Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Previous in threadNext in thread I agree completely with Scott's comments about teaching science: > I'm currently designing physics curricula for non-science > majors. Scientific literacy (as defined by Arons in his excellent book > "A Guide for Teaching Physics) emphasizes the role of observation, the > attempt to connect seemingly disparate phenomena with few > explanations, and the ability to devise relevant experiments to > investigate new phenomena. Specific content is absent. > > Many people seem surprised when I tell them that I do not consider > Newton's Laws to be necessary knowledge for the general > population. What I mean, though, is that before anyone can understand > and appreciate Newton's Laws he or she must first understand how > scientific "laws" are developed. This (and affiliated concepts) can > take a long time, and rushing ahead to cover content is particularly > counter-productive (or so the results of much physics education > research indicate). One of the biggest mistakes that I think is often made in teaching science (especially, but not only, for nonscientists) is to put so much emphasis on covering as many "factoid" bits of knowledge as possible. Far more important, I think, is understanding a few basic methods and principles, through which many bits of knowledge are uncovered. Of course, it would take far longer than a lifetime to allow each student to re-discover for himself or herself all of the important conclusions or insights of science. So to some extent we do have to summarize the important content (although I would argue, with Scott, that this should only come after you have gained a basic understanding of the process of science). I find it challenging in teaching "process based" science classes to strike a good balance: I want students to learn the process of science and understand how it can be used to develop knowledge claims. I'd like them to use the process to come to their own conclusions, rather than just memorizing facts that I tell them or that they read in a textbook. But I would also be doing them a disservice if I let them leave the class with such incomplete information that they hold beliefs about the subject that are demonstrably wrong. Many beliefs which seem reasonable in light of limited experience are overturned by more extensive experimental evidence. In many cases, as long as students at least understand in principle how this evidence could be gathered, it is valuable for them to know the "right" answers even if they are unable to duplicate the complete experiment themselves. (So, for example, Newton's Laws express some very fundamental ideas about how nature works. It seems to me that they are worth learning, but only with a background and context which allows them to mean something.) Anyway, I agree that we should avoid just making a list of detailed facts that people should know. But I think there are some broad principles that have been uncovered that are very valuable to know, in thinking about what the universe is really all about. Maybe I could restate the idea by asking it this way, "What are the key unifying explanations in science, that people should know about?" Perhaps the items in Feinberg's list don't fit the definition of a unifying explanation - but I think there are some key principles or insights that we could come up with. Todd |
