Is our children learning?
The New York Times is that high school students in the US are ranked in the bottom half of developed nations for mathematical ability. Now, regardless of whether this figure is actually significant, and there reasons to believe it isn't, it does back up my oft-repeated complaint that students in this country can't do science. Now, while the cynic inside me would love to say this is because we're a country of idiots, there's gotta be a better reason.
There's a definite imbalance in our education system with respect to the sciences. The whole culture values them much less than, say, History or English classes. The sciences (I'm including math in this group, to be clear), tend to be viewed solely as a chore, as something that must be done, but that isn't really relevant, but which you just have to eke a pass out of before you can get onto the real classes. Someone please correct me if your experience has been different elsewhere, but this is what I've observed.
If this country is going to improve its science education, it needs an entire attitude shift concerning them. Students love to ask why we're taking math, but comparatively few seem to question why reading King Lear is worthwhile. Somehow the attitude needs to change, students need to appreciate learning math, or at least accept it as worthwhile. The question, of course, is how to best encourage such a change in attitude. First, we need to figure out exactly why we're teaching math and science, and change the curriculum appropriately. The canonical justification for English classes is to learn to write, and many classes are even structured towards that goal. We need to learn to think of the sciences with a similar goal, rather than as something we teach just because you ought know them.
Most importantly, I think, we need to somehow get students interested in science. Maybe it's just because I'm a geek, but the idea of science is really cool. It lets you explain how and why the world works. Children are invariably born with an incredible curiosity, offering remarkably insightful questions, but as soon as they hit school, they seem to stop caring. Clearly there's something wrong, and it needs to be addressed. (I can't resist a cynical note: Maybe that's why people like religion - it conveniently explains everything without entailing real thought (I don't completely mean that, but I think it's worth thinking about)). And even without that aspect, the scientific method as we understand it is really the core of how we think as a culture. It needs to be taught, not via rote memorization of stages or steps, but in an understandable way. A way that conveys the simplicity and essential brilliance of the ideas of falsifiablility, repeatability, and the other core ideas of how we formulate hypotheses that should apply to any form of logical argument, whenever at all possible.

3 Comments:
Dah, that title!!! I'm pretty sure that it's intentional, but it bothers me so much!!!
Good subject choice, although I can't say I necessarily agree that science(math included) is fun :P
Caitlin
Math? Not fun? What are you talking about?!?
Anyhow, the number of required credits in Pennsylvania has confused me...
English - 4 credits
Social Studies - 4 credits
Science - 3 credits
Math - 3 credits
How are math and science less important then english and social studies?
As long as science courses dwell on formulae and eschew creative thought, they'll never succeed in the way English courses do. The crucial difference between many science courses and their humanities counterparts involves the relationship between the work done in school and the skills needed to succeed further down the line. In English classes, students can think creatively in discussion and on most written exercises, but in science classes, creative thought often goes no further than lab reports, which rarely challenge students to depart from a well defined and thoroughly explained procedure.
The interest in science is out there. New technology infatuates children more and more; what schools must do is magnify the interest rampant among our nation's youth. With science classes teaching procedures rather than creativity, and rewarding proficiency rather than curiosity, the interest in the community naturally declines as children ostensibly learn more. Children who may once have wondered, "How does a cell phone actually work?" become content with simply buying the newest model and mastering all its nooks and crannies. But the crucial point is that successful scientists need creativity and curiosity much more than proficiency and procedure.
In many ways, the paradigm into which our schools have fallen seems to be an accident. It is easy, although morally misguided, to quantify science (and sap it of its intrigue), but much harder to teach King Lear in as rote a manner. America's youth enjoy science as much as, and probably more than they enjoy literature, but those who do enjoy literature enjoy it more with each English class they take, whereas budding scientists often shy away from what may have been a lifelong passion after a year of boring formulae.
Curricula and teaching styles certainly must be changed, but it's crucial, in making changes, to realize just how interested kids are in science. Their curiosity is ready to be milked: we can't afford to skim it off much longer.
Post a Comment
<< Home