The recent thread on curricula seems to tie into some earlier comments that were made on scientific illiteracy. Its interesting that Malcolm McCallums original request for people to outline their ideal curricula drew mainly comments on statistics. I suspect our concerns over statistical literacy are really a facet of our general concern with scientific literacy.
The act of doing a statistical analysis should ideally follow the execution of a well-designed study, which itself should seek to answer a clear ecological question or address a clear hypothesis. Posing the question or framing the hypothesis should itself follow a period of reflection on the ecological problem being addressed. So, a well-executed statistical analysis should be a reflection of the whole scientific process. Well, do our science programs teach students to follow this sequence from start to finish. In my experience as both student and teacher, I would say that the answer is NO! Most programs appear to do quite a good job of teaching students a set of facts about science, but they do a very poor job of teaching students to think like scientists. I have become accustomed to seeing the stunned deer in the headlights look of even 3rd or 4th year students when I ask them to formulate a simple hypothesis or to devise a clear question that they must answer in a term paper. Many have only the most rudimentary idea of what a hypothesis is, and have never been asked to formulate one. So its hardly surprising that some otherwise mature scientists might set out to prove pet theories (as in Wendys post) rather than testing a hypothesis. Having said all that, what are the ingredients of my ideal curriculum. Here goes: 1. Incorporate problem-based learning into the curriculum form year one. The same goes for critical thinking skills, and basic literature search and research skills. 2. There must be close integration of the various course offerings on the curriculum (i.e. there goals and contents must be mutually supportive rather than a schmorgasbord of fragmented offerings). 3. Statistics should be integrated into the core ecology and biology courses. 4. All students should take a course that tackles the method and philosophy of science. 5. All students should take a course in scientific writing. I have spoken to many teachers who have taught for 15 30 years, and there is strong anecdotal evidence for a general decline of basic literacy and the ability to organize information. 6. Reduce class time and have more free time for reflection on what has been learned, and to indulge in self-directed learning. Many programs of study appear to treat students like thanksgiving turkeys to be stuffed with knowledge bytes (I know, I was such a turkey!!). But facts are not knowledge, which requires the integration of those facts, which requires time to reflect. 7. The core ecology course should be a one year (2-semester) course, not one semester as seems to be increasingly the case. For many students, especially those in liberal arts programs, the core Principles of Ecology course may be the only Ecology Course that they ever do. To restrict it to a one- semester digest course is hardly fostering the ecological literacy that we wish to develop in young people. 8. And finally, do most of the things in items 1 though 6 in High School. On this last point, suppose you want to train a top quality ballet dancer or concert violinist. No-one would suggest waiting until the age of 22 or 23 before training your proteges in the basics of dance or music. It would be too late. So why do we wait until 4th year undergrad or graduate school before asking students to think for themselves? So whats to stop us doing all these things? Well, I have tried all of them in my courses with varying degrees of success, and I have learned a few things. First, I believe problem based learning has to be applied across the curriculum if it is to succeed. For one or two professors to apply it in an ad-hoc manner is no use if most of the curriculum is being taught through conventional lectures. Secondly, I need training in these techniques even though I have done my research into the methods. Some of my earlier attempts to create challenging or problem-solving assignments simply met with resentment or incomprehension. Doing this stuff is not easy, and I would really like to do some continuing education in the area. All the Best, Andy Park (University of Winnipeg)
