on teaching science
I enjoyed this article about the teaching of physics to school children in the United Kingdom, and reforms which seem to be focused on teaching kids to talk “about” science rather that teaching kids science itself.
Perhaps the most startling point is that calculation has been removed from the physics syllabus. Everything must be described in words. As such, the very core of the subject – describing nature in a precise and mathematical fashion – is gone, replaced by wonders such as this sample question and answer:
Q: Why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?
A: Can be processed by computer / ipod
This question is given in the ’stupid’ category (others identified are ‘vague’ and ‘political’). The over-arching issue is probably more interesting though:
In this course, pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power. Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants, without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.
This sounds alarmingly like the type of “scientific” debate we are constantly subjected to in public and political forums: vague ideological arguments dressed up with some of the trappings of science but none of the actual data and precision. These students will no doubt have strong views about nuclear power, but they’ll never help design a working fusion reactor – unfortunately that might involve taking a few measurements and doing a few calculations.
Thank you for linking to my site.
-Grey
A pleasure – thank you for an interesting read. I know other teachers with similar concerns here in Australia.
I can’t help but feel is all part of a consistent simplification of everything. Yes debating skills are important, but learning to argue used to be the purpose of the humanities. How is anyone supposed to go on to higher studies of sciences without a basic knowledge of the hard facts forming the basis of (say) phsyics (or equally chemistry, biology or maths)?
Encouraging students into the sciences can be done by dumbing them down, else there is no merit in attracting more students.
It seems very much to be a part of the drive to get “results” in empirical testing, rather than results by way of learning outcomes. The same school perhaps who want performance based teacher salaries.
Or, to quote Space Ghost:
SG: “I can reduce everything to a simple yes/no answer…”
Moltar: “But…”
SG: “Moltar!” *points laser at Moltar* “Yes!”
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem is the misappropriation of the term ’science’ but non-scientific people. It’s like they recognise the prestige that comes from the ‘hard’ sciences, but they don’t want to do the work (or require kids to do the work) to actually earn that prestige – they just want to take a bunch of soft debating subjects and vague socio-politics and call that science so that everyone feels validated.
I do not want to drive over bridges and use medical drugs and fly in planes designed by kids who have done science classes which taught them about iPods…
“by” not “but”
Hehe Space Ghost.