Science Education Weekly Topic #3

All,One thing that keeps becoming the topic of conversation is the state of science education in the United States especially in Secondary School and below. Both on topics of what to teach we discuss this in relation to evolution and creationism, but also what is taught when we hear Haeckel's drawings still show up in texts.Is science education adequate? If not what would you do to change it? What is the cause of the problem? What should be done about it?Larry

I have two kids about 2/3 the way through their school years, and my opinion is that science classes in my town focus too much on the details and not enough on the big picture.One benefit of participation in the Creation/evolution debate is development of a good understanding of the operation of a cell, particularly cell division. When my children have studied this topic I've been surprised at the shear amount of detail they're forced to memorize. They're memoizing cell structures I didn't even know existed!In this educational approach, a cell becomes an anonymous aglomeration of unrelated parts that hinder and hide its simple beauty. They go down checklists memorizing parts and functions, like "mitochondria == energy", "cell membrane == diffusion" and "nucleus == DNA". They can regurgitate all this information up until about a minute after the test, and then it's all forgotten. I see little understanding and comprehension of actual cell behavior in this approach.I would like to see schools take a higher level and more abstract approach, and only after the basic high level principles and processes are understood to break it down into details.--Percy

Unfortunately I think schools are headed in the opposite direction. Too many of the standardized tests focus on memorizing facts, but not integrating knowledge. And schools are not being nearly completely ranked by such tests in many states.And obviously smart kids can look up the details if they forget one (assuming a certain amount of rote memory), but they can't just easily process how that information fits in without the appropriate training.Larry

My kids have been fortunate enough to have science teachers that by and large have tried to teach science applications rather than science facts. That's what's missing most of the time I think. The facts need relevance. My son's sophomore (HS) physics teacher has them do all sorts of things that he then explains in scientific principles and the kids love it. As part of the unit on physical principles or force this year, he's going to lie down on a bed of nails, put a board on his chest, a concrete block on that, and have someone (not a student) smash the block with a hammer. Eventually, he'll get to the mathematically principles of why he doesn't get hurt, but he has their attention and their interest. He's very good at relating this to things like automotive design and so forth that the kids really remember. It's more interesting that F=MA by far.

My mother in law is an 8th grade science teacher - her qualifications 20 years teaching experience and a degree in english literature....Something tells me there is a problem in the system here....