"Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." - William

***

On the Humanism Meetup Mailing List on Science Education (this is Part 1: Part 2 will come tomorrow):


A: In secondary sch biology, i was taught
- evolution is a gradual process : i want to put a question mark on that
- mutation is spontaneous/ random : i want to put a question mark on that
- selection based on fitness is the reason why some survive and some don't : i want to put a question mark on that

and my question marks are based on subsequent scientific observations , that have nothing to do with Creationism at all

i feel very uncomfortable telling any secondary school student, yeh, you should take as truth all that your textbook says about evolution
yet at the same time, by saying that, i don't mean they need to start considering Creationism.


Me: Just what do we teach kids?

In any case, I would say that those generalisations are mostly true, especially at a secondary school level.

It is the same reason you don't teach Quantum Mechanics to secondary school kids.

It is untrue to say that light is a wave, but we teach it at a secondary school level because it is true enough.
Bohr's model of the atom is also inaccurate, but we also teach it at a secondary school level because it approximates the truth well enough for that level.

Well, another reason is that the truth is too complicated, and sometimes not well enough understood to teach.


A: Do we teach half truths as a compromise? That feels like my mom saying "when you grow up you'll understand" ......

I don't know what's the best method.

If it were up to me, I tell my 16 year olds, 'This is your text book, just one point of view. Now, everyone pick a different theory of origin/speciation/gravity/how people fall in love. Next week, present to the whole class within 10 min and submit a 1000 word essay'

What point am I teaching?
I'm teaching them that

1. there are many views
2. you need to decide what's a good criteria for you to determine what makes sense
3. information changes with time
4. people don't have time to listen to you, you have 10min only
5. don't let anyone spoonfeed you, you gotta go out there to get what you want etc

I don't really care if they know how evolution / gravity really happens at all -- makes no difference to their lives, and even experts are confused.

But that's just my method. Not good for passing O and A levels.


B: I think science education in general fails because it teaches merely the “facts” without how the facts were derived in the first place. How many of us can actually spell out the evidence for the heliocentric theory (retrograde motion of mars, position of venus, parallex of distant stars etc)? [Imagine a boy goes to school and is simply told by an ‘authority figure’ that living things evolve, he goes to church on weekends and is told by another authority figure that “Jesus rose from the dead.’ How does he differentiate one being a scientifically determined fact while the other is the result of a harmful fantasy perpetrated by many who prefers living in a fairy tale world?

In the case of evolution – I think it’s not at all difficult to draw up a secondary school curriculum. Just present the evidence showing how organic evolution has occurred and then discuss the various theories stating that natural selection seems to be the dominant mechanism but also introducing other mechanism such as genetic drift etc.


A: What would you , and other students, think if the teacher walks into the classroom and says ' The text is just one point of view -- the authors. I want you the do your research, find out what other points of views are, and select the one that makes the most sense to you. There's no examination at the end of the year. What you have to do is to present to the whole class, why you selected that particular view point, and defend your choice in a half an hour Q & A. Your grade will be based on the average of what each classmate thinks you ought to get after your presentation and defense'

I think something like that prepares students better for the real world. And nobody decides for you what is right and wrong.


Me: I think this is too complex to do at the secondary school level. You need skills and a body of knowledge before you can think critically - it can't be done tabula rasa.

Also, Evolution isn't the only thing they'll learn. This method of learning takes too long at this level and leaves no time to learn other things.

There're also issues with honesty in grading (you need a way to ensure people grade fairly) and after 5 presentations you'll start to zone out, since they'll all sound the same (assuming no one collaborated/took stuff from online sources)


A: I think school teaches far too many facts that we don’t need to know , and too little skills/principles/values etc that we need to survive


Me: School is not about learning skills/principles/values etc that you need to survive.

This is taken to its ultimate conclusion in a Liberal Arts Education where, as someone told me, the point is to learn nothing of any practical value.


C: Your proposed model for secondary school would not work for several reasons.

1) It's very easy to sabotage a fellow classmate whom everyone dislikes.
2) Unless the virtues of honest skepticism and critical analysis are instilled into the students beforehand, many useless debates would occur.
3) "Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading." - G. M. Trevelyan.
4) Furthermore, I the majority secondary school students, including myself at that time do not have the capacity to handle too complicated literature.

However, during my secondary school years, I've already begun to feel that what I was learning was uninteresting. I was rebellious and didn't study, not even for my "O"s.

After I graduated, I gave my secondary school years some thought, thinking whether they were wasted. I realized it was that most of the knowledge is impractical in the working world, and we were also presented with an overabundance "facts" which were not debated on nor proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was more of memorizing and regurgitating facts and not much of debate and critical thinking.

Even before reading this discussion, I already realized something is wrong with our curriculum. I even had this thought that business or entrepreneurship would be much more practical and should be taught at secondary school levels.

Interest must be cultivated early, and education should be about cultivating interest, not filling students with information. Interested students would know where to source for information. I say this because my secondary school education has failed to instill interest in any subject into me, and my current interest in games design and philosophy was cultivated by my rebellion against school and spending time on the net.


A: Just wondering, do you then mean you like the way science is taught currently? Do we have the ideal sort of teaching methodology ? Or what do you think is the best way you would like to learn science?


C: I don't like the way science is taught currently. I think children should be more exposed to nature through field trips and such during primary school, and the teacher should cultivate student's interests in as many areas as possible.

In secondary school, we should have less subjects, students should get a choice of which science to specialize in, and must have a minimum of maybe one or two?

Debates should be held regularly as students of that age like to make themselves heard. It will also deepen the interest they have in w/e subj they are debating on. The basics of opposing views should be taught and students should be encouraged to do more research on it (it will help in debates). Creationism and other sorts of psuedoscience should not even be mentioned not to say taught. Creationists should not be allowed to be biology teachers in the same sense that a bomoh would not be allowed to apply as a general practitioner.

Practical subjects like business or finance should be taught, so that those who complete secondary school but fail to get in tertiary schools possess practical skills which may enable them to work in higher paying jobs.


Me (paraphrased): Children are already exposed to nature through field trips and such during primary school.

Students get exposure to quite a few areas of science, in the aim of cultivating interests in many areas.

In lower secondary you do combined science, so there're fewer subjects.

Students get to "specialize" in certain sciences in upper secondary, with a minimum of 2 (at least in the better schools).

Some schools have debates for students to make themselves heard and deepen their interests. I think I had some. But you need to know something before you can debate it.

In the less academic streams you learn 'practical subjects' like business, as well as in the neighborhood schools. But things like Commerce only let them be accounts assistants.


C: My personal experience in primary school wasn't [of fieldtrips]. If it has changed then I'm unaware of it.

I wasn't [exposed to many areas of science]. I had no idea what was paleontology, quantum mechanics, astronomy and such. Topics like these were only briefly skimmed through as far as i can remember and most people wouldn't remember them.

Combined science bored me instead of getting me interested in the available choices for the pure sciences. This happened to a number of my friends and acquaintances. If it's main aim is to get us interested, it's clearly not working for many people.

[My "specialisation"] was physics and chemisty.. and both are not my interest. There were rumors that Biology was extremely difficult to pass and that scared me. If there was paleontology or evolutionary biology I would've chosen it.

I did not [have debates]. the topics for debates i had were chosen by teachers and were mainly on world affairs -.- of course i didn't participate

But you need to know something before you can debate it.

True, thats why students must be encouraged to learn instead of forcing information into them. Students who are motivated to learn would in return be more motivated to debate and debates would be much more meaningful.

Adding on, I've heard from a friend that all primary school students are to learn malay. If its true.. i find that a waste of valuable students time.. not to discriminate, but malay just isn't a language that would be useful in the working world when compared to english and chinese (china is rising).

This is from a quote I read somewhere, but seems very true in my situation. Many teachers treat students as empty vassals that need to be filled up, instead of a pile of wood that needs fire to be ignited and burning with passion.