Science Education under attack

[BillHoyt]

Science education in America is under attack, with "discovery learning" on one flank and the Discovery Institute on the other. That's the core finding of our just-released comprehensive review of state science standards, the first since 2000. Written by pre-eminent biologist Paul R. Gross, The State of State Science Standards finds that even though the majority of states have reworked, or crafted from scratch, their science standards over the past five years, we're no better off now than before
Report (http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=352)

I find it most interesting that the summary opens with a clear connection between postmodern and creationist influences. Strange bedfellows to say the least, but bedfellows nonetheless. (Of course, the standards group includes Gross and Haack, among others...)

[Melendwyr]

DOOM.

Okay, now that that's out of the way:

If you actually want to test science education, children should be placed in a room with some basic apparatus and given a hypothesis. The children must then a) state the null hypothesis, b) formulate an experiment involving the apparatus that will appropriately test the hypothesis, and c) accept or reject the null hypothesis according to their experimental results.

Anything else is just memorization.

[BillHoyt]

DOOM.

Okay, now that that's out of the way:

If you actually want to test science education, children should be placed in a room with some basic apparatus and given a hypothesis. The children must then a) state the null hypothesis, b) formulate an experiment involving the apparatus that will appropriately test the hypothesis, and c) accept or reject the null hypothesis according to their experimental results.

Anything else is just memorization.
Read the reports in nine minutes? Right.

[Jekyll]

If you actually want to test science education, children should be placed in a room with some basic apparatus and given a hypothesis. The children must then a) state the null hypothesis, b) formulate an experiment involving the apparatus that will appropriately test the hypothesis, and c) accept or reject the null hypothesis according to their experimental results.

Is that really how you think science should be done?

I mean there may well be a time and a place for this statistical hypothesis testing, but do you really think that the exploring of a situation and the developing of an understanding of such a situation warents it?

I wouldn't consider such an exercise a demonstration of scientific ability. It's more an exercise in how to diligently tick the appropriate boxes when you already know what's going on.

[BillHoyt]

Is that really how you think science should be done?

I mean there may well be a time and a place for this statistical hypothesis testing, but do you really think that the exploring of a situation and the developing of an understanding of such a situation warents it?

I wouldn't consider such an exercise a demonstration of scientific ability. It's more an exercise in how to diligently tick the appropriate boxes when you already know what's going on.
This is part of the discovery method to which the group objects. It has its place, but it cannot replace the "memorization" Melandwyr seems to object to.

[Jekyll]

This is part of the discovery method to which the group objects. It has its place, but it cannot replace the "memorization" Melandwyr seems to object to.
Funny. The application of routine hypothesis testing to an existing hypothesis seems to be little more than an application of rote learning.

Teaching children to come up with good hypotheses, that are relivant and can be tested is the trick. It requires good knowledge and insight, and frankly may well be impossible.

[jj]

Report (http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=352)

I find it most interesting that the summary opens with a clear connection between postmodern and creationist influences. Strange bedfellows to say the least, but bedfellows nonetheless. (Of course, the standards group includes Gross and Haack, among others...)

I don't find this relationship at all suprising. It is, after all, postmodernism and deconstruction, along with a nasty case of relativism, that gave creationists a wedge in, by teaching a whole generation of people that everything is relative.

[hammegk]

... good hypotheses, that are relivant and can be tested is the trick. It requires good knowledge and insight, and frankly may well be impossible.
A "good" hypothesis, null or otherwise, requires a firm objective, is what it requires .... ;)

[jj]

And, once again, I'll say that I think nobody should be allowed to graduate from High School without being able to state the principles of the theory of evolution and give a good, clear summary (at a high level, of course, not including much in the way of detail) of the evidence for it. They should also be able to explain what "theory" means, what science does (i.e. provisional acceptance, not "proof"), and what testable means.

Now, I didn't say they had to ACCEPT the TOE, only be able to accurately describe it and the evidence for it.

[jj]

A "good" hypothesis, null or otherwise, requires a firm objective, is what it requires .... ;)

Hmm, an objective, or a good way to test the hypothesis? Or are we using the different words for the same thing?

[Renfield]

DOOM.

Okay, now that that's out of the way:

If you actually want to test science education, children should be placed in a room with some basic apparatus and given a hypothesis. The children must then a) state the null hypothesis, b) formulate an experiment involving the apparatus that will appropriately test the hypothesis, and c) accept or reject the null hypothesis according to their experimental results.

Anything else is just memorization.

A basic body of knowledge is important if you're going to succeed in science, as well as mathematical skills like being able to understand and apply formulas.

The post modern, discovery learning crowd are mainly liberal arts oriented people, the sort who dreaded math and science and avoided it as much as possible in high school and college. They took the math out of math and now they are trying to do the same with science it seems. Defniately strange bedfellows for the fundamentalist right wing crowd, but in this case they do seem to have the same goals.

[jj]

A basic body of knowledge is important if you're going to succeed in science, as well as mathematical skills like being able to understand and apply formulas.

What's more, since in today's world, where a lot of knowledge is already available, it is necessary to have a large fund of knowledge to be able to progress beyond what is known.

Yes, doing basic experiments is necessary, but teaching people that they must confirm everything they accept makes life hard for those of us without a TEVatron under the bed.

[Melendwyr]

Is that really how you think science should be done? That's how science IS done. What, you think scientists recite facts learned from books all day?

I wouldn't consider such an exercise a demonstration of scientific ability. If you don't consider performing science to be indicative of science ability, what DO you consider indicative?

[BillHoyt]

I don't find this relationship at all suprising. It is, after all, postmodernism and deconstruction, along with a nasty case of relativism, that gave creationists a wedge in, by teaching a whole generation of people that everything is relative.
To be clear, jj, I wasn't expressing surprise at that unholy alliance. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've written about it on JREF some time ago. I'm surprised that Gross, Haack, et. al., now feel sufficiently comfortable to give such prominence to it. (Although, frankly, the average reader may miss the comment's import.)

[cbish]

I went through the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation website and you know what is noticably missing?

Teachers!

There are no teachers or former teachers on staff. One person had taught summer enrichment classes once. Another had two separate years of teaching English in Poland. There are no teachers, let alone, SCIENCE TEACHERS at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Hmmmm.

Nothing like being criticized by people who don't know what they're talking about......or couldn't pay a million dollars to do your job.

The California Science Standards are OK for the academically inclined. But for the non college prep classes they're a joke. For the non academic student (and to be politically incorrect, that's the majority of them) there are no science standards. They just took the existing standards and cut'n paste on Microsoft Word 'new standards'. I should ask my Recycle Man, and former student, how much of the Milikan Oil Drop Experiment he remembers or uses picking up my empty beer cans.

[jj]

To be clear, jj, I wasn't expressing surprise at that unholy alliance. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've written about it on JREF some time ago. I'm surprised that Gross, Haack, et. al., now feel sufficiently comfortable to give such prominence to it. (Although, frankly, the average reader may miss the comment's import.)

Bill, I didn't think it was new to you, it's a point, however, that has annoyed me a great deal for quite a while, especially since some of the rabid opponents of right-ism are the leftists who gave them the keys to the chicken coop, and vice versa.

[PixyMisa]

Very good point about Postmodernism being as bad as religious fundamentalism for science education.

And I like how Kansas scores "Not even failed" for teaching of Evolution. :)

[tsg]

Very good point about Postmodernism being as bad as religious fundamentalism for science education.

And I like how Kansas scores "Not even failed" for teaching of Evolution. :)


To fail, you must first try.

[cbish]

I noticed the Kansas thing as well. Also, Texas didn't fair too well. I thought that was one of GWB's selling points during both his campaigns; how he came in and did the Taz on the Texas school system and wipped them into shape.

I've seen groups like this before. They usually have an agenda. From surfing through the site, it appears to be Charter Schools.

[Lynx2174]

And, once again, I'll say that I think nobody should be allowed to graduate from High School without being able to state the principles of the theory of evolution and give a good, clear summary (at a high level, of course, not including much in the way of detail) of the evidence for it. They should also be able to explain what "theory" means, what science does (i.e. provisional acceptance, not "proof"), and what testable means.

Now, I didn't say they had to ACCEPT the TOE, only be able to accurately describe it and the evidence for it.

that would be nice, but realistically, in basic science classes, you'd then have to teach evolution for like 3 weeks, which takes time that could be spent doing other things. If anything I would think that this would overall lower the quality of science education. evolution is useful, but it's not actually relevant to most people. I would like to see more of it in my IB bio classes though.

[jj]

that would be nice, but realistically, in basic science classes, you'd then have to teach evolution for like 3 weeks, which takes time that could be spent doing other things. If anything I would think that this would overall lower the quality of science education. evolution is useful, but it's not actually relevant to most people. I would like to see more of it in my IB bio classes though.

Well, since Evolution is a wonderful way to teach practical application of the scientific method, take 4 weeks and do that. It will teach a fundamental that will remedy a lot of things in the long run.

[cbish]

that would be nice, but realistically, in basic science classes, you'd then have to teach evolution for like 3 weeks, which takes time that could be spent doing other things. If anything I would think that this would overall lower the quality of science education. evolution is useful, but it's not actually relevant to most people. I would like to see more of it in my IB bio classes though.

Ummm.......are you kidding?!? I spend 3 weeks on Evolution in my Biology course and I reference it pretty much all year long. It's been said that Evolution is one of the four tenet's of Biology. Others have said it is Biology.

Now, being useful; that's another question. This goes back to the question of what is important in science education; process or facts. Is the understanding of Evolutionary Biology significant in Joe Sixpack's everyday life (not specifically our own JFEF's Joe Sixpack but, well, you know what I mean); no. But can you teach scientific process using Evolutionary Biology as a topic; absolutely.

One of the premises of this particular website is that science processesing is killing science education. We should return to the Sputnik curriculum of the late 1950's that teaches science as a list of vocabulary words to be memorized for the test on friday. This is what Melendwyer has objected to and I agree. Science is not a list of vocabulary words. Is there language associated with science; absolutely. Does it have to be mastered to have a complete science education; absolutely. Do high school students have to have a foundation and be able to "speak the language".; absolutely.

This foundation does have some good points. Many Science Standards are wordy and worthless. "Self teaching" taken to the worst exstreme is worthless (however, there's "research" to defend this, which is why we should be super skeptical of "Educational Research" as a reliabe scientific tool, IMO) However, the current grade A (according to this group) California Content Standars fall far short of actually educating Californians.

As skeptics, science is process. Which is more important; knowing how your toilet works, or knowing how to find out how your toilet works if needed?

[Schneibster]

I'm with you, jj, I have contemplated adding "deconstruct deconstructionism" to my signature. It's the worst excuse for not bothering to figure out how things work that I've ever heard.

[Lynx2174]

Ummm.......are you kidding?!? I spend 3 weeks on Evolution in my Biology course and I reference it pretty much all year long. It's been said that Evolution is one of the four tenet's of Biology. Others have said it is Biology.

Now, being useful; that's another question. This goes back to the question of what is important in science education; process or facts. Is the understanding of Evolutionary Biology significant in Joe Sixpack's everyday life (not specifically our own JFEF's Joe Sixpack but, well, you know what I mean); no. But can you teach scientific process using Evolutionary Biology as a topic; absolutely.

One of the premises of this particular website is that science processesing is killing science education. We should return to the Sputnik curriculum of the late 1950's that teaches science as a list of vocabulary words to be memorized for the test on friday. This is what Melendwyer has objected to and I agree. Science is not a list of vocabulary words. Is there language associated with science; absolutely. Does it have to be mastered to have a complete science education; absolutely. Do high school students have to have a foundation and be able to "speak the language".; absolutely.

This foundation does have some good points. Many Science Standards are wordy and worthless. "Self teaching" taken to the worst exstreme is worthless (however, there's "research" to defend this, which is why we should be super skeptical of "Educational Research" as a reliabe scientific tool, IMO) However, the current grade A (according to this group) California Content Standars fall far short of actually educating Californians.

As skeptics, science is process. Which is more important; knowing how your toilet works, or knowing how to find out how your toilet works if needed?

hmm, well then they bloody well better require that knowledge for graduation if they spend that kind of time on it, or at least for passing the class. I may just not remember being taught it freshman year in any detail. We havent spent any time on it in my current class, however I do see it on the syllabus. mabye it's up next. I hope so, it's facinating stuff. http://www.washlee.arlington.k12.va.us/staff/science/masmitht/ibapsyllabus.htm

I agree that it is certainly one of the most important things to know in all biology, because it ties everything together. seems like it should be taught at the beginning of the year, and the scientific method taught all through elementry school and junior high.

unfortunately I think it's a bit unrealistic for them to requre it for graduation (well here in california at least) the california high school exit exam is so easy I could pass it in 6th grade easily, yet lots people still fail it, even given multiple tries. (admittedly, however the fact that many people at my school aren't native english speakers.)

I want to know why I need 4 years of english in high school, but only 2 of science, and 3 of math. I don't see why appreciating liteature is more important than understanding math and science, in fact, for the country, I'd think that it is next to worthless. english should only go up to the amount of class time it takes to learn the skills to get through college, and everyday life, anything else being an elective.

[cbish]

hmm, well then they bloody well better require that knowledge for graduation if they spend that kind of time on it, or at least for passing the class. I may just not remember being taught it freshman year in any detail. We havent spent any time on it in my current class, however I do see it on the syllabus. mabye it's up next. I hope so, it's facinating stuff. http://www.washlee.arlington.k12.va.us/staff/science/masmitht/ibapsyllabus.htm
Except for one small problem. Your website is in Virginia. That's knowlegable, but not relevent for this discussion.
I agree that it is certainly one of the most important things to know in all biology, because it ties everything together. seems like it should be taught at the beginning of the year, and the scientific method taught all through elementry school and junior high.

unfortunately I think it's a bit unrealistic for them to requre it for graduation (well here in california at least) the california high school exit exam is so easy I could pass it in 6th grade easily, yet lots people still fail it, even given multiple tries. (admittedly, however the fact that many people at my school aren't native english speakers.)

I want to know why I need 4 years of english in high school, but only 2 of science, and 3 of math. I don't see why appreciating liteature is more important than understanding math and science, in fact, for the country, I'd think that it is next to worthless. english should only go up to the amount of class time it takes to learn the skills to get through college, and everyday life, anything else being an elective.
You don't need any of this to be successful in college! That's part of my point; if we're really going to educate the public; this plan won't work.


Please, if anyone if really interested in science education; please post in the Education Forum

[jj]

Is the understanding of Evolutionary Biology significant in Joe Sixpack's everyday life (not specifically our own JFEF's Joe Sixpack but, well, you know what I mean); no.


Absolutely WRONG. Joe Sixpack COULD use it, and very well, if he only KNEW it.

Think of how Sylvia would fare if Joe Sixpack understood even a touch of the scientific process and what it was for.

Imagine Joe Sxpack's reaction to Homeopathy if Joe Sixpack was taught what it MEANT to do Homeopaty, instead of stupid relativistic claptrap.

Oh, yes, Joe Sixpack needs to know this, alright.

[Jekyll]

That's how science IS done. What, you think scientists recite facts learned from books all day?

If you don't consider performing science to be indicative of science ability, what DO you consider indicative?
Did you even read the rest of my post?

All this talk of null hypothesis is misleading and irrelivent to science. A theory from any of the hard sciences doesn't rise or fall exclusively on its own merits, but on how well it does in comparison to other theories.

Take Newtonian physics and G.R.

Space is almost flat in most places, so Newtonian physics is sound enough not to fail hypothesis testing at a macrocosmic level. That's why it was good enough for us for several hundred years.

Previously to general relativity, it would have seemed more plausible that there were mistakes in the measurements, or that people were failing to account for all the forces acting on a body than that Newtonian physics was wrong.

Then along came Einstein and effectively discredited Newton by explaining some of the anomalous results and maintaining consistancy with the results that Newtonian physics had explained.

This is something no amount of null hypothesis testing had been able to do.

[PixyMisa]

"Good enough for several hundred years" is somewhat overstating the case. Newton published the Principia in 1687. Even then there were problems known with the calculations of planetary orbits, and Laplace did significant further work on this in the 18th century. Leverrier pointed out the problem with the precession of Mercury in 1846.

So it was good, certainly; good enough, maybe; but there were known problems with Newtonian mechanics quite early on.

[Jekyll]

"Good enough for several hundred years" is somewhat overstating the case. Newton published the Principia in 1687. Even then there were problems known with the calculations of planetary orbits, and Laplace did significant further work on this in the 18th century. Leverrier pointed out the problem with the precession of Mercury in 1846.

So it was good, certainly; good enough, maybe; but there were known problems with Newtonian mechanics quite early on.
But there were other explanations offered for the problems with Mercury.

Here's a bad (post-GR) example:
"Solving the problem of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion was not as clear-cut as solving the deflection of starlight. Even as recently as the 1980s Dicke was still arguing that part of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion might be explained by a small non-sphericity of the Sun. (See, for example, R.H. Dicke (1974), “The oblateness of the Sun and Relativity,” Science 184, 419-429.) If true, this would dissolve the agreement between the observed advance of Mercury’s perihelion and General Relativity."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2150

And without a more unifying theory to rival Newton's, I'm sure that people would find it much more plausible that they had made mistakes in their model than that the theory was wrong.

I mean Newtonian mechanics work so well in so many places.

[Melendwyr]

All this talk of null hypothesis is misleading and irrelivent to science. A theory from any of the hard sciences doesn't rise or fall exclusively on its own merits, but on how well it does in comparison to other theories. You have to be able to generate hypotheses to compare them.

In the case of gravity, Newton's Theory had become the null hypothesis. Do you even know what the null hypothesis is?

[Jekyll]

Yes. Although I'm much more used to them being chosen in a fairly arbitary mannor in order to allow the testing of H1(the pet hypothesis).

I'm thinking through the consequence of what you've said, in the mean time could tell me what the H0 could have been in order for Newton's theory to be tested?

[Melendwyr]

Easy: no disruption of light's path at all. Newtonian physics predicts that light should be bent by gravity, just not to the degree that Einstein predicted. If you're testing Newton, the null hypothesis would be that the starlight would not be deflected at all. If it wasn't, you would then have partially discredited Newton's treatment of gravity.

That would also have been a major discovery. However, it wasn't the primary focus of the observations, since Newton's theories had become so well established that they were essentially considered fact, having stood up to so much testing over the years. Newton was the null hypothesis.

[Jekyll]

Easy: no disruption of light's path at all. Newtonian physics predicts that light should be bent by gravity, just not to the degree that Einstein predicted. If you're testing Newton, the null hypothesis would be that the starlight would not be deflected at all. If it wasn't, you would then have partially discredited Newton's treatment of gravity.

That would also have been a major discovery. However, it wasn't the primary focus of the observations, since Newton's theories had become so well established that they were essentially considered fact, having stood up to so much testing over the years. Newton was the null hypothesis.
Sorry, I didn't mean that.
I ment that starting from scratch, without a rival theory, what would the H0 have been to test that Newton holds?

I think I've worked out the answer to my question though:

H0: In >=x% Newton doesn't hold.
H1: In <x% Newton doesn't hold.

Where x% is some reasonable guess at experimental error.

Which is the (null etc.) hypothesis testing I'm used to.

[Melendwyr]

Without a rival interpretation to produce results, the null hypothesis would have been: the world will behave in a way not consistent with Newton's predictions.

Duh.

[cbish]

Absolutely WRONG. Joe Sixpack COULD use it, and very well, if he only KNEW it.

Think of how Sylvia would fare if Joe Sixpack understood even a touch of the scientific process and what it was for.

Imagine Joe Sxpack's reaction to Homeopathy if Joe Sixpack was taught what it MEANT to do Homeopaty, instead of stupid relativistic claptrap.

Oh, yes, Joe Sixpack needs to know this, alright.

Yes I agree. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. If I understand you correctly basically you're describing critical thinking. I agree all people need that. I'm saying a specific vocab word is not necessarily important. It's not important they know when an organism went extinct, for example. They don't need trivia. They need skills.

[Melendwyr]

Giving someone a tool accomplishes nothing, unless they want to use it.

In America, our educational system isn't the problem. It's symptomatic of the problem, which is cultural.

[cbish]

Giving someone a tool accomplishes nothing, unless they want to use it.

In America, our educational system isn't the problem. It's symptomatic of the problem, which is cultural.

Agreed. Which is why education isn't necessarily the key to success. It's work-ethic.

[cbish]

unfortunately I think it's a bit unrealistic for them to requre it for graduation (well here in california at least) the california high school exit exam is so easy I could pass it in 6th grade easily, yet lots people still fail it, even given multiple tries. (admittedly, however the fact that many people at my school aren't native english speakers.)

I want to know why I need 4 years of english in high school, but only 2 of science, and 3 of math. I don't see why appreciating liteature is more important than understanding math and science, in fact, for the country, I'd think that it is next to worthless. english should only go up to the amount of class time it takes to learn the skills to get through college, and everyday life, anything else being an elective.

"yet people fail it" so what does that tell you? Why is this?

Your last point is interesting. It may relate to the previous paragraph. I happen to agree with you, yet I've been on curricululm committee's and have rejected more science requirements in our district. I may have to re-evaluate my position. I might be wrong.

Edit to add: I've rejected more science requirements because I felt it would be a waste of time for Joe Sixpack. However, I'm learning if there is a subject that JSP needs, it's Science. However, with the current Calif. Science Standards, it won't work.

[jj]

I'm saying a specific vocab word is not necessarily important. It's not important they know when an organism went extinct, for example. They don't need trivia. They need skills.

Teaching evolution means teaching the process, and summarizing the evidence. Knowing the date that any specific organism went extinct is irrelevant in my opinion.

This leads me to one of the biggest gripes I see with my kids' science education, it's taught as a disconnected heap of facts, and there is no evidence that any overlying structure is even considered. :(

[jj]

Agreed. Which is why education isn't necessarily the key to success. It's work-ethic.

I think that's completely off the mark. I've, in the last few months, heard at least on teacher tell me "so and so isn't trying", when in fact they are trying very hard to put all of the data being thrown at them together, not just memorize it.

Work-ethic does not assure a good education, it only assures, and that only for people who memorize well, a good fund of knowledge. A good education must also include training and understanding of approaches, not just random bits of knowledge. Yes, that may also take work. For some more, for some less.

Since the best engineer is very often the laziest one, I really, REALLY do object to the idea that work-ethic, by itself, is the key issue here. I've even had bosses who don't see people working, and knock them, regardless of the output and results.

[cbish]

jj,
I agree with both posts!

[Melendwyr]

Work-ethic interpreted as "must continually be involved in tasks with obvious physical signs, even if that leads to busy-work": bad

Work-ethic interpreted as "must always think, even when thinking is hard": good

Unfortunately, humans have a profound drive to minimize the amount of cognitive effort they must do.

[jj]

Unfortunately, humans have a profound drive to minimize the amount of cognitive effort they must do.


Really? I find that much more easy than getting up and lifting a few tons, myself. I'm a tool user. :D

[Paulhoff]

The problem with most teachers is that they do not teach the students how to apply what they have learned. Facts and figures mean nothing without knowing how to use them. Also knowing concepts are much more important than knowing facts and figures. As well, when coming up with a new idea one should know how to test it and that one should also try and shoot holes in ones own ideas is a very important lesson.

Also I have had a long argument with an old friend about an old saying and I paraphrase, it is not "Those who do not REMEMBER the past are bound to repeat it" but "Those who do not LEARN from the past are bound to repeat it".

Paul

:) :) :)