Copied from the original post:While I agree on many of the reasons for which others say it is important for us to learn science there is one in particular that I believe is important: science teaches us analysis.
Now one could respond to that by saying that other subjects teach us analysis as well, and I am certainly not disputing that nor demeaning these subjects, but I think that sciences teach us a different type of analysis than subjects like history or english. I view sciences as teaching us a more observational method of analysis whereas other subjects may teach us to analyze thoughts and themes. The reason that this makes sciences so important is that the type of analysis they teach is needed in everyday life for such simple tasks as observing and considering our surroundings and reacting to what we see or learn(for example observing or learning that throwing a rock at a beehive can get you stung and thus reasoning that throwing a rock at a beehive is a bad idea.)
It is learning this sort of analysis and being able to apply it to our world that I think makes science important.
In the perfect world that is perhaps exactly the purpose of science education – teach students how to analyze data and draw conclusions from factual evidence. Science education should be about creating critical thinkers, capable to rationally analyzing evidence before them.
However, I wonder, is that what you are learning? Let’s assume that the content of the Regents Exams provides a summary of all the material and skills NY State expects you to learn. How much of the content of these tests is factual knowledge (which, given need and time, could easily be looked up books) and what percent of these exams are questions testing problem-solving and data analysis? Are you in fact learning critical thinking and analytical skills? Or perhaps the more dangerous (for me) question: Am I in fact teaching you those skills?
6 comments:
Perhaps I ought to go into further detail on my thoughts. I do believe that the primary skill which any student should take away from a science class is the ability to perform a certain type of analysis, but that is not all that we should learn. We also ought to learn what is of course necessary to pass the course and what you think is pertinent and important for us to learn (this is assuming that someone has at least some slight interest in a subject when they decided to take a course and thus wants to actually learn something).
Striking the balance between the factual data we need and the skills that we ought to learn is at the discretion of the teacher. I would imagine it could be incredibly easy to simply instruct us in the factual information at the cost of the analytical skills (hence the problem with teaching utterly and completely to a test) but I think that a capable teacher can probably balance the two so that their students learn all that they need.
I agree with prometheus...learning how to sort necessary from unnecessary data is very important. If we spent all of our time studying small irrelevent details that had absolutely nothing to do with the bigger picture, we would just be learning useless information.
I also believe that we need to learn how to RETAIN the information we have analyzed. Teaching students how to be active learners is great because that way we can take the facts that we have been taught and ask ourself WHY we are learning them, and what significance they have to the world around us. I find that physics is a good science to learn how to apply this skill in because you can actually take examples from real life to back up theories.
I think that the problem with the regents exam is that it puts an unnecesary emphasis on remembering small details that are unimportant to the big picture, and therefore are only remembered because they "might show up on the test." The other problem that comes from this is that about a month after the test, no one remembers anything they learned all year. This is why learning how to be analytical, as opposed to just good at memorizing, is extremely important. I agree with lucyinthesky that retaining physics information is a lot easier than other subjects because it makes sense when you apply it to real life situations.
I think the bigger trouble is: how do you test conceptual understanding and problem solving in a multiple choice test? Further, whether we like it or not, there is a lot of math in physics… I can’t promise you will remember physics, but you will definitely get a lot better at math by the end of this year.
These "small details that are unimportant to the big picture" are exactly what allow you to develope a scientific understanding great enough to then develope your analytical thinking on a subject. We are not able to understand the big picture without the vocabulary that allows us to describe these details, so it is necesary to gain knowledge relating to these specifics. Once this foundation has been established (and most likely tested), then you can use this knowledge to think solely analytically if you choose.
i think the teacher is teaching kids this skill, but there are different kids with different strengths and weaknesses, obviously. these kids should find out exactly what they weakness is and attack it to become a stronger student.
Post a Comment