What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

JM-- If you're big on assigning responsibility, seems to me you ought to assign it where it belongs. McD's sold recklessly coffee knowing it was too hot for human consumption, did so despite hundreds of complaints, and stated that they would continue to do so regardless of consequence. Only a jury verdict forced them to accept ANY responsibility for a situation that was mainly (80%, per the findings) of their own making.

And that's my last word on the matter, honest!

The sale of coffee is not an activity I would expect to be held to the standards of strict liablity. In any case, I expect my coffee to be hot, and complain when it isn't.

OK, Roger, I do not think you are able to insert into your mouth any liquid being 82-87 degrees Celsius hot (180-190 Fahrenheit) -- this would cause burn wounds of the mouth mucous membranes. 70 degrees Celsius is too hot as well. But it is more acceptable, since coffee may become colder some 5-7 degrees in five minutes.
Drinking very hot liquids, by the way, increases risk of the oral cavity and esopahgus malignant tumors development.

Okay, steissd, but so long as I insist on making my own choices, I don't see why someone else should pay for them.

Science education in this country is certainly inadequate if people have to be warned that coffee made from boiling water is hot enough to burn them.

It seems that they also need to be warned that liquids can spill, sharp edges can cut, gasoline can ignite, plastic bags can suffocate, loud music can deafen, looking at the sun through binoculars can blind, cords can strangle, electricity can shock and guns can kill.

I think that elementary kids need hands-on experiments with ordinary things to learn basic science. Reading textbooks and learning equations is not sufficient for most kids. They need to learn how to critically observe the world and apply the scientific method to understand how and why it works. They need to know what a theory is, how it is validated and what to do when new data does not fit. They need to be able to distinguish factual theories from pseudoscience.

But critical thinking skills would put a lot of snake oil companies - and lawyers - out of business.

Oh, please. I don't know about the rest of you, but I buy coffee expecting to be able to safely drink it. When the coffee is sold dangerously hot, I expect that it's the fault of the maker, not the consumer. To presume otherwise rather turns the concept of critical thinking on it's head.

Likewise, to assert that it's okay to sell me dangerously hot coffee-- knowing it to be unsafe for human consumption, no less-- because, after all, I made my own choice and am therefore solely responsible for the consequences, gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Caveat Emptor. To follow that thought to it's logical conclusion, it would be okay to knowingly sell me an e.Coli laced hamburger as well, because hey, after all, I made my own choice about where to eat and it's my own fault if I get sick!

Terry

I must agree with your statement from your post of Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:36 pm:

"I think that elementary kids need hands-on experiments with ordinary things to learn basic science. Reading textbooks and learning equations is not sufficient for most kids. They need to learn how to critically observe the world and apply the scientific method to understand how and why it works. They need to know what a theory is, how it is validated and what to do when new data does not fit. They need to be able to distinguish factual theories from pseudoscience. "

This is the purpose of courses with 2 hour a week Labs. However, not all students get the chance to participate in these to an equal degree. Those students whose educational direction is towards the sciences, math, or the medical professions are exposed to much more of these "real life" studies then those in the "Soft Sciences". I feel that all students could benefit from some exposure to more hands-on experience as you suggested.

I remember a chem. lab professor that gave us a valuable lesson in problem solving/theory evaluation. Before the lab a sheet of paper was passed out to all students describing a chemical reaction and the theory behind it was explained. Near the end of the paper was a list of events that we were to observe if we performed the experiment correctly. Well, after the experiment none of the observations fit those expected. We were all down trodden thinking we had all made the same mistakes and were going to get a bad grade for the Lab. But we closed ranks and went enmass to the professor with our results. The professor said, " What took you so long? I've been waiting for you". He had purposely given us the wrong results to look for. We learned two things. What questions must be asked when observations don't match those predicted by a theory and to have faith in experimental results if done correctly and repeatedly similar. Simply, we had proved the theory given to us wrong! Many lessons were learned from that, not to mention a lot of confidence gained in our ability to analyze events rationally. It felt good.

JM

James morrison and blacksmiten typed; you can't always believe what you're fed by the media.

How about : On very rare occasions the media gets it right. Neil

Maxdadeo,

I understand the religious need to reject evolution....

But what is your beef with Einstein? He, without question, revolutionized science for the religious and the not religious alike.

Do you deny the existance of nuclear energy (which depends very heavily on Einsteins seminal work). Are creationists rejecting this world-changing "theory*. Gee for a theory, it sure has had a pretty large impact on the world for good and for ill.

Other of Einstein's "theories" (namely the photelectric effect which won him the Nobel prize and sparked the field of Quantum Physics), is integral to the to the electronics that your computer depends on. That you are able to read this message is due to Einstein and his questiionable theories.

To the modern science community, Einstein is a giant. Most of modern science , and much of modern technology, is based on his work.

Your post attacks science blindly with no evidence that it is based on any knowledge outside of a very narrow world view.

This, in my view, is one of the problems with science education.

I really don't understand the infatuation with evolution. It's simply a model, and it's a model that best fits the evidence we have at hand, and is a model that is constantly being revised and a model for which some parts have not been worked out at all -- and no one who actually works in the field makes any bones about this. The theists have had millennia to come up with a good working model of the universe, and look what they've got. Scientific method has had five centuries or so, and, so far as I can tell, it's produced far better predicitive methods in a much shorter time. But, whatever. Variety, spice of life, all that hoo-hah.

patio,

There are two factors to the infatuation with evolution and to its importance in this discussion of science education.

First of all, the "principle" of evolution (and nearly all serious life scientists accept evolution as a principle) is the very foundation of biology and life sciences in general.

...And, this is not just theoretical any more. Not only does all of the research support evolution, now we are using our knowledge of evolution to develop new products. Genetically engineered plants are being created, clones are being made and new drugs are being developed.

The fact is, the scientists who base their careers on their acceptance of modern science -- including evolution -- are having a whole lot of success, and are changing our world.

I, for certain, want the education system to reflect this.

Secondly, evolution is important becuase of the way that reactionary branch of American religion has attacked it.

Creationism raises a dogmatic and political objection to an accepted science principle. The fact is there is no objection to evolution outside of the religious communty.

Education should certainly allow a frank discussion of the affect that cultural beliefs affect the ability to accept new ideas that contradict ones own.

Education should not allow a group to demand that their religious beliefs be accepted in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What i mean is, and I chose my words poorly (obviously) is the infatuation of creationists with evolution. As someone who worked for an enzymologist with multiple drug patents for three years, I'm well aware of "applied" evolution, if you will.

What I can't fathom is the persistent attacks on evolution, frequently directed at this "straw man" who talks about "facts." The "facts" of classical physics are not necessarily the "facts" of quantum physics, and doubt the "facts" of biochemistry now (and hence of the working model of evolution) will be the same in a hundred years. But I very, very, very much doubt that in a century they'll have dismantled the current model because it is useless, but rather because a much more subtle and complete model has been developed. (Damn, I used to write clearly, but English is becoming like a second language to me.)

Geez -- so much bickering!

As far as the forum topic, I completely agree that the quality of science and mathematics education needs to greatly improve. When I was in my senior year of high school, class of 1999, there was a story on a national news program citing a great number of mistakes in school text books, and my school's physics book was the third from the worst. Fortunately my teacher knew better than to teach fully from the text and believe everything he read in the book, as did some other teachers. Perhaps if the publishers would verify the information in their own books, and teachers could be hired more on their credentials for a specific level of teaching rather tan a simple certification, things might start to improve. Of course this would not even come close to the full solution. But it would be a start.

Really, at that level I think even having a textbook should take a back seat to making the instruction more inquiry-based. The current educational model is the memorization of a few equations, a few demonstrations (laughingly called "experiments") and exams on some dry stuff. What they don't teach -- either in any of the high school courses I remember or in a good number of my college courses -- is the scientific method and how to apply it. I realize that at some point the knowledge has to start going into the head, but it seems to me that high school students would benefit a great deal more from learning how to approach a problem where they don't already know the answer rather than memorize bits of information that they either will never use again or will simply encounter again in college.

Great point! Do you now how much worse it must be, also, for those living in the Stated with the lowest education levels? Take for instance my home state, Louisiana. When I was in high school, it ranked near the bottom of the list, and it still does. Can this maybe imply the problem partially lies in a lack of federal intervention for a better national education standard, at least for more universal teaching? But of course that would not help this issue for the States with better education systems; they would still have the lack of true scientific method.

Mmmm, seems to me the feds getting involved only helps if they are pushing something useful. I'm a big fan, especially at the primary and secondary levels, of teaching students how to think rather than giving them information. To me, this means more writing, more (and higher-level) reading, more actual experimentation in classes -- but these aren't things that can be measured using standardized tests, so they aren't really helped by regulation of student performance. What I have noticed in my classmates (and in my students, when I was a TA) was that there are a lot of folks out there who've spent a lot of time and energy on their own education and still can't write a damn sentence, and glaze over when asked to restate (rather than regurgitate) a theme from a text, be it "College Biology" or "All's Well that Ends Well."

But far greater minds than mine are trying to figure this stuff out, and politics and inequity will always be issues here. Honestly, though, the best educational experiences I've had were much more the result of the quality of the teacher than the structure of and philosophy behind the curriculum. It's probably all to do with television anyway...

1. Make a larger amount of science mandatory in the curriculum.
2. Have scientists choose the science textbooks. Try to eliminate favoritism, politics, and publisher inducements from textbook selection.
3. Make all students take the same standardized test to pass any science class above a certain grade level.
4. Make sure that anyone teaching a science class can pass a standardized test in the subject he is teaching.
5. Track what percentage of students taking a standardized test in each subject pass and what percentage fail in each school district, so that consistent failure will be visible.

1. Good idea

2. It may be sad, but the review of these books is made a minimum because people with degrees are automatically assumed to know what they are talking about (so good idea) but this would also skyrocket the cost of educational materials.

3. Bad idea. A standardized test automatically implies multiple choice, which immediately sends signals of the 3 ways to pass a test (know the answer, figure out the answer, guess the answer) and the fact that they are on a much more level playing field. I am a full supporter of better science education, but I wish there could be a better way than a,b,c,d answers to tough questions.

4. Since most of my teachers knew decently what they were teaching, I would have said maybe not. But I have known of teachers who think they can teach simply out of the book, so this is a good idea (though they were supposed to pass just this kind of test to be qualified for their position in the first place. I suggest making it periodical -- very periodical.

5. Good idea for a watch dog perspective, but trends show that ll this will do is bring criticism to the same certain groups it always has. There needs to be some addition requiring the lesser achieving schools and districts to improve their quality of education. This doesn't necessarily mean firing teachers, though many will do this. I think it could mean a reallocation of teachers' positions in the schools or even mandatory re-education.

More on 3:
A standardized test seems like a great idea. However, event he low-level standardized tests issued to high school level students don't do much if anything for the education system (at least not as far as I know) except gather statistics. So the most logical thing would be to at least start with what exists: ACT, SAT, and the mandatory issued standardized tests, should all be used for educators to improve their methods. But this can also backfire on quality educators.

If a student has a low science aptitude (say for example an intelligent person is very capable in language arts and social sciences), and this person has teachers who don't maintain the necessary standard for education through this person's first 5 years (give or take some), then that student will enter the higher grade levels with less understanding of what is required. This can, with a standardized test for high school students, cause a misunderstanding that the person's teacher is doing a poor job though the student may have not been prepared properly. So . . . . should standardized testing of teachers and students start very early with the same serious results as they would be in high school? Should all students be assumed to have the same talents in science? Is there a way to know who is scoring lower because of less education, lower intelligence, or a different aptitude?

It may be true that some states have a worse education system than others, but there needs to be more than a gathering of information that leads to the further stereotyping of local intelligence.

So should there be a mandated aptitude test at periodic intervals to evaluate individual students on their own skills? Would this tend to separate people into more groups or help improve the way they are taught? Should there be a set national standard that all grade levels teach the exact same material nation-wide, or would this lead to more failures and localized stereotypes? If we fill some education gaps in some places, will it widen gaps in others?

Right now I am also wishing this was more than just a thread on a forum. I see people who lived in states with higher education standards than my own, and there is a definite difference in the quality of education received. English grammar and literature standards seem to be similarly learned acrosss the board as far as I can tell. But things like this can only be taught and retaught so many times. Math and science have been the lacking areas in many people's educations, though the students may have studied the presented material.

And another interesting thought, this showed up in MSNBC this morning:
Are computers Wrecking Schools? (MSNBC)

Could this be a part of it, if this tool is not used right?

I'll restate: it's not like I am against students' using computers, but I will agree that too much focus on computers in the classroom can distract from a better education.

A thoughtful and intelligent review of my post. However, there really is such a thing as having learned the course material sufficiently well to merit a passing grade or not well enough to, regardless of the reason. It can't lead to anything good to pass students who do not understand the course material. On the subject of choosing textbooks, one of the late physicist Richard Feynman's books, it may be "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" details his experiences on a committee to choose district science books, and if his experience is typical, the process is pretty badly screwed up and needs fixing.