture - a phenomenon and a problem of definitions I would maybe like to avoid on this thread - but no matter how we set it up, to our knowledge (we were a group of Westerners from various countries), one interesting thing keeps coming over and over: those knowledges are chiefly rooted in humanities.

 

One person stated that, in terms of scientific literacy, being able to state the laws of termodynamics is pretty much the equivalent of having read a work of Shakespeare - yet the social stigma for being caught not knowing them is not going to even come near the social stigma of not being familiar with a work of Shakespeare. Same goes for math, pretty much: people nearly boast about having a middle school level of math knowledge and comprehension, but nobody would dare to joyfully claim that their reading level has remained somewhere about "algebra I" - say eight grade literature - because it would, in society, generally, not be met with benevolent laughter of comprehension. To have forgotten trigonometry to a point of not being able to follow an introductory chapter in a typical HS textbook is generally fine, but woe betide you if you betray your ignorance of the story of Aeneas. To have forgotten the general equation for photosynthesis, a very basic thing indeed, will provoke a drastically different reaction than not being able to recall a work or a few by Michelangelo. It is not the question of what is basic or not within its field - most of these things are on the same level of "basicness" for their respective fields - but the question of some areas being entirely privileged over other areas when we think of "general education" and what we expect people to know.

 

Calvino has an interesting 'definition' of a classic: a classic is a work for which you (presumably an adult reader) will never say that you have been reading these days... but, rather, that you have been rereading these days. :lol: Even if there is a bit of a tongue in cheek air to that statement, it does reveal a particular kind of bias. There are definitely works which we would not wish our children to know of or read for the first time in their adulthood, due to their perceived / agreed upon cultural importance.

 

Yet, there simply do not seem to be those types of knowledges in math and sciences. Somebody made a remark that it is because in this age science has become so specialist and so removed from the daily context and experience of laymen that speaking of some "canonical" base of knowledge in sciences no longer makes sense - that the point of the school science education is pretty much to recruit the "new forces", children who will "click" with it and continue with it, rather than to provide a type of meaningful basis to all children... while there still is an emphasis on a personal-cultural importance of literacy in humanities, and maybe by their very nature they are closer to their own 'laymen'. If nothing else, you can personally relate to art, history has a direct meaning for your life, your soul will still thrive on some literature... while few people will find much ways to connect with organic chemistry or calculus if they do not intend to proceed on that path.

 

Having all of that mind, I would like to ask what do YOU personally have in mind when you think about scientific literacy, and what type of scientific literacy do YOU intend to work towards with your children - especially if they are NOT headed for science careers. What do you think, for lack of a better expression, are the things, knowledges and skills that should "remain" with a student after the secondary cycle of education?

 

I could think of some general *principles* - such as, say, the scientific method, or the essence of proofs in mathematics. I had much problems in defining *content*, especially keeping in mind the nature of the scientific progress and the speed at which our knowledge expands. Is there even a point of having an overview of *history* of science and remembering theories that have been disproven - or do you find that what is the most valuable to have as a remainder are principles of thought or observation skills? Humanities cannot be taken away from their context and the intertwined net of other humanities - thus things such as the WTM method which try to teach things in context - but what type of context, what types of associations, should ideally remain after a secondary math/science education?

 

All of this probably sounds confusing because I am tired, but I wanted to open the thread before I lose the inspiration. :lol:

 

Anyone?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

[regentrude]

Having all of that mind, I would like to ask what do YOU personally have in mind when you think about scientific literacy, and what type of scientific literacy do YOU intend to work towards with your children - especially if they are NOT headed for science careers. What do you think, for lack of a better expression, are the things, knowledges and skills that should "remain" with a student after the secondary cycle of education?.

 

I would expect an educated person to know enough science to understand basic things about the world, how stuff works, how the body works.

Here is what comes to my mind right now with respect to content (this is no well thought out list - more what I remember form my high school sciences of the top of my hat- except for physics, I have not had anything to do with chem or bio since school):

Physics:

- planetary motion, moon phases, origin of seasons, earth moving around sun in a year, why does moon not fall down

- Newton's laws of motion (F=ma, action=reaction, law of inertia)

- free fall, parabolic trajectories (not formulas, but qualitative)

- energy changes from potential (gravity, spring) to kinetic; how a power plant works

- basic thermodynamics: heat transfer, conduction

- how an internal combustion engine works

- oscillation, how sound is created

- how a microwave oven works

- Xray

- optics: lenses, mirrors, how do telescope and microscope work

- basic electrodynamics: charges, magnets, the existence of electric and magnetic fields

- household electrics: what are Watts, volts

 

Chemistry:

-atoms, electrons and nucleus(proton/neutron)

-electron shells

- periodic table - basic ideas

- what are metals

-acids, bases, Ph

- ionic and covalent compounds

-basic idea about chemical reactions

-states of matter

-a little bit of organic chemistry

 

Biology:

-structure of a cell

-mitosis/meiosis - general idea

- photosynthesis (general idea - no equations)

- glucose for energy

- structure of human organism, body systems, human reproduction, digestion

- embryonic development

-bacteria and viruses, diseases

-how antibiotics work

- how vaccinations work

-basic classification of organisms

- DNA, basic genetics

- evolution

 

Earth science:

-sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic rock

-erosion

-volcanoes, earth quakes, plate tectonics

-tornado, hurricane

 

There is probably a lot more... this is just what comes to my mind right now.

Of course, everybody should know what makes a science a science (and why science and religion are different things). It is the predictive power of science.

Edited August 22, 2011 by regentrude

[Teachin'Mine]

If you leave knowing how to do basic math and can calculate percentages and fractions, then you'll probably be ahead of many. I've encountered many high school graduates, having completed algebra and geometry and even more, who still can't do the basics with or without the aid of a calculator.

 

For science, I think it's important to leave knowing that you know so little of what there is to know. If you come away with a general understanding and a good curiosity, then you'll probably make learning about science a life long interest. So much of the specifics are easily forgotten after exams have been taken, but the wonder and love of science seems to stick around. Regentrude your list is a good one!

[regentrude]

Yet, there simply do not seem to be those types of knowledges in math and sciences. Somebody made a remark that it is because in this age science has become so specialist and so removed from the daily context and experience of laymen that speaking of some "canonical" base of knowledge in sciences no longer makes sense - that the point of the school science education is pretty much to recruit the "new forces", children who will "click" with it and continue with it, rather than to provide a type of meaningful basis to all children... while there still is an emphasis on a personal-cultural importance of literacy in humanities, and maybe by their very nature they are closer to their own 'laymen'. If nothing else, you can personally relate to art, history has a direct meaning for your life, your soul will still thrive on some literature... while few people will find much ways to connect with organic chemistry or calculus if they do not intend to proceed on that path.

 

 

After I wrote very specific things, I want to comment on this more general idea:

I absolutely do NOT think that the only purpose of an education is to prepare kids for further studies in one selected specialist field. I firmly believe that science can be meaningful to every human being, and that a basic scientific knowledge is necessary in order to understand the things that surround us and make sensible choices.

Ignorance about scientific matters that have impact in a person's daily life is rampant. If people do not know how a microwave works, they may be afraid to use one. If people do not understand antibiotics, they will use them if they have a viral infection or not finish their prescription and breed resistant bacteria. There are warnings circulating the internet that heating water bottles causes dioxin - if people would remember their basic high school chemistry, they would know that PE does not contain chlorine and hence dioxin formation is impossible. The list is endless.

So, I think in order to make choices that directly impact everyday life, a scientific understanding is necessary - and it is one purpose of education to provide these tools.

Many superstitions from the Middle ages, for instance, were a result of lacking scientific understanding: comets and witches do not cause the plague. We tend to feel superior because we do no longer have THESE misconceptions - for some reason I do not fully understand it seems to be OK to be ignorant about today's maters, and, as you described, even be proud of it. I wish I knew where this comes from.

 

Science IS evolving quickly, and scientists work on specialized things -the material that is taught in school, however, is not the cutting edge stuff, but knowledge that has been around for decades, or centuries. The new developments do not make these basics obsolete.

Edited August 22, 2011 by regentrude

[Julie in MN]

Personally, I don't think of specific pieces of knowledge as much more than fodder for Trivial Pursuit. But I *admit* I am biased -- I have never been able to retain those bits of information. Even in jobs where many bits were expected to be memorized, such as medical transcription, I puzzled many folks because I was untrained and honestly didn't remember the bits, but just knew how to organize my references for quick access and recognize when I needed to use them. I was good at that job in ways that were outside the usual fare, I suppose, but I think that's what makes a person knowledgeable -- not depending on one's memory for storage of bits.

 

I've tutored some kids who read a piece of text and seem desperate to hang on to spinning bits of information, and can't tell me what the main point is. I've tried to pry those bits loose and make the child let go, so they can concentrate on the bigger picture, but they're too afraid they might need them. And they probably will, from what I've seen of science tests and such.

 

I just think the best and most dependable skills to have on board are the ability and confidence to figure things out (this would really apply to math, and probably at least the vocabulary part of science), and your own self-knowledge of how best to organize information to streamline your own way of learning?

 

I went to a very large university and at that time, folks came from all walks of life, with many varied skill sets on board. That was the exciting part of college, in my book. This new idea of a streamlined skill set just wasn't there. Maybe it was because I was in liberal arts, or because it was in the 70's, but really the whole idea of "knowledge" just seemed so different back then. A fond memory is when my honors statistics professor walked in, told us that he assumed we either knew all the formulas or knew how to look them up, and threw a mountain of data on the table for us to dig into. Now that was real learning, in my book!

 

I feel bad for the young folks having to approach certain colleges today (like Georgia, which was mentioned on the boards recently and still leaves me steaming), where everyone marches in a row. That's just more high school, to me. Blech. I hated high school and graduated early, never wanting to see a school again at the time.

 

Julie, who's never been good at marching in a row

Somebody made a remark that it is because in this age science has become so specialist and so removed from the daily context and experience of laymen that speaking of some "canonical" base of knowledge in sciences no longer makes sense - that the point of the school science education is pretty much to recruit the "new forces", children who will "click" with it and continue with it, rather than to provide a type of meaningful basis to all children... while there still is an emphasis on a personal-cultural importance of literacy in humanities, and maybe by their very nature they are closer to their own 'laymen'. If nothing else, you can personally relate to art, history has a direct meaning for your life, your soul will still thrive on some literature... while few people will find much ways to connect with organic chemistry or calculus if they do not intend to proceed on that path.

 

It is late here too, so I can't give this the response it deserves. However specialized science has become, the results of science have become deeply interwoven into the fabric of our everyday lives, and it is critical that everyday citizens understand the basics of science and math to help make and understand public policy decisions that are vital to our future, and personal decisions relevant to only a few. More importantly, there are many charlatans who would exploit scientific illiteracy and mathematical innumeracy to the detriment of our children. Teaching the fundamentals of math and science are a vital inoculation to this problem.

[elegantlion]

What a timely question. I received a poor science education, mainly because I wasn't interested in it, or forced to take classes. I'm putting together a course of self-education for this year in preparation to facilitate for ds the next year.

 

One book I enjoyed is Science Matters, a book on achieving science literacy. The authors' define scientific literacy as "...the knowledge you need to understand public issues...a mix of facts, vocabulary, concepts, history, and philosophy...if you can take articles with headlines about stem cell research and the greenhouse effect and put them into meaningful context."

 

That is their bare bones definition.

 

I would also like to see a knowledge of how science is intertwined with life, with math, with art, with cooking, etc. I would also include some history of technology, including an understanding of the quickening pace of advancements in science due to new technology.

 

I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee, but those are some thoughts from someone working on her own scientific literacy.

 

ETA: I've been out of school for over 25 years.

Edited August 22, 2011 by elegantlion

[Gwen in VA]

While I agree that there is some information that falls under the heading of "basic literacy," mostly I think studying science and math provides a way of thinking, a way of approaching the world and problem-solving.

 

I just think the best and most dependable skills to have on board are the ability and confidence to figure things out (this would really apply to math, and probably at least the vocabulary part of science), and your own self-knowledge of how best to organize information to streamline your own way of learning?

 

:iagree:

 

With two engineering degrees under my belt, I would say that the absolutely most important thing I learned in my math and engineering classes was how to make assumptions (since rarely in real life do you actually have enough information to just plug numbers into an equation) and how to use those assumptions to solve problems. Period!

[stripe]

My husband remembers the types of clouds vividly from 4th grade. I am a bit jealous.

 

I think a basic understanding of how the world works is invaluable. Frankly my grandma, who did not finish high school and seems to have nothing good to say about her formal education, is my model for this. She knows a lot about common sense things.

 

One should not feel clueless in the world.

[FaithManor]

The authors' define scientific literacy as "...the knowledge you need to understand public issues...a mix of facts, vocabulary, concepts, history, and philosophy...if you can take articles with headlines about stem cell research and the greenhouse effect and put them into meaningful context."

 

 

I think that the above is very important. Junk science/ pseudo science and its many myths abound and propogate because of a lack of the understanding of basic concepts and their application.

 

I also think that Regentrude put together a very thoughtful, fairly complete list of basic concepts.

 

One of the things that is missing in this is that the Humanities are talked about by "the masses" and this dialogue keeps ideas fresh or at least jump starts long term memory retrieval. Even something as simple as the first scene of the "return to Hogwarts" in the 3rd Harry Potter movie is an example...the lyrics to the choir piece John Williams composed for that scene come directly from the famous witches' incantations from Macbeth - Toil and Trouble. These kinds of quotes and sprinklings of ideas from literary and historical "greats" are everywhere. But, as a general rule, and I believe very true in America, we've abandoned any discourse about math and science and left it to the "experts". Thus, rote memorization of facts that will never need to be recalled again and becomes the norm for the public in general.

 

In an effort to streamline education and conform it to bubble-testing, rote memorization without application or the ability to discuss concepts has also become the norm. One does not discuss cell division with a multiple-choice exam and discourse has been largely removed from the American education. That leaves "talking about it" to be the realm of geeky kids, cast-outs...the ones that we hope will survive and head off to college for STEM careers because we really need them to do so! What makes matters even worse is that junk science will continue to abound so long as journalists are so fundamentally under-educated in the sciences that they cannot see faulty science in even its most basic form if it reached out and "bit them on the nose". Since we have such a trusting public, "Hey, if it's in the Washington Post it must be true!", it is a bit frightening.

 

Oral exams, open discussion, writing about science and mathematics, scientific research, the scientific method, these are the things that transform facts from just rote information to permanent ideas that shape the mind. Yet, these are the very things that one will nearly always find missing from science classrooms K-12 at least in America. I cannot speak for other cultures.

 

We teach quite socratically, if that is a word, in our homeschool. Discussion is the basis of much of what we do. We are the original science geeks and I can honestly say that on some levels our literary/historical teaching probably suffers because we adore science. As a result, it is astounding to me how much information my children retain and use in conversations at a later date. Well, astounding by comparison to their peer group. Again, I am not prepared to say that they are better off in science and math education than say their Canadian or European counterparts. I don't have any experience in those educational systems to know one way or another.

 

I have upped he difficulty level of our history and literature program this year as I recognize that dh and I always lean towards science and math at all times and this may be doing the children a disservice. It occured to me that when we covered Medival History last year, our literature choices reflected this. The writings of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, cartographers and explorers, etc. We barely touched on Dante and the like though we did manage the Song of Roland and Beowful!

 

Faith

[Ester Maria]

Thank you, everyone.

I need to think about this some more, give me a day or two, so I will come back with more concrete observations and questions. (And of course meanwhile any new opinions are also welcome! :tongue_smilie:)

[Jane in NC]

My modest proposal is that the general population would be well off to approach science in the Victorian sense: via observation. It is true that to understand modern biology one has to understand biochemistry and the cellular process. But without this knowledge one can still observe crabs at work, propagate day lilies, read wonderful natural science writers like Sue Hubbell. (Or consider the fun book Kraken by Wendy Williams, a non-scientist who fell in love with squid.) One need not understand the latest cosmology to find the nebula in the belt of the constellation Orion with binoculars alone (assuming you have dark skies).

 

Consider the American statesman Benjamin Franklin. While sailing to France with the mission of persuading that country to support ours financially during the revolutionary war, he sent his homemade instruments overboard to document the effect of the mysterious Gulf Stream. He observed the world around him and did not relegate science to someone else.

 

That to me is the root of the problem. Recent generations have declared themselves to be non-mathy or non-science types. The history of the Royal Society demonstrates that the those who are curious are often curious about everything--not just one or two disciplines.

 

It disturbs me when someone boasts of being innumerate. I have never heard anyone boast of being illiterate--although I suppose I am one of those people who claims not to be able to carry a tune. Doesn't stop me from singing though.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Jane in NC

[PeterPan]

My modest proposal is that the general population would be well off to approach science in the Victorian sense: via observation..

 

Please talk about this some more! :)

[Jane in NC]

Please talk about this some more! :)

 

Admittedly my view of the Victorians and their French/German counterparts may not be correct. The era just seemed to produce a number of scientists and amateurs who both went out in the world to observe as well as those who conducted fascinating experiments in their parlors and as members of intellectual societies.

 

But hands on does not equate to science. A young child can make a polymer like Goop from white glue and corn starch. It is a fun activity. But at some point in the process (by a logic stage age if not earlier) the science of the chemical reaction can be explained. It will make the most sense to a kid to make Goop and hear or read an explanation. If the child reads in a text that Goop can be made by doing A,B,C and this is what happens, does the child have the same sense of the hands on? Similarly, if the child performs the activity but receives no explanation, no vocabulary of the process, will the child have an understanding that can be connected to another experiment?

 

I am a believer in hands-on, experiential science but I also see the need for text books. I believe that hands on stuff as well as "popular" science programs and books (Nova, Discover magazine, Science Friday, etc.) can help us keep abreast and maintain a basic vocabulary of what is going on in science. But at some point, the popular materials may be insufficient.

 

For example, I think that one of prettiest things in math and physics is a set of equations called Maxwell's Equations. But in order to understand the equations at even a conceptual level one needs to understand some multivariable calculus. And math is one of those things that one does not just read--one practices it. So if one has a goal of understanding electromagnetism, fiddling and observing may be helpful---but this is not an expeditious method of reaching one's goal. And here is the problem: how many elementary or middle school students really understand where they are going in this world so that they want to close doors at an early age? That brings us back to the uncomfortable idea of standards or core knowledge.

 

Oh dear. I fear that I may be derailing this thread as I am inclined to do.

 

So I'll sign off.

Jane

[Perry]

I don't have much time, but while I believe that Americans are generally scientifically illiterate, I also believe that you would find only a tiny fraction of Americans that could recite anything from Hamlet or tell you the story of Aeneas.

 

;)

[Colleen in NS]

bumping

 

I subscribed to this thread while I was away on vacation, and am just now reading it. It didn't get as long or involved as I would have expected for this topic.

 

:bigear:

[lewelma]

Those who are scientifically literate definitely have the :eek: response when someone who is scientifically illiterate says something stupid. I assume that this is the same in the humanities.

 

Things I have heard....

If a white woman has a baby with a black man she can never have a pure-bred baby again. (um, basic genetics)

 

Atoms are mostly empty space, so if you think hard enough you can walk through walls. (don't know where to start)

 

This ointment will stop bruising. (please tell me how you stop capillaries from breaking with a topical cream)

 

Using a tuning fork over your body can reduce abdominal migraines. (please tell me the mechanism)

 

Water is healthier if you put a magnet in it. (again, please tell me the mechanism)

 

People ask me all the time about very basic stuff, like:

 

Why can't you become immune to the common cold (basic lack of understanding of the immune system and of the evolution of viruses (this is not an evolutionary debate, but the evolution of viruses is fact)

 

Why is the flu vaccine not always effective? (basic lack of understanding about the probabilistic nature of science and the production schedule)

 

Why was it unexpected to have an earthquake on the east coast? (no idea that the plate boundary is in the middle of the Atlantic)

 

How in the world would I tell someone what to learn to be scientifically literate? First of all, you need to learn all the time because scientific knowledge is always changing. Second, you need some breadth, which is why the WTM recommends time in all 4 areas of science. Plus you really need to always have on your "Oh really?" hat, because pseudoscience is EVERYWHERE! Finally, you need to really understand about experimentation including a control and replication.

 

I regularly use the example of global warming. "Why is it so controversial?" I ask people. The answer.... because it effects the entire earth so there is no experimentation or replication possible. We don't have an identical earth somewhere else where we did not have human-introduced green house gasses with which to compare. Plus, there is no replication of the control and experimental groups (we would need 20 earths). It means that our understanding will be a much weaker, statistical, correlation argument which leads to controversy. This is basic statistics.

 

I do think that to be scientifically literate, people need to know about probability and statistics. I personally believe that statistics is way more useful in everyday life than calculus. And I would replace high school geometry and trig, with advanced statistics if I had the chance.

 

Well, that was just a brain dump and seems a bit random on rereading. But it is a fascinating comparison -- scientific/math literacy vs humanities literacy. I do think it depends on the crowd that you hang out with. There are many many days that I just keep my mouth shut.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited September 16, 2011 by lewelma

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I like this idea. I think this is why nature studies have such appeal, because we sense how much we aren't paying attention to.

 

It is as if having concluded that only specialists will make new discoveries, that it was no longer fruitful to recognize the birds and plants and animals around you. When I am on track with doing nature studies I find that I have sharper senses for observation.

[stripe]

I think there's been a desire to write our concept of a national identity (independent frontiersman, for example) onto every aspect of our lives. So "going it alone" becomes an enormous virtue in itself. And Galileo, who, last time I checked, was not American, is somehow the template that tells us, "If everyone thinks you're crazy, you must be right!", in other words, simply having the temerity to assert something outside the norm necessarily means you have a unique and correct insight. So someone who says aliens are beaming waves at us to drive us off of Earth and that's why there is a sudden increase in food allergies must be right, because "they" laugh at that person! I also think the idea of two sides to every story is also overused. However, on the other side, some scientists act as if their word is Divine Revelation and we must all obey at once, and that is offputting, frankly, especially when the Revelation changes constantly.

 

So I think the ordinary person decides it's all bunk, and that they know as much as the best doctor, or follow the guy who wrote a blog post about how cinnamon rolls cure cancer.

 

And I am starting to become a believer in the value of nature study!

[flyingiguana]

Having enough knowledge and logical thinking ability to be able to assess the truth of a scientific argument.

[Kalmia]

I completely agree that everyone should have a comprehensive science education in order to discriminate between pseudoscientific claims and scientificaly backed information. This is particularly important when dealing with health, nutrition, and wellness claims. They should also have a good understanding of physiology in order to better guide their own medical care.

 

They should also be literate in the "grammar" of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. Not necessarily equations or experimental design but information such as the common elements and their characteristics or the classification of living things.

 

A basic knowledge of science is also necessary to be a good citizen. There are so many scientific issues that are handled (or mishandled) in the political realm that one must be aware of basic scientific facts in order to be an informed decisionmaker or voter. I would begin with a thorough knowledge of geology! (And then go on to the other disciplines.)

 

A short list of what a good citizen should know about geology:

 

1. Where their water comes from. What natural and man-made systems purify it and how. What water quality threats could potentially harm this vital resource. What a watershed is. What limits there are to water supply in your region.

 

2. Whether or not they live in a floodplain. An understanding of human and natural factors that increase flood severity including the effect of new housing and commercial developments.

 

3. What erosion is and how it affects agriculture and how it can be controlled.

 

4. The origins of the metals and fuels they use in daily life. How ores, coal, oil, and natural gas are extracted from the earth and the pollution that may result from this extraction processes.

 

5. Where their waste goes. An understanding of sewage treatment and septic systems. An understanding of solid waste disposal. Understanding how improper disposal of waste can lead to air, water and soil contamination.

 

6. How building projects can be affected by geological processes: earthquakes, landslides, and floods.

[Mama Geek]

This thread has been a fairly interesting read. I have often heard it said that the best engineers started out as farmers. My dh is one of those engineers, I am not. He grew up working on machinery, raising animals, raising a large garden, and adding on and remodeling the farm house. When they had problems they figured out what was needed to fix the problems. He had a really good understanding of the concepts taught in the sciences. He has both a Physics degree and an engineering degree now. The thing that he is strongest in is solving problems.

 

I have had several courses in Calculus, Chemistry, and Physics, a couple in Biology, and yes even Statistics. It took me more than the 4 years of an engineering degree to even begin to understand what it really takes to apply the stuff in real life.

 

Some of the things that we plan on doing to give dd a solid foundation is to point out and teach stuff from real life. By playing some pool or navigating a boat you can teach about vectors and torque, by working on a lawn mower or anything else with an engine, you can discuss so many things. Doing carpentry you can discuss load paths and what size members will be needed to support what you are trying to use the piece for. Having a fish tank or a pool gives opportunity to talk about chemistry. To really be successful in the sciences, you have to start out with an understanding of how things work. The sciences explain why things work they way they do. If dd doesn't have major limitations, which so far she doesn't seem to we plan on teaching her at least 2-3 college semesters of calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology before she graduates high school.

 

I've seen time and again people say that they don't use a lot of this in daily life, but without people knowing it this world would be much different. This knowledge is used all through out our society. From computers, to buildings, to electricity, to vehicles, and so much more the sciences have a major impact on all of us.

 

Understanding how and why things work and knowing how to fix things yourself can save a family a lot of money. We have rarely hire someone to work on our house or vehicles. We do 95% of it ourselves.

[Julie in MN]

I have had several courses in Calculus, Chemistry, and Physics, a couple in Biology, and yes even Statistics. It took me more than the 4 years of an engineering degree to even begin to understand what it really takes to apply the stuff in real life.

 

Some of the things that we plan on doing to give dd a solid foundation is to point out and teach stuff from real life. By playing some pool or navigating a boat you can teach about vectors and torque, by working on a lawn mower or anything else with an engine, you can discuss so many things. Doing carpentry you can discuss load paths and what size members will be needed to support what you are trying to use the piece for. Having a fish tank or a pool gives opportunity to talk about chemistry. To really be successful in the sciences, you have to start out with an understanding of how things work. The sciences explain why things work they way they do. If dd doesn't have major limitations, which so far she doesn't seem to we plan on teaching her at least 2-3 college semesters of calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology before she graduates high school.

 

I've seen time and again people say that they don't use a lot of this in daily life, but without people knowing it this world would be much different. This knowledge is used all through out our society. From computers, to buildings, to electricity, to vehicles, and so much more the sciences have a major impact on all of us.

 

I really like your post. I especially have been noticing that elementary parents are so anxious to get to that textbook right away. When I try to suggest doing mostly hands-on for elementary science, I always get shot down with "my kids have done all that" and "are ready for more" -- meaning textbooks.

 

But as we have read several scientist biographies the past year or two, the thing that strikes me is the hands-on, and almost no textbooks. It was Leeuwenhoek we read about this week, and he discovered microbiology, yet he basically had an elementary education and a little homeschooled math & physics from an uncle - never saw a science textbook, as far as we can tell. Thomas Edison had almost no formal education. But it didn't all come to them thru sitting there, it came by doing things with their hands, looking closely with their eyes...

 

I know everyone doesn't have the same passion and sometimes a curriculum is really needed to guide a student through the sciences. Probably by high school, some formal guidance is really good, so I'm mostly relating this to a worry I've had about elementary science. But I just wanted to agree the learning will be so much deeper if first the hands-on is taken more seriously.

 

Julie

[stripe]

the learning will be so much deeper if first the hands-on is taken more seriously.

 

Julie, I just read this and thought of your post:

 

That the study of nature rests primarily on observation, and that this rests on accurate sense perception, no one will deny; but that this is the end is a supposition fatal to successfully extracting from such a course results more precious to the child, — the cultivation of the judgment and the imagination. Indeed, if a choice must be made, let us cultivate these rather than the senses, for, without imagination, the acutest seeing, hearing, touch, taste, or smell will not help us to an intelligent observation.

 

-- Lucy Langdon Williams Wilson, Nature study in elementary schools (p4)

[Julie in MN]

Julie, I just read this and thought of your post:

 

Aw, thanks for thinking of me. I like what I've read so far. Kinda like Charlotte Mason's nature walks, but it's nice that the author doesn't expect teachers to know all that Charlotte knows about nature. I know you could bring along a book like the Handbook of Nature Study & try to be a Ms. Mason about it all, but somehow the thought that young kids need to know the formal names of every plant doesn't mesh with what I'm thinking kids need to experiment with. This lady seems a bit more towards the doing, the feeling, the understanding. I'll have to keep reading...

 

Julie

[Maura in NY]

I second the recommendation for Hazen & Trefil's Science Matters. This is a very readable book, worth reading yourself, and having your kids read at the end of high school to touch back on all the science they've covered.