---- Susan Pienta <[email protected]> wrote:
> If scientists are not receptive to or rigorously examining opposing
> viewpoints, then they failing as their role as scientists. However, that is
> not to say they there are not many viewpoints out there (especially in
> terms of climate change) that are not backed by any actual science data.
>
> I think this whole discussion should serve as a reminder about the kind of
> science education that is happening in our country at the k-12 level and
> the transformation that is needed. In order for society to make these
> changes that we are asking them, they have to be scientifically literate.
> If we are just teaching content and science facts in school, then we will
> not have a society with the skills to understand modeling, reason through
> arguments, ask probing questions, and argue evidence based on data not
> personal bias. Not everyone is going to grow up to be a scientist, but if
> we want to be able to have these discussions with *everyone*, we have to
> teach our students to be able to think. examine evidence. and question.
I agree with everything you say.
Now, from one who has long experience teaching science at the college level:
The large majority of U.S. college students do not attend elite private and
state "flagship" universities. They attend less than stellar public and
private institutions (those that U.S. News and World Report labels as having
"noncompetitive" admissions, or being "moderately competitive"), including
community colleges, regional state colleges ("universities"), and in smaller
numbers rather mediocre private schools. There is incredible pressure in such
institutions to teach information rather than how to use information. If one
teaches critical thinking along with information, and tests for critical
thinking, he or she quickly is labeled by the students as a poor teacher ("She
expected me to figure it out, rather than telling me what I needed to know.")
Teaching evaluations suffer. Students select other instructors where there is
a choice. Administrators label the instructor as not student fri!
endly.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I did it for 40 years, and survived despite
less than stellar student evaluations. There is a minority (in some
institutions it is a large minority) of students who understand what is going
on, and who want to learn substance rather than to be given a body of
information to be regurgitated on tests. Consequently, good teachers, if they
persevere and win a following (the only way it can be done), survive. A good
many good teachers do not. I saw more than one excellent scientist and teacher
burn out quickly and give up, partly because of administrative response to
"instructor shopping." Teaching critical thinking, scientific investigation,
how to read and interpret data, how to deliver analytical reports, is
definitely not in favor with the majority of students, and therefore not in
favor with administrators in such institutions.
Currently, 25% of those who enter high school fail to graduate. Those who do
go through a school system where the phenomena described above are even more
evident. In the public schools, a teacher who works hard to teach critical
thinking and analysis to students is attacked by parents, in addition to being
avoided by students and labeled as not student friendly by administrators.
Is it any wonder that "Johnny can't think"?
When Adlai Stevenson was told by a supporter that every thinking person in the
country would vote for him for president, Stevenson replied, "Yes, but I need a
majority." He lost the election. That was sixty years ago. Things have
changed. For the better?
David McNeely
> now.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Susan Pienta
--
David McNeely
