Slashdot Mirror
Teaching Natural Sciences To Social Science Students?
An anonymous reader writes "As a calculus professor for a small undergraduate institution, I normally lecture students who are majoring in the natural (or 'hard') sciences, such as mathematics, physics, and computer science. In fact, I have done so for almost thirteen years. However, for the first time this fall semester, we have a shortage of professors on our hands. As a result of this, I have been asked to teach a general education statistics class. Such classes are a major requirement for the large psychology student body we have here. I have never lectured social science students in any mathematics-related classes. My question to the Slashdot community is as follows: What are your experiences with teaching natural science classes to social science students? How is the experience the same or different in comparison to natural science students who may be more adept to the nuances of mathematics and other similar fields?"
Not to be rude, but reread the post.
The OP says he normally teaches hard sciences to students with a major in a hard science meaning that they are more likely prepared for the learning of hard sciences. Because of some staffing issues the OP now must teach his hard science classes to students with a major in soft sciences, thus previous classes may not have fully prepared them for a hard science class.
Because of this the OP is asking how to mold his teaching strategy to better target those soft science majors.
You make it sound like you are teaching physics to special ed classes.
They are as smart as everyone you've had so far. You may see some differences in their backgrounds, but that's easy enough if you make allowances to give more basics or point them to appropriate resources. I'd give an example, but I have no idea what "natural science" is to you. Geology and oceanography are natural sciences, same as physics, but they share little in common.
One thing you may notice is that arts students in hard classes may want more "why" than "how" answers. So be prepared for more philosophical discussions, or correct, if silly, comments (i.e., the "why" for valence electrons is that the stable ones are like a comforable couch, and the unstable ones are hard benches. You want the better seat, but you don't really want to get up, and the worse the chair, the sooner you'd move) or something like that. The "why" as an expression of potential energy in MeV won't get the point across as well as a discussion of musical couches, and they'll remember it better, isn't that the goal, over the goal of the hard science students where accuracy is above all.
Learn to love Alaska
My thoughts exactly.
He might end up losing some of his elitist attitude before the course is over. It would be better if lost the attitude ahead of time, and approached the experience like he was at least teaching the same species.
Indeed. I teach statistics to mathematicians, biologists, psychologists and social scientists and I would say the social scientists 'get' the principles of statistics better than the 'hard' scientists do. The main reason is that soft scientists (which is a horrible term) can think about uncertainty and its consequences, whereas hard scientists (mathematicians included) are unhappy if they don't have a yes/no answer to a question. Obviously this is a generalisation but it may inform your approach to teaching.
Also, statistics is not 'just math'. I know this because I can do statistics but I can't do math(s) any more. :-)
...especially as regards the use of mathematics in the interpretation of 'data' where the soft sciences have such a 'hand wavy' approach to cause and effect.
To me, economics is a prime example. Forgive me if I'm off base in in my belief that economics is both sociological and soft(headed), but tyring to measure human behavior in the absence of an accounting for political corruption within this purely human realm and leaving the so-called black market beyond it's consideration leaves the inclusion of economics within the realm of 'science' suspect.
I would haved greatly appreciated any attempt by a professor to explain the difference between soft science and hard science, especially if it included an math based explanation of the nuance between these different domains.
Soft sciences are typically about trying to solve 'wicked' problems, which are those that are generally impossible to completely solve (end poverty or health inequality, understand crime, migration, or human behaviour in general etc). Hard scientists typically try to solve problems that are relatively much easier because they have a simple concrete goal (put a man on the moon, make a bomb, cure some disease)
Soft scientists need a much stronger theoretical framework to interpret their data, because of the absence of any really testable mechanisms for the effects they observe. This can come across as 'hand wavy' but it really isn't. Your economics example isn't entirely fair, some economic models will include corruption and black markets etc and others wont, just as some physics models include relativistic effects and others don't. A good scientist has to choose the right model to approah any problem, regardless of discipline.
I've been working in an inter-disciplinary group and have had the opportunity to see medics and economists try to work together. The two cultures are very different in their scientific approach, both consider the other to be unnecessarily picky about some aspects of the work while not being rigorous enough in others. Eg economists spend a huge amount of their time trying to prove causation in observational data, while medics will typically wave this away if they think the causal effect is likely enough. On the other hand economists tend not to contextualise their results well enough, while medics will see the bigger picture in terms of building on existing science.
I will try to inform you a little about economics (speaking as the holder of both a BSc and PhD in Economics):
The key difference is that economics and social sciences are mostly non-experimental (people don't take kindly to you arbitrarily changing their parents, education, or wealth - which is the 'experimental' way of establishing cause and effect). This means that the statistical issues are orders of magnitude larger than those that exist in experimental sciences. In an experimental science you can go off and get new data where you have controlled for most everything except the effect you are interested in and a simple regression will generally be all you need. In a non-experimental science you are stuck with the data that nature has given you. As a result you need to be very careful to get meaningful results. But, in case you are doubting, you can get meaningful results if you are careful enough.
Thus, my second point: Economics is not soft headed. In fact, it is very hard headed because you need to be when you are dealing with data that are generally speaking - crap. There are so many ways you can be mislead by non-experimental data and you need to be very hard-headed to avoid this. I won't claim mistakes haven't been made, but those mistakes are the reason economics has gotten much better at dealing with this than many people might realise. But, there is only so much you can do when the data are the way they are.
So don't assume the difficulty of getting solid results in economics reflects the ability of the practitioners rather than the raw materials you are dealing with.