Comments on: Science is Taught Backwards In Schools http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/28/science-is-taught-backwards-in-schools/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:46:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/28/science-is-taught-backwards-in-schools/#comment-21473 Erich Vieth Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:48:40 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2633#comment-21473 I'm not sure I have an opinion about the proper "order" for teaching the sciences. While first-graders, my daughters went into the woods and explored the plants, bugs and small animals. In third grade, my eldest daughter was learning about electricity and some chemistry. It seems as though the forest and bugs will hold the attention of the little kiddos easier, while they would be more interested in electricity when a bit older. But maybe there are some elementary teachers who can make physics and chemistry interesting to tiny children. I just don't know. When I was in grade school (Catholic co-ed school in the 1960's), I don't remember getting any science at all. I picked up some on my own by browsing the World Book Encyclopedia. It's startling to think back and recall this lack of science. I remember being told that I'll learn about science "in high school." Instead of science, I got big doses of "Religion Class." There is a public grade school in my neighborhood (<a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/03/07/trying-to-teach-art-at-a-dysfunctional-public-grade-school/" rel="nofollow">here's more on that school</a>). They have a beautiful new science lab, but no science teacher. One of my neighbors (who used to volunteer there as a tutor) asked me whether I would volunteer to teach science, even though I'm not a teacher or a scientist. Some things, like widespread science neglect, don't change. I’m not sure I have an opinion about the proper “order” for teaching the sciences. While first-graders, my daughters went into the woods and explored the plants, bugs and small animals. In third grade, my eldest daughter was learning about electricity and some chemistry. It seems as though the forest and bugs will hold the attention of the little kiddos easier, while they would be more interested in electricity when a bit older. But maybe there are some elementary teachers who can make physics and chemistry interesting to tiny children. I just don’t know.

When I was in grade school (Catholic co-ed school in the 1960’s), I don’t remember getting any science at all. I picked up some on my own by browsing the World Book Encyclopedia. It’s startling to think back and recall this lack of science. I remember being told that I’ll learn about science “in high school.” Instead of science, I got big doses of “Religion Class.”

There is a public grade school in my neighborhood (here’s more on that school). They have a beautiful new science lab, but no science teacher. One of my neighbors (who used to volunteer there as a tutor) asked me whether I would volunteer to teach science, even though I’m not a teacher or a scientist. Some things, like widespread science neglect, don’t change.

]]> By: davea0511 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/28/science-is-taught-backwards-in-schools/#comment-21324 davea0511 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:05:53 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2633#comment-21324 I think you'll find that most who start college whose knowledge of chemistry and physics grow from nearly nothing to a respectable academic level still retain their opinions regarding evolution throughout the whole learning process. Those who start with a disbelief in evolution will find problems with it, whether based on entropy, probability mathematics, or reaction kinetics. Those who start with a belief in evolution will dismiss away as inconsequential cognitive exercises to be solved at some future time, while insisting that anti-evolution detractors are uneducated or irrational animals from the dark ages. Neither do I think it's possible to keep the basic concept of evolution a secret until after they learn the science behind it. I also think "doubting evolution" is a very broad phrase that's interpreted so differently that it's difficult to make any determinate regarding it. For example, today I think you'll find many if not most Christians (at least younger Christians) believe in a mixture of evolution and intelligent design. Do they then "doubt evolution"? They don't think so, but since the atheist evolutionist claims that ID is incompatible with evolution they'd say such individuals "doubt evolution". I think you’ll find that most who start college whose knowledge of chemistry and physics grow from nearly nothing to a respectable academic level still retain their opinions regarding evolution throughout the whole learning process. Those who start with a disbelief in evolution will find problems with it, whether based on entropy, probability mathematics, or reaction kinetics. Those who start with a belief in evolution will dismiss away as inconsequential cognitive exercises to be solved at some future time, while insisting that anti-evolution detractors are uneducated or irrational animals from the dark ages.

Neither do I think it’s possible to keep the basic concept of evolution a secret until after they learn the science behind it.

I also think “doubting evolution” is a very broad phrase that’s interpreted so differently that it’s difficult to make any determinate regarding it. For example, today I think you’ll find many if not most Christians (at least younger Christians) believe in a mixture of evolution and intelligent design. Do they then “doubt evolution”? They don’t think so, but since the atheist evolutionist claims that ID is incompatible with evolution they’d say such individuals “doubt evolution”.

]]> By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/28/science-is-taught-backwards-in-schools/#comment-18958 grumpypilgrim Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:34:59 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2633#comment-18958 I never thought about this before, but Dan's right. I suspect that the reason science is taught "backwards" is because that is historically how science developed over the centuries. Although the study of all of the sciences date to ancient times, major developments in biology happened in the 17th & 18th century, then chemistry flowered in the 19th century, and then modern physics exploded (sorry, pun intended) in the 20th century. Schools follow this sequence even though, as Dan argues, this sequence might not be the best way to effectively present the subject matter. OTOH, given the poor state of science education in earlier grades, we might well question whether the sequence of study would make any difference; i.e., whether teaching physics first, then chemistry, then biology would be any more effective. I guess the bottom line is that if changing the sequence has the potential to achieve real benefits, then the experiment is at least worth trying. I never thought about this before, but Dan’s right. I suspect that the reason science is taught “backwards” is because that is historically how science developed over the centuries. Although the study of all of the sciences date to ancient times, major developments in biology happened in the 17th & 18th century, then chemistry flowered in the 19th century, and then modern physics exploded (sorry, pun intended) in the 20th century. Schools follow this sequence even though, as Dan argues, this sequence might not be the best way to effectively present the subject matter. OTOH, given the poor state of science education in earlier grades, we might well question whether the sequence of study would make any difference; i.e., whether teaching physics first, then chemistry, then biology would be any more effective. I guess the bottom line is that if changing the sequence has the potential to achieve real benefits, then the experiment is at least worth trying.

]]>