Comments on: Ask, and you shall receive; knock, and the door shall be answered

By: private schools

private schools — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:49:22 +0000

I think science taught from a text book can be difficult for kids because of the need to conceptualise things they might not have experienced before.

By: wheatdogg

wheatdogg — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:44:35 +0000

All of the above, I’d say. Middle school science teaching is generally rote learning, with many dull fill-in-the-blank assignments. At least, that’s what my own kids experienced in their public middle school. The teaching process pretty much kills any interest, IMHO.

Then there’s the public perception that science is hard (or worse, inherently evil or anti-Christian), which might turn some kids off, too.

Bill Nye and Carl Sagan were great spokesmen when they were on TV. There are too few such entertaining science types now, though Al Gore has certainly made a splash in the global-warming arena.

By: inel

inel — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:21:43 +0000

Do students generally consider science hard because they are meant to think, and boring because they don’t? Or is it that scientists are hard to understand and boring to be with, I wonder?! In other words, is it the subjects or the people who are role models for those subjects that students base their opinions on? Hmmm …

By: wheatdogg

wheatdogg — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:54:32 +0000

inel –
Thanks for the comments, and the reference. Lately, I’ve been musing whether the problem with American education is that students do not see the need for hard work. Present them with a difficult subject, and their typical response is to shut down. A few of course live up to the challenge, but many just do not want to be bothered. Add to that the negative images many have of scientists and engineers and it’s no wonder that our kids shun science and math.

I am hoping that early exposure to physics (with attendant lab work) will encourage some of my 9th graders that science is not as hard or as boring as they think it is. Time will tell …

By: inel

inel — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:58:24 +0000

Hello Wheat-dogg,

Good for you! Tenacity and seriousness of purpose may be the most useful of traits to encourage in students.

Subject knowledge and supportive attitude towards students may be the most useful attributes in teachers. Sadly, many teachers, especially in elementary and middle schools, do not appear to have a good (i.e. more than sufficient) grounding in maths and science subjects to be able to support the kids who have difficulty understanding those subjects the way the teacher teaches them.

I was one of the rare girls who loved Physics and Maths at school and then studied Engineering. Now I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to work as an engineer on both sides of the Atlantic. Along the way, I had had so many people telling me that I was taking the “hard” subjects, and trying to dissuade me from even choosing engineering as a career (because “females don’t do that kind of thing”). What they never realised was those were the topics that fascinated, challenged and satisfied me, even though I achieved lower grades in Physics than in all my other subjects! So, you can tell your students it is worth sticking at, even during the tough times.

Just because a subject is not a cinch that does not mean students should give up completely. One problem with education today is that students are not allowed to make mistakes. We were. I learned a lot from all my mistakes. Physics and Maths are good for showing up people’s mistakes! But that does not mean that only the best students who sail through should be encouraged. Better that more people would be supported in struggling to understand some useful points than being allowed to give up entirely.

I have mentioned you and your blog in a comment over on tamino’s site. You might like to read what he has to say in “Calling All Science Teachers”. He does get targeted by global warming gainsayers on many of his posts, but I am sure you can make your way through those distractions, which simply reflect a general lack of science understanding in the population at large.

By: wheatdogg

wheatdogg — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:13:42 +0000

In the younger grades, did you have special science teachers, or did you have a generalist “homeroom” teacher as we have here?

Most grade school teachers in the States have abysmal science backgrounds, since these subjects are delegated to specialist teachers. Contact time in science class is generally pretty limited, too.

By: coturnix

coturnix — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:18:39 +0000

Back in Yugoslavia, growing up, the subject called “Natural Science” I had up till 4th grade, split into disciplines in the 5th grade. So, from the 5th grade till the 12th grade, I continuously and simultaenously had physics, chemistry, biology and geography/geology, plus additional biology courses in the 11th and 12th grades since my High School major was in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (so I had botany, zoology, microbiology, ecology, biochemistry, etc.).

By: wheatdogg

wheatdogg — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:01:43 +0000

This is the first year we’ve done the physics-chem-bio science sequence,so it’s too soon to tell what changes the chem and bio teachers will have to make. I am focusing in mechanics in the fall (Newton’s laws and energy/work concepts) and gravity, E&M and atoms in the spring. I’ve been checking with the chem teacher to see what he wants the kids to know.

By: Bob Tinker

Bob Tinker — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:53:03 +0000

Tell us more about your experience with physics first. Do you colleagues in biology and chemistry make any changes as a result of your kids’ physics understanding? Would it help to focus more on atoms and molecules? We have some great simulations that can help.