Slashdot Mirror


College Students Lack Scientific Literacy

An anonymous reader writes with news of research into the scientific literacy of college biology students. Earlier studies found that students tended to "rely on mainly informal reasoning derived from their personal experiences," so the researchers derived a new instructional framework that explicitly taught principle-based reasoning. While the number of students who used this method did increase, more than half continued to use informal reasoning, which the researchers say points to a flaw in the way biology is taught (PDF). "Most college-level instruction presents students with complicated narratives about the details of key processes (e.g., cellular respiration), but does not explicitly reinforce the use of key principles to connect those processes. Therefore, students are understandably occupied with memorizing details of processes without focusing on the principles that govern and connect the processes. ... As a result, students may leave an introductory biology course with the ability to recite the reactions in the Calvin cycle but still believing that plants obtain most of their mass from the soil rather than from the atmosphere, that plants photosynthesize but do not respire, or that the mass of a decomposing organism will primarily return to the soil."

13 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Early Development by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids get discouraged way too early in their school lives. From their peers, their teachers and their parents, they get the message that science and math is boring and hard, and they take that to college. That's why in math classes, you might find a person that can perfectly integrate a function, but be utterly unable to describe what integration actually does. Science and math has become just an algorithm to them: If you follow X steps, then you will get the answer, then you will path the class.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Early Development by I8TheWorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A huge problem with that is getting qualified (and hopefully excited) teachers in those fields. If people do well in math or science, they tend to go into higher paying jobs rather than into teaching. What happens then is the math or science teaching vacancy goes to the newly hired teacher with a general knowledge and an education degree, they're handed the book and curriculum, and told to teach.

      It's my contention that those who have a nice career and a deep knowledge of math and/or science should consider spending the last few years working as a (fully qualified) teacher.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:Early Development by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's my contention that those who have a nice career and a deep knowledge of math and/or science should consider spending the last few years working as a (fully qualified) teacher.

      A while back I was reading an article by someone (engineer, I think) who looked at doing that. Then they discovered they'd have to take numerous training courses to prove they could teach kids about what they'd been doing for years and decided they had better things to do with their life.

      If you really want better teachers in schools, you could start by eliminating all the roadblocks that keep them out.

    3. Re:Early Development by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a lot of other countries with a much better education system, teachers are recruited from the top of the graduating classes and are given incentives to go and teach. I wish that's something we could implement in the US for education reform rather than grading teachers on how effective they are at teaching their kids how to take a specific test.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    4. Re:Early Development by doconnor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spelling is boring and hard and kids get discouraged from writing way too early in their school lives.

    5. Re:Early Development by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but in college I had a faculty member in genetics, the man definitely knew his stuff, but as a teacher he was more or less a complete flop. Yes, the requirements do need to be reasonable, but just because somebody knows their field doesn't mean that they're qualified to teach. I know that there's this common conception that teaching is easy if you know how to do the tasks, but that's really not true.

      The point is, that having to demonstrate capability exists for a reason. Sure it is cumbersome and probably could use a modernization and culling of some of the requirements, but it's there to try and minimize the cases where teachers are thrown into a classroom environment without being able to teach.

    6. Re:Early Development by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In a lot of other countries with a much better education system, teachers are recruited from the top of the graduating classes and are given incentives to go and teach.

      Which countries are these?

      Finland is a good example and among the best in the world. Their teachers are one of their highest paid professions and are government jobs. Less than 3% of grade school students go to private school. All education is free right up through doctoral degrees and includes free meals and healthcare.

      Many other countries are starting to use them as a model for changes to their own educational system, including China who has been taking great interest in reforming their education along those lines. I don't expect it to ever happen in the US though, we're a bit too isolationist and the majority opinion is that we're "better" at education and many other things despite objective evidence to the contrary.

    7. Re:Early Development by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

      There's an uncomfortable element of truth to this too, and I say this as a devoted son of two career teachers: If you are top in your Computer Science class, Google or Apple or Microsoft comes along to hire you, offers you a good starting salary with benefits, and a brand-name employer that you can show off to your friends. There's less demand for "the guy who graduated last," which means that the lower-paying jobs - i.e., teaching - will fall to those who... 'can't' get the job at Google.

      There simply isn't a great deal of incentive for the "top of the class" to go into education: fight your way through a mystifyingly complex government bureaucracy for a full day of discipline problems and budget cuts, all for the same pay as the meathead who barely graduated college? Gee, where do I sign up?

      A couple changes that I think would go a long way towards addressing some of this:
      1) Abolish tenure. If you're good, your job is safe. If you're not good, you should be turfed.
      2) Merit pay for teachers. GOOD merit pay - competitive with industry, and awarded in equal measure to your effectiveness & talents as a teacher.
      3) Incentives for effective teachers to work with disadvantaged students.
      4) Expand grants, scholarships, etc. - think the Americorps concept. "We give you a scholarship, and in return, you teach for several years after graduation."

  2. Logic Fail by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [They still believe that...] plants obtain most of their mass from the soil rather than from the atmosphere

    How could this possibly work? Farmers ship millions of tons of foodstuffs every year, unless they're spreading an equal volume of human excrement on their fields they'd be farming in pit mines after a few decades. That doesn't even begin to address that the soil that plants actually grow in is only a matter of inches deep in many locations, or the fact that you can grow plants in water more efficiently than in soil. So yeah, I'd say we're missing some basic logic tools if biology majors can't think that one through.

    1. Re:Logic Fail by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It points out the real problem with science education: we're not teaching the big facts and then delving into the intricacies, we're teaching the intricacies and hoping the big facts are obvious.

      It's nothing about "informal" or "principle-based" reasoning, it's just inadequate communication.

  3. Math Illiteracy leads to science illiteracy by ral · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Science illiteracy is strongly rooted in math illiteracy. Cliff Mass, a Seattle area Professor of Meteorology, gives his incoming freshman students a math test. This is a test of basic math skills that should be mastered before high school. Yet the average score for college freshman science students is only 58%.

    You can find the answers to the above test in his blog article.

  4. Ignorance of the Philosophy of Science by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would speculate that at a logical philosophical level, a large number of students are ignorant of what science actually is. Science is often taught as a series of completed results, as a series of facts to be memorized. While to some extent this is difficult to avoid when teaching base knowledge, I suspect many students concentrate on what "gets them the grade", which is demonstrated knowledge of specific material, often memorized. In most high school programs, students are not adequately taught the reasons for knowledge (the International Baccalaureate program is often an exception to this). They are not explicitly taught logic and reason. And since the root of science is logic and reason, I would argue that most students are hobbled in their studies.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  5. They lack general literacy by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not just scientific literacy, it's mathematical and grammatical as well. It's not that American kids are getting dumber, it's that American colleges are accepting anyone to a four year program if they sign up for one. The downside of that is that the average ability of incoming students trends downward.

    The problem is that we've created a system that values a piece of paper that says you were in college for four years, even if those four years have absolutely nothing to do with the job position. There's nothing wrong with going to trade school, and in more than just a few trades you'll end up laughing all the way to the bank, making more money with your two year degree than a lot of people with a four year degree, all while paying a lot less for it.

    Even many four year programs could be significantly shortened. A cousin of mine received a business degree from a program that crammed it all into one year. His job was school, his off-time was school, and they expected him to be there everyday in appropriate dress. They didn't fuck around and neither did he, and know he's out and being productive while a bunch of other kids are pissing away four years on classes they don't care about and keg parties.