Science Teaching. What's wrong with it?

[Pyrotex]

The three biggest reasons that modern public school science classes suck, IMHO, are these:

Bad teachers, bad textbooks, and bad approach.

1. Teachers of science should not only be GOOD at teaching, they should ENJOY science. They should have fond memories of their science classes (as I do), and all the fun they had learning and applying science to the world around them. Teachers must be able to convey the fascination and wonder of science, not just the facts and numbers.

2. Textbooks are now written by committees. A 20-chapter science book for 7th graders may have has as many as 20 authors, or more. A committee of bureaucrats and brothers-in-law mix and match the pieces so as to offend or disturb the fewest number of parents. No effort is made to make the book interesting. They are working to a checklist of 'facts' that must be taught to 7th graders: gravity, check; mass, check; energy, check...

3. Today's classroom is so highly scripted that there is no room for questions. And certainly no room for the best teaching model of all: experimentation. Given the availability of interactive educational simulations, it should be a breeze to teach kids about force, momentum, orbits, collisions, magnetic fields, electricity. You should have to tear them away from the computers. Experiments with real stuff, like rolling balls on ramps (like Galileo used to discover the laws of motion!), building electric motors, building mousetrap cars, should be easy and fun. Pendulums. Springs. Friction. Magnets. This is the way to learn!

[lemit]

As I was growing up on the family farm in Missouri, there were all kinds of things to explore and learn from. I very early on started telling people that when I grew up I was going to be a scientist.

Then I got into science classes in school. That did it for me. I discovered that in English classes I could use at least a little creativity. I never looked back, until now, no matter how much things I encountered--Berton Roueche's "Medical Detective" series in The New Yorker, work requirements that I learn various ANSI standards to be able to preserve history, and a fight against a sick building that I ultimately lost--demonstrated that the science I was so interested in as a kid is the same science I'm still interested in as a retiree. That the loop is only now closing is a profound testament to the failure of my science education.

Of course, I have kind of liked the results from my education in language, writing, and all the other disciplines I've pursued in my avoidance of science, so maybe I shouldn't complain.

But still, I can't help thinking about the lives I have seen lost in that building I knew was an environmental disaster, and I can't help thinking about the humming mass of wires outside my apartment in Englewood, Colorado; the mass of wires that, although I didn't know it at the time, resulted in the one of the earliest claims of EMF contamination.

I wish I had known what I am realizing now, that the science I practiced as a kid, from dissecting bugs and Model A's to exercises in electrolysis, and an electric motor I built when I was 10 years old and still have, was real science.

The numbers should come from the experience. That's not the way I was taught science. I don't know how science is taught now, but I suspect somebody like me would still be disenchanted by it.

I'm afraid the mobile phone EMF's are still going to claim lives, like that mass of wires outside my apartment 30 years ago eventually would. I don't know how to stop that march of progress, that advancement of science--except this way.

--lemit

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by lemit

...I'm afraid the mobile phone EMF's are still going to claim lives, like that mass of wires outside my apartment 30 years ago eventually would. I don't know how to stop that march of progress, that advancement of science--except this way...

Lemit,
perhaps we should start a thread on cell phone EMF. It seems to be (still) a hot subject these days, and is obviously of concern to you.

I have researched a fair amount on the subject over the last decade or so, and have convinced myself that there is minimum, if any, danger from the modest amounts of EMF that we mundane folks come in contact with: cell phones, bundles of power lines feeding an apartment block, the high tension lines a block away, the Tesla coil in the high school lab, etc.

My conclusion is, there just isn't a plausible mechanism for the EMF causing damage to our biological molecules. The average protein or amino acid in our cells and DNA are built on carbon-chain backbones, the strongest chemical bond in the universe. It takes a lot of EMF energy to break those bonds. In fact, it takes at least the energy of a microwave photon to even heat the water and oil in our cells, and an ultraviolet photon to break a carbon-chain bond.

The EMF from cell phones use high frequencies, yes, but nowhere near the frequencies required in a microwave oven. And several orders of magnitude less than UV light.

The only case I have ever heard of where someone died of actual "EMF toxicity" was the guy who serviced the radio antennas on top of the Empire State Building, way back in the 1940s. After several decades of being immersed every day in EMF totalling hundreds of kilowatts (a cell phone is ~5 watts) he died from a neural deterioration that had never been diagnosed before.

I know this may not be convincing to you. If you want, give me a call on your cell phone and we can discuss this at great length.

[Michaelangelica]

I think we should concentrate our attention on the well document adverse health effects of POPs.

It is amazing how long it takes to get these poisons off the market.

Rachel carson was writing about DDT 50 years ago and we are still using masses of it.

[stereologist]

I am always amazed at the statements made in books for children. Basic information is often wrong. This continues throughout much of the early curriculum.

Typical mistakes:
Stars come in many different colors red, orange, yellow, green, and blue.
Electricity is electrons zooming down the wire at the speed of light.
The seed blew far, far away over the oceans and grew into a tree.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by stereologist

I am always amazed at the statements made in books for children. Basic information is often wrong. This continues throughout much of the early curriculum.

Typical mistakes:
Stars come in many different colors red, orange, yellow, green, and blue.
Electricity is electrons zooming down the wire at the speed of light.
The seed blew far, far away over the oceans and grew into a tree.

My rant for a typical mistake that often occurs in a biology class: Evolution is directional and measures the progress of biological complexity.

[stereologist]

That's a good one too. I wanted to show that the mistakes begin in the most elementary of presentations. If a book intended for K through 6 can't get the basics right, then how can books intended for older audiences.

[Turtle]

was it here, or elswhere, that i saw/heard mention of how the publishing industry in Texas, with all the political/religious/Southern-conservative baggage attached, is hampering good science textbooks getting into schools? anyway, there, it is said again. can't find that exact bit, but found this that may be of interest: >> Textbook Publishing:The Political and Economic Influences

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Turtle

was it here, or elswhere, that i saw/heard mention of how the publishing industry in Texas... is hampering good science textbooks ...[/url]

You may have heard it from me, maybe.
The legislature in Austin, TX, "selects" folks to be on the state textbook committee. It's supposed to be fair and balanced, but time after time, the selectees wind up being associated with right-wing organizations, fundementalist churches, creationism groups, etc, etc, etc. It's a bitter fight to get even 2 or 3 secular, science-minded folks on that board. And even then, there have been times when folks like Behe (one of the top creationists around) are invited down to Austin to speak. I.e., use up the microphone time.

Now, this is strange to many folks, because it is a STATE committee with the purpose of choosing science books for the STATE public schools. And suddenly, these out-of-staters are coming in and packing the agenda!

There are rumors that some big bucks exchange hands to get the "right" people on the state textbook committee. From various blogs I've read, the whole thing is a circus, and is as corrupt as any Chicago Alcohol License agency ever was.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

You may have heard it from me, maybe. ...

if you run across your posting(s) i'd like to read it/them. i'm now worrying down the cloudy idea it may have been on Bill Moyers i heard about this??? or maybe that Steven Broncochio(sp) guy on PBS?? damn selective memory of mine!!! anyway, i also seem to recall that the sales of these religio/socio/politicioly twisted science texts for schools produced in Texas have a large market share in all states (most, more than not? ) and not just Texas.
mmm...well...i uh... i can't think of any thing more but strings of swear words so will give this a close.

Best Regards,