This post was inspired by the intersection of the family ice-fishing post, woke-women and an essay on ectomycorrhizae fungal communities.
Teaching science
From my perspective, the education system does a mediocre job of teaching "Science".
Educators say "Science is a method of enquiry" but all of the grades reflect "Science is the art of puking the predetermined answer". We get more of what we recognize and reward.
What is the difference?
Imagine a biology class of 25 student and the goal is to determine the response to "nitrogen".
Each student is given 10 kernels of corn, a nutrient solution that has everything EXCEPT for bio-available nitrogen and space in a greenhouse.
The are also given a quantity of potassium nitrate and are told to calculate the relationship between net biomass (dryweight) gain and rate of nitrate application.
It is a foregone conclusion that every student will deliver the textbook value in their final report. If the official answer is 11.29 then every student will deliver an answer between 11 and 11.3 regardless of whether their hyper-competitive classmates pulled up some of their seedlings or added additional nitrates or toxins to screw up the other student's experimental data.
The instructor gives every student an A as long as they deliver "the right answer".
What did they learn? They learned that "Science" is the art of delivering the data the person-in-power is looking for, not "A method of enquiry"
How a home-schooler might handle it
Each student might be provided with a container of "potassium nitrate" but the KNO3 is diluted with common table salt in various degrees. One student might have 10% KNO3 and 90% NaCl while the student next to him might have the ratios reversed and a third student might have 50:50.
Let them THINK the nitrogen fertilizer is identical.
Then, if they deliver the textbook answer, tell them to redo the experiment. Have them redo the SAME experiment until they realize that each student will have a different answer and they are all correct for the inputs they were given.
Part of the lesson might be to meta-data the experiments and have them speculate regarding reasons why there are differences in the outcomes.
"But if they keep redoing the same experiment they will fall behind in the curriculum!" I can hear the professional educators complaining.
My response is that science "builds" the way math builds. If you have a defective foundation, you don't keep stacking bricks on it. You fix the foundation.
It is counterproductive to continue with any other lessons until the student understands that science is a process and the answers are whatever the answers will be.
Once the student realizes that delivering the "correct" answer will not save them from sloppy techniques and sloppy thinking, then they can move on.
The meta-data portion of the experiment is a major life-lesson: Mis-labeling happens in real life. Sometimes by accident. Sometimes people-in-power deliberately feed others misinformation.
Hat-tip to Lucas for the essay on ectomycorrhizae.
Very thought provoking
ReplyDeleteERJ, I can certainly tell you that how they teach science in middle and high school is nothing like how it is practiced in industry. You often do not have the luxury of "Known" quantities and thus (literally) are on a journey of discovery. Theories get tossed routinely as new data becomes available. In school, it is simply "get the correct answer".
ReplyDeleteYears ago when we removed our oldest child from public school to homeschool, it quickly became apparent that math fundamentals were lacking. We decided to go back to the beginning in math and start over. Our child was upset about "getting behind" compared to their friends. Once the fundamentals were learned correctly, this child eventually surpassed their peers, and went on to take advanced math classes at a high school age.
ReplyDeletePublic school teachers do not have the time or ability to focus on anything other than what they have been dictated to focus on.
As the husband of a retired teacher, I can confirm your thoughts. Curriculum is decided at the state level, as is a myriad of reporting requirements. Too much time is spent on things other than the actual learning of useful skills and too much spent on things like "emotional awareness" and similar tripe.
DeleteMy wife seems much happier retired, even though she has went back to work part time. That probably has something to do with the fact that now she "just" teaches, and the full-timers have to do all the paperwork and nonsense teaching.
Sometimes in industry the result, depending on management, is the "right answer", regardless of the data.
ReplyDeleteFinally figured out where the duplicate comment comes from, for me at least. If I hit the back arrow to go back to the main page, it publishes again. I have to x out entirely and come back.
ReplyDeleteWell done, and yes, it's now all about the 'right' answer, not the experimentation. When I was in school in the 60s, we DID experiments with multiple variables and seldom got the same answers as other teams... sigh
ReplyDeleteMy HS lab partner and I just pencil whipped the labs. Just read the chapter and write it up. Got caught before Christmas. We found two mechanics to join us. We pencil whipped the lab and told the to call us if it didn't turn blue, or whatever. Then we split.
DeleteSounds like working with changing variables to me.
Hello. Long time reader, pretty sure I'm a first time commenter. I studied chemistry in college and worked in it for just over 10 years. Seeing what I see and know now, I think STEM should be more like an apprentice program beginning from high school. There is just so much to learn, and so much time is burnt on classes that do not help you in the work world. I was a good student by most accounts, but when I think of the time lost on some of the books I had to read in four years of honors level English (to look good for college admissions), I see time I could have spent starting Calculus in high school instead of the hyper competitive environment in college. Similarly, a lot of people wasted everyone's time in honors math and science classes, again just to impress the college admissions boards. Something is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSigned,
Dennis in Poland
Hello Dennis. Thanks for reading and especially thanks for taking time to share your thoughts.
DeleteYou are probably right. The current system is perceived as cost-effective. One instructor to about 25 students.
There are many hidden costs. One goofy student can destroy thousands of dollars of sensitive equipment. The administration has no budget to replace it. The instructor is on-the-hook to protect the equipment but does not have to tools to monitor or, likely, expel the student who disrespects the equipment. Likely that is why that bad student is still in school.
In the end, it is just far easier for the instructor to look the other way when falsified reports are handed in.
The best lab report grade I got in college was an electromagentics lab where our data didn't match theory. When we complained to the professor we were told to document our findings then try to explain what flaws or errors in the experimental rig could have generated the data observed.
ReplyDeleteI'll never forget the time Bob LaPorta have me a lesson in learning in the automotive engine lab. We had non running engines to tear down and reassemble. He had us cut SOME of the valves...
ReplyDeleteUpon later reassembly it affected the geometry differently.
He stood there for a solid five minutes asking question after question pushing/leading us to figure out the relationship. As a young dumb man, it did impress me. After a career in business and corporate training, I realize the value of his methods even more.
While there's value to rote learning, it should be limited to multiplication tables, constants and I before E...
Questions ARE the answer.
A majority of "science" today is shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=The%20replication%20crisis%20(also%20called,difficult%20or%20impossible%20to%20reproduce.
ReplyDeleteA distant relative was kicked out of a prestigious university science program for fudging results. He essentially just didn't run the experiments and made up the results. I get the feeling this happens more often than you think it does.