...and the depth vs. breadth argument in science education continues, even though .
This article chimes in with some updated information. A new study shows that students who studied basic topics more in depth in high school did better in college introductory courses than those who had the "we must cram everything we can think of about this topic into your heads so that you can pass the state-mandated graduation exam" approach.
Go figure. We already knew that. Problem is, how are we going to change our education system? I have been part of it for almost 7 years now and it's so cumbersome and outdated....it seems hopeless at times. Maybe studies like this, if we have enough of them- enough little pieces that chip away at the whole- can help change things one day.
Comments
we must cram everything we can think of about this topic into your heads so that you can pass the state-mandated graduation exam" approach.
I've judged a couple of school science fairs recently, and have seen how this approach fails. Kids may know all sorts of facts about science, but they can't formulate a scientific question, design tests for that question, or draw proper conclusions. Facts you can just look up on Google Scholar, but you can't look up how to think scientifically. The most useful thing we can do for kids is to teach them to think scientifically - it doesn't matter whether they know the difference between an igneous and a metamorphic rock if they can't think critically.
I'm on board with you - we shouldn't teach any facts in the curriculum unless they are used to support lessons in scientific thinking. My kid has a science test today, and (at least based on the study guide she brought home) it's all facts and vocabulary memorization.
Even without studies like the one you linked to above, I'll bet that if you polled scientists, active researchers or those who teach college students (or those who do both), they would all say screw breadth - you can do breadth after kids understand how science works.
And in fact all subjects could be taught this way - science, English, social studies - all of it should involve learning to make and evaluate arguments.
Michael White | 03/12/09 | 09:44 AM
Amen to that, brother!
"all subjects could be taught this way - science, English, social studies - all of it should involve learning to make and evaluate arguments."
True.
From my own, somewhat biased perspective, I would say this. All human endeavour uses language. Children should be taught how not to let others do their thinking for them, through critical appraisal of how words are used to persuade and control. I don't see that coming from any current government, but when it does come we will see a new age of enlightenment.
Patrick Lockerby | 03/12/09 | 19:36 PM
So can you condense it for us?
The abstract says we should stick to basics and if that's what they mean, I agree. Prior to the 1950s, class sizes were larger on average than today, normalized funding per student was a lot less and education was better because teachers just taught the important stuff - not dopey word problems in math and writing essays on politics.
So yes to not only getting rid of the last 7 years of education reform but also the last 70. :)
P.S. Carl Wieman has some 50 years of experience as a student, professor and physics genius and he has great ideas on improving science education here.