Slashdot Mirror


Stop Taking All the Fun Out of Science

HughPickens.com writes: Heidi Stevens writes in the Chicago Tribune that according to NASA astronaut Mae Jemison schools treat science like the class where fun goes to die. "Kids come out of the chute liking science. They ask, 'How come? Why? What's this?' They pick up stuff to examine it. We might not call that science, but it's discovering the world around us," says Jemison. "Once we get them in school, we turn science from discovery and hands-on to something you're supposed to do through rote memorization." But science doesn't have to be that way says Jemison. Especially in the elementary school years. "When you have teachers saying, 'I don't have enough time for hands-on activities,' we need to rethink the way we do education," says Jemison. "The drills we do, where you're telling kids to memorize things, don't actually work. What works is engaging them and letting them do things and discover things." Jemison has teamed up with Bayer to advance science literacy across the United States by emphasizing the importance of hands-on, inquiry-based learning opportunities in public schools. Bayer announced recently that it will provide 1 million hands-on science experiences for kids by 2020. "Science is around us everywhere," says Jemison. Farming is science. Cooking is science. Even styling hair involves science. "When we go to the hairdresser, we want her to know something about pH balance," says Jemison with a laugh. "Boy, do we ever want her to know something about pH balance!"

160 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. School isn't there to enrich lives by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's there to get people ready for the workforce. That's why we have bells and it's why we start it early when research shows kids need more sleep. I always find it annoying to see people who can't or won't acknowledge that virtually everything in our society exists to serve the ruling class. You'll never get anywhere with reform until you acknowledge and deal with that basic root problem. It's why FDR was so successful and it's what Eisenhower was afraid of when he talked about the Military Industrial Complex...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If kids need more sleep, wouldn't it be sufficient to go to bed sooner?

      If you move the start of school two hours later, kids will just stay up or out later and still be sleep deprived. The start time was made to serve the working class so that they would have their kids in school before getting to their jobs so they wouldn't have to worry about the kids being home by themselves for several hours because someone wanted to move the start time later in the morning, because apparently the only way to get more sleep is to wake up later.

      Our educational system could be a hell of a lot better, but I hardly think that the arguments you've chosen are representative of those problems or even necessarily support the points that you're making.

    2. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      If kids need more sleep, wouldn't it be sufficient to go to bed sooner?

      No. We have times that are natural for us to go to sleep and to wake up, regulated mainly by our perception of sunlight. This is shown by studies of shift workers (Working nights and sleeping days is very bad for your health).

      While the natural bedtime and waking time is different for each person, studies have also shown that both, on the whole, get later for teens (and then get earlier again as we age). It really would be better if high school students could sleep in. Making them be at school at 7 AM is not good. Your point that it was made for the convenience of the working parents is quite true, but doesn't make it any better physically for the kids.

    3. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

      I've recently seen articles in newspapers about this (and not only about kids, also adults), and the point is that it's against our natural cycle, so going to bed earlier doesn't really fix it. Additional issue is probably that it's also a personal thing, some people will have a different natural cycle than others, so one size fits all will never be optimal

    4. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by chipschap · · Score: 2

      Somehow, though, in our society --- and this has persisted for centuries, it seems --- there is the idea that getting up early is somehow meritorious and more "moral" than getting up later. Maybe it started with the needs of an agricultural society, but today is seems really misplaced. I get up at 5 am and you get up at 9 so I'm a better person than you are? I hardly think so.

    5. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I'm rather curious where school is starting at 7 AM as that's rather early. When I was growing up it started at 8:45 AM. Starting at 7 AM would require kids waking up at 6 if they're going to shower, eat, and take care of any hygiene needs in addition to allowing for travel time to school and isn't any more convenient for parents unless they are dropping of their kids and then have a long commute to work.

      The only reason to start later than that is perhaps if you're farther north and the sun doesn't rise until much later in the morning during the winter months, otherwise the sun is up by 7:30 for most the country for most of the year and people will naturally wake up in response to light.

    6. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Again, no. Small children naturally wake by the crack of dawn and are ready to go soon after. Teens naturally wake later. They can force themselves up earlier given sufficient motivation, but they will not be ready to learn at that time.

    7. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, 8:45 AM or even 9 AM was usual for me too, but that was a long time ago. Most of the suburbs around the DC area had opening bells for high school of 7:25 AM until just recently (like this school year) when they moved them 20 minutes or more later, largely because of the research I just cited.

    8. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by djb1024 · · Score: 1

      My high school started around 7 AM, and I graduated in 2004. The early morning teachers hated it because we were all half asleep, but the school board didn't care. I was usually getting to school before the crack of dawn. Elementary schools didn't start until 9:30 AM and the middle schools started at 8:45 AM. It made no sense at all.

    9. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      We have times that are natural for us to go to sleep and to wake up, regulated mainly by our perception of sunlight.

      ...which is unnaturally regulated by our use of screens with series D illuminants.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    10. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by quetwo · · Score: 2

      Both high schools I attended started between 7:15am and 7:30am. One was located in Northern Illinois, and the other was located in Western Michigan. I graduated in 1999, and I don't think either has changed much. Middle school had classes starting at 7:05am and elementary school was at 7:45.

    11. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a load of a crap (do you misunderstand every story you post to, or just a troll that takes a long time to get around to responding to stories?). Kids get lots more homework today than we did, and than my parent's generation. Too many teachers are trying to substitute quantity of busy work for quality work. There are places where repetition is helpful, and other places where it becomes a waste, and additionally destroys the kid's motivation and respect for education. Doing writing and math exercises can help introduce those concepts way better than just being told about them. But assigning a hundred multiplication exercises because a student couldn't get a word problem doesn't help them learn how to do word problems, even if it is much easier to assign.

      When my wife and I were kids, we learned about computers by having some time to mess around with them, before getting into formal classes. The school our kids were previously at made it come down between a choice between getting good grades and having any outside interests. To paraphrase one teacher, "If you kid wants to learn about computers, they should take the CS course when old enough and should have enough concentration to avoid computers until then." It is the same mentality of teachers that hate students who read ahead, "Ok, if your kid is going to read extra material, just make sure they don't talk about it to other kids." The last straw was when they brought us in to talk about the importance of good grades when saying little about actual education, because our kids missed a couple days after winter break due to a family trip overseas where we got our kids to learn parts of a foreign language and lots of history.

      Learning takes effort and work. But there is a difference between some homework, and so much busy work that education stops. Kids need to learn about things beyond the domain of their teachers. Teachers not giving students work is also not a viable option. Asking for balance is not screaming about making the kids do any work.

    12. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by sjames · · Score: 1

      It was the same when I went to school. It really didn't make much sense.

    13. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Small children naturally wake by the crack of dawn and are ready to go soon after.

      It starts happening again when you're in your 50's, but the only place you are going is the toilet.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We need less workers than ever before. Perhaps school should be about enriching lives, and promoting creativity, so that we can figure out what all these idle people are going to do with their time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Making them be at school at 7 AM is not good. Your point that it was made for the convenience of the working parents is quite true, but doesn't make it any better physically for the kids.

      I just want to point out that THIS working parent also doesn't like being at work at 7AM!

    16. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Somehow, though, in our society --- and this has persisted for centuries, it seems --- there is the idea that getting up early is somehow meritorious and more "moral" than getting up later. Maybe it started with the needs of an agricultural society, but today is seems really misplaced. I get up at 5 am and you get up at 9 so I'm a better person than you are? I hardly think so.

      It's because until about 1900, the majority of the populace were farmers, which lacking some serious candlepower is a job that has to be mostly done in daylight. So to get the most number of working hours out of a day means rising with the chickens and working until the sun set.

      Of course, that meant that once the sun had set, most of your time was your own and in more extreme climes the "hard" work was something you could only do when it wasn't too cold to grow anything.

      The first factories were also likely to operate mostly courtesy of what light came in through the (usually plentiful) windows, so likewise our Captains of Industry wanted the workers filing in at dawn and working until the light faded to uselessness.

      Factories were the where the idea of having slack times began to die. Artificial lighting meant that you could extend the work day. Between the two, coupled with the false, but popular idea that "the more you work, the more you get ahead", we kept to the early-rising concept and added more work on top of it.

      Realistically, artificial light means that you could work an 8-hour day starting any time, and, of course, factory shifts often do. But the general pattern remains from its agricultural roots. The rulers didn't need such a schedule, nor did the clergy or the scholars - at least the ones who had patrons to supply them with candles.

    17. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, elementary school started around 9, middle school around maybe 8:15, and high school around 7:30 -- or maybe it was even earlier than that, I don't quite remember. The trouble is, it had to be that way because it was the goddamn suburbs, so everybody rode the bus, and the buses took that long to do all the routes. And yes, the routes had to be separate for elementary/middle/high because the schools weren't in the same places.

      If we lived in more compact cities with neighborhood schools everybody could walk to, then they could all start at 9 AM and it would be much less of a problem. Of course, big schools have economies of scale and the opportunity for more variety of classes, so people like that, but there's a lack of appreciation for what's being given up to accomplish it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      >If kids need more sleep, wouldn't it be sufficient to go to bed sooner?
      High School starts early so kids will have time to get to their afterschool jobs so they can help their family survive. Of course this is not true for every single kid, some have sports to participate in, and one or two of them have intact families with good incomes. But for the benefit of the working kids (ahem, and their employer) school times are set this way. At least that is the consensus of the teacher I have talked to about this.

    19. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      I'm rather curious where school is starting at 7 AM as that's rather early.

      My senior year of high school started somewhere around that time...maybe 7:30 at the latest. There was a shortage of school buses at the time, so start times were staggered with high schools early in the morning, junior high a little bit later, and elementary schools later still.

      One advantage to the early start: more time for your after-school job. That's not much of a concern in the current shitty economy, but in the boom times of the late '80s, it was useful.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    20. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      Same. I believe the idea was that high school kids would often have after school jobs and that was certainly true at the time. These days though few high school-er's have job, hell most college kids don't have jobs. I was on the football team and we had mandatory 0 period weight lifting which meant getting in at 6:30am. That was not great.

    21. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      Again, no. Small children naturally wake by the crack of dawn and are ready to go soon after. Teens naturally wake later. They can force themselves up earlier given sufficient motivation, but they will not be ready to learn at that time.

      Obviously someone needs to get this memo to our local school board (they are literally bought and paid for by the teacher's union, but that's another issue) Our middle/high school students start homeroom at 7:40 and the grade school kids start at 9:05 (so the buses can be recycled) of course we also have forced desegregation of the school system (unconstitutional but they gave it a different name and tweak it every time they get sued) so there are children who do not arrive home until after 6:30 due to playing musical buses. I went to private school and start times for me were 8:30 grade/middle & 8:00 high school, I always felt bad for friends that went to public school talking about waking up at 6:00 or earlier in some cases to get to high school.

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
    22. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      My school started at 7:00. I also had to get up at 5:00 in order to get a shower before I got on the bus since the bus ride took over an hour. I was the first person on the bus and I lived out in the middle of nowhere. The bus then proceeded to skirt the boundaries of nowhere for the next 45min before getting on a main road. When I got on the bus I would immediately lay down and go to sleep again, because if I didn't I would just fall asleep sitting up and hit my head on the window or fall into the aisle. It was impossible for me to stay awake after I got on the bus because I was always far too tired. And don't give me any "you should go to sleep earlier" bullshit. When I was a teenager i spent hours trying to go to sleep on a regular basis. If it was not midnight yet, usually closer to 1:00, I could not sleep. You may have been one of the lucky ones that could go to sleep whenever they want, but that does not mean that everyone else should have to suffer.

      School should not start until at least 9:00!

    23. Re:School isn't there to enrich lives by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Teachers are like bosses, they want you to leave your personal problems at home, but insist you take their work home with you...

  2. oblig. by phantomfive · · Score: 2
    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. 1 million hands on experiences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My wife is a hands on type science teacher. Build bridges, set things on fire, build and race cars, etc. 150 students. At least 1 hands on activity every 2 weeks (usually far far more) during a 36 week year. That's 18 activities. Say she does that every year for until 2020. That's 150*18*6. That's 16,200.

    1,000,000 hands on science experiences? That's just the regular job of 62 teachers. Just a couple schools.

  4. Science Requires Effort by mlookaba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless we want to re-invent the wheel over and over, it's necessary that people have a basic understanding of the work that has been done in the past.

    The problem isn't how hard it is to memorize facts. The human brain is capable of memorizing a lot of facts. The problem is that (US specifically) kids are just too lazy to do it. They have the ability, but not the desire. (Source: My wife is a high school science teacher of 30 years).

    Let's address the real issue and stop trying to give participation trophies.

    1. Re:Science Requires Effort by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      What does "memorizing a lot of facts" have to do with not re-invent the wheel?

    2. Re:Science Requires Effort by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't how hard it is to memorize facts. The human brain is capable of memorizing a lot of facts. The problem is that (US specifically) kids are just too lazy to do it.

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.

    3. Re:Science Requires Effort by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What does "memorizing a lot of facts" have to do with not re-invent the wheel?

      If you don't know the wheel exists and what it does (if you haven't memorized those things), then you'll wind up re-inventing it through simple ignorance, won't you? And probably do a much worse job of it--something computer programmers have a depressing record of seeing every day.

    4. Re:Science Requires Effort by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works.

      I agree with you that the "understanding relationships" etc. is more important in being an educated person than memorized rote knowledge.

      The problem, however, is that one actually needs something in your brain to "understand relationships" between. You can't "understand how stuff works" if you don't even know there is "stuff" to begin with.

      I'm absolutely NOT arguing for lots of rote memorization. But I think a common error (and an increasingly serious problem) today is the idea that memorization is worthless because... well, "Google can answer it." Yeah, that's great if you're looking up some atomic fact. But what if finding an answer to a problem depends on connecting seemingly unrelated atomic facts? If they are both in your brain, you may be able to figure it out. But if not, you're out of luck (unless someone has solved that exact problem before and posted it on the internet).

      Traditional specialization in a career, for example, usually required adaptability. If you were a mechanic or a machinist or whatever, having 25 years of experience wasn't just about making fewer mistakes -- it was about having a brain full of knowledge that could make such connections when needed. That often included a lot of obscure facts derived from experience... "Oh, don't even bother trying that part on that model, because it uses X and although they say it's different from Y, both the mechanisms on based on principle Z."

      Memorization can SOMETIMES be a way to fast-track understanding and make those subsequent connections easier to make. Memorization for the sake of memorization is stupid, but if you're memorizing information that you can actually use on a regular basis, it might actually be helpful in doing stuff like you say: "understanding relationships between things" requires knowing something about "things."

      The facts you need will be memorized along the way.

      That does tend to happen when you use information frequently. But sometimes it can actually be helpful to force oneself to KNOW stuff in advance. (I can't believe I actually need to argue for this....) And sometimes you don't know what you might need to know, and knowing SOMETHING that is potentially relevant can give you an advantage over someone else who just has to blindly Google things rather than actually knowing anything.

      In medieval times, when books were expensive and scarce, there used to be an entire "art of memory," a method which facilitated memorization of long passages of writings and even entire books. There were drawings showing people "eating books" too -- this was the symbolism given to the act of memorization, because once one had these complete texts in one's brain, it allows a much more thorough "digestion" of the ideas and contents of these texts.

      I'm not saying that we should go back to that. But there's something different about knowledge that is actually in your brain, and memorization can sometimes be a useful TOOL to get it there.

    5. Re:Science Requires Effort by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Informative

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand?

      New facts are built on a foundation of old facts, and if you don't know them, the new facts will not get built.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:Science Requires Effort by sjames · · Score: 1

      Computer programmers have to reinvent to keep the lawyers away. They can't just take someone's patented and copyrighted square wheel and make an octagon out of it, they must start from scratch.

    7. Re:Science Requires Effort by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      But what if finding an answer to a problem depends on connecting seemingly unrelated atomic facts? If they are both in your brain, you may be able to figure it out. But if not, you're out of luck (unless someone has solved that exact problem before and posted it on the internet).

      Science students should be getting exactly this kind of problem on a regular basis in the form of exercises, and simultaneously given the resources to dig up those facts (e.g., Google) in order to solve the problem. Then they'll learn the useful interplay among simple facts that forms the basis of relational and functional knowledge. Sitting them down and telling them to memorize the periodic table won't accomplish this.

      Yeah, you have to know stuff, but simply knowing lots of facts that you're not in the process of actively using is sterile. Yeah, you don't necessarily know ahead of time which fact will end up being useful, and you might have to go out and learn new stuff to solve your problem. And a good basis of broad knowledge is really helpful for that. But that's not an argument for just making students memorize shit because I Say So.

    8. Re:Science Requires Effort by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand?

      Because there may come a time where they aren't.

      Interesting fact: Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Francis Bacon were all totally shit at using Google.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Science Requires Effort by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think though that one naturally memorizes stuff. If you keep having to make use of a fact and keep having to look it up, after not especially long you commit it to memory automatically. The trouble with just mindless rote memorization that it's awfully easy to memorize wrong without understanding, awfully easy to have a list of facts but no idea how to use them and it's boring as all hell and guaranteed to put off the majority of students.

      Do, rather than memorize and the memorization will come naturally.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Science Requires Effort by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Let's address the real issue and stop trying to give participation trophies.

      As long at we don't replace them with trophies for following instructions and agreeing with whatever authority figures say.

    11. Re:Science Requires Effort by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Informative

      "What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts"

      They are the bricks to build comprehension.

      "in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand?"

      Facts outside your brain are of no value. In order to get value as nodes to tie connections in between you need to already have them in your brain.

      "The facts you need will be memorized along the way."

      Are you sure?

      Just like Homer's use of epithets basically made them into a single substantive, it seems USA is changing "memory" into "rotten memory" as if it were a single word. It isn't: memory is a most useful tool, and exercising it is only good for growing minds. Change your education system to avoid rote memorization but don't make the mistake of thinking that all memorization is rotten.

    12. Re:Science Requires Effort by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      I think though that one naturally memorizes stuff. If you keep having to make use of a fact and keep having to look it up, after not especially long you commit it to memory automatically. The trouble with just mindless rote memorization that it's awfully easy to memorize wrong without understanding, awfully easy to have a list of facts but no idea how to use them and it's boring as all hell and guaranteed to put off the majority of students.

      Do, rather than memorize and the memorization will come naturally.

      This. Somebody mod parent up.

    13. Re:Science Requires Effort by kesj · · Score: 1

      Science most likely isn't fun in the traditional sense but can made interesting to almost any kid with a bit of curiosity about the world around themselves. However, it extremely easy to snuff out that curiosity and desire. The problem normally isn't the high school instructor but the elementary school instructors that are science and math phobes. Teacher certification tests given to prospective Massachusetts elementary school teachers show the majority are illiterate with respect to STEM related subjects. They're the ones that kill the enthusiasm of students by their lack of being able to explain the physical world around students to the students. It is easy to crush the desire to learn about things when the inquisitive kid asks "Why the sky is blue" and has the teacher tell the kid to go back to his book and stop asking questions (that don't have answers in the teacher's manual.)

    14. Re:Science Requires Effort by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I am a scientist and I can assure you memorizing facts is almost completely a waste of time. Or rather, it is worse than that. The problem is that there are far too many fact for even a basic selection to be memorized. But trying detracts from the all-critical skill of critical thinking and being able to interpret facts quickly that you have looked up. Drilling kids to memorize facts at best qualifies them to be factory-workers doing repetitive things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:Science Requires Effort by gringer · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand?

      When you're talking to someone in a professional setting, saying "hang on, I'll just check up on that" multiple times is a very good way to encourage them to leave and not participate in an exchange of goods or services.

      When I go to fast food restaurants, I would like cashiers to be able to instantly tell me the answer to allergy questions (e.g. are your chips fried in peanut oil).

      If I'm presenting to biologists about a differential expression analysis on samples they've been working on, I need to be able to tell them what a particular statistic means so that they can better understand the results.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    16. Re:Science Requires Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with re-inventing the wheel. Isn't that called progress?

      Once humans start discovering, inventing and studying something _of interest_, the effort is not wasted in rote memorization, but in play and innovation. Such learning go beyond reiterating trivial "facts" and then forgetting them all after a few weeks.

      What scientist ever discovered or invented something by pure memorization?

    17. Re:Science Requires Effort by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Science is hard. Mixing chemicals and making cool explosions or fire demonstrations or baking soda volcanoes may be fun but it's not science. Study after study has shown that kids that are exposed to effort-intensive mathematics, computer science, and general STEM knowledge early on in life do much better than those who are exposed to it later - even if they do not wind up pursuing STEM fields as careers.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    18. Re:Science Requires Effort by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      It's not just science.

      The current standard U.S. school model has this same issue with most other subjects as well, with typically the notable exceptions of Art and Music, which tend to be taught by practitioners thereof, rather than your standard teaching college graduate.

      Can you imagine if learning a musical instrument started with, "Let's memorize all the different note positions/letters on the treble and bass clefs, but we'll worry about actually playing some music when you're in college..."

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    19. Re:Science Requires Effort by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      To put this in computing terms, it's all about cache locality and the cost of I/O. It also applies to large organizations of people.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    20. Re:Science Requires Effort by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.

      Because not everything is about interrelational self actualization, self esteem enhancing, collaboration.

      Basic math for instance. No matter how damn hard we try, basic math is neither exciting, need some rote memorization and 2 plus 2 still adds up to 4.

      Rectangular arrays, and area models are the products of insanity, making the simplest problems ridiculously difficult.

      Basic math is basic math, and needs to be memorized. If 2 plus two equaled 5, or some valuable social construct, then hey, let's all discuss and teach teh controversy.. But it doesn't. It's 4, no matter how hard we try.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:Science Requires Effort by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      When I was a kid, in my school's science classes, we did lots of hands-on stuff. Did we "re-invent the _____". Yes. So what? We learned how to "do science" by doing science ourselves. And I don't mean just mindless following directions. We started with describing things we "discovered" as we went through our days. Then the concept of doing simple tests to learn more about "every day" things. We were even encouraged to figure out how to test things, so were starting to do scientific experiments. Yes, some procedures had to be given to us. And, all the while we were doing this "fun stuff", the teachers managed to slip in lots of background facts. Guess what? We actually remembered - not just the things we did, but the background stuff as well.

      Yes, all those facts facts we learned are important to have learned. And yes, we couldn't possibly learn more than a tiny fraction of them purely by hands-on science. By learning them along side the hands on things we did do, we could actually "connect" those facts with the real world. And, therefore, understand them.

      Otherwise, they are just items of information to be coughed up on command.

      Coughing up formulas from, for example, the "CRC Book of Standard Formulas" may be faster, but if you can't derive the formulas you need, how can you be sure you are using them correctly?

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    22. Re:Science Requires Effort by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if you don't even know the key words or what they mean google is not going to help. You need at least something to start with.
      It's especially clear here when people way out of their depth link spam you with stuff that in no way supports their argument. They googled what they thought they meant, found something different and didn't know enough to notice.

    23. Re: Science Requires Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Facts require a framework of relationships and concepts to be useful. Building this framework in the mind is the most important thing, and many knowledgeable people make the false assumption that such a framework exists in everyone's mind, because they made theirs automatically.
      I can remember chemistry and electronics facts on one try only because I have this framework in which I can connect the facts to their circumstances. Without that they would be nearly useless, even if I did remember them. This was built up by years of curious, playful experimentation.

    24. Re:Science Requires Effort by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So should we discuss the controversies around the multiplication tables? Maybe a few Semesters proving that every wrong answer isn't actually correct?

      It seems like you're being sarcastic about something, but I find it hard to tell what, since it doesn't relate in any way to the topic. Or is it that you're just banging on your big drum o' social justice again where you shout loudly and sarcastically when someone interacting with the world the WRONG way (as defined by not what you'd personally do)?

      To tell a student that 2 times 5 equals 10, without giving them the option to believe otherwise is just going to ruin their self esteem.

      No option to believe otherwise? I guess that modular arithmetic isn't a thing then. Please switch off your computer and throw it in the bin, because you've just declared it doesn't exist.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:Science Requires Effort by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      when people way out of their depth link spam you with stuff that in no way supports their argument.

      I thought that only happened to me. I've seen it a few times in chemistry, where someone assumes a property of X in its elemental state is also a property of compounds of X, reaching a conclusion like "Derbyshire Blue John corrodes glass".

      You have any examples?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:Science Requires Effort by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The patent wold have expired long before the concept of the wheel had migrated a few hundred km. Also, ever notice how the wheel was absent in the America's?

    27. Re:Science Requires Effort by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Do you not memorize words and their meanings to construct a sentence to express an idea?

    28. Re:Science Requires Effort by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      IIRC, learning to play an instrument did start by memorizing all the different note positions. And I've learned a few (almost majored in music in college). The one instrument I learned on my own for fun, I can play adequately well but can't read music like my other instruments.

    29. Re:Science Requires Effort by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Especially things like multiplication tables are massively counter-productive. Learn to estimate, but exact calculation is a task for machines, not for humans. Same for the constants: Those you actually need you will learn automatically, for all others, a rough idea about their value if completely enough.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re:Science Requires Effort by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.

      It's even more than that: understanding the relationships is how the memorization gets accomplished in the first place! In fact, attempting to memorize facts without the context of those relationships is really fucking hard and frustrating. I was watching a TED talk by Joshua Foer last night that explained all this, and talked about how the techniques everyone from Roman orators to Rain Man use to memorize stuff actually involve constructing (spatial) relationships between the items to be memorized, and then remembering the relationships. Even the idiom I used, "in the first place," comes from the idea of memorizing speech topics in a spatial framework.

      TL;DR: any so-called "teacher" who wants students to perform rote memorization without context is actively doing those students a disservice!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    31. Re:Science Requires Effort by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The problem, however, is that one actually needs something in your brain to "understand relationships" between. You can't "understand how stuff works" if you don't even know there is "stuff" to begin with.

      On the contrary, you need to understand the relationships in order to be able to remember the "stuff" at all.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    32. Re:Science Requires Effort by sjames · · Score: 2

      Nor is anyone willing to be reasonable in the offer of license.

    33. Re:Science Requires Effort by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When you're talking to someone in a professional setting, saying "hang on, I'll just check up on that" multiple times is a very good way to encourage them to leave and not participate in an exchange of goods or services.

      Yes, only because that makes it blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're doing. But you say that as if "the facts" were sufficient to do the job, and they're not. Understanding how the product you're selling actually works and more importantly why the person should want it -- and using the facts only incidentally in order to explain that -- is the actual job.

      When I go to fast food restaurants, I would like cashiers to be able to instantly tell me the answer to allergy questions (e.g. are your chips fried in peanut oil).

      Yep, and it works a Hell of a lot better when the cashier has been cross-trained in chip frying than when he's been ordered to memorize an operations manual.

      If I'm presenting to biologists about a differential expression analysis on samples they've been working on, I need to be able to tell them what a particular statistic means so that they can better understand the results.

      You've got that backwards: you had to have already understood the relationships between the particular statistic and the rest of the context of your work in order to have successfully used it in the first place.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    34. Re:Science Requires Effort by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well if Einstein said it it must be right. After all he was infallible.

      This is a different Einstein from the one who was wrong about quantum mechanics, I assume?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Science Requires Effort by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      mlookaba posted noting that it isn't hard to memorize facts

      Depends on the facts and depends on the context. I'm not especially good at memorizing tomes of facts unconnected with understanding.

      And there are some that just cannot be efficiently taught without rote.

      Teaching by rote is often deeply inefficient, and pointless too. Why? Because in many places one doesn't memorize much of use. Maths for example is a terrible place to do it, because the essence of maths is figuring out new things. Teaching by rote isn't maths.

      A simple process that is at the heart of most everyday activities. Buying and selling things, balancing your budget, figuring out the grocery bill - pretty important, pretty simple, and pretty well settled.

      Ooh you're confusing maths and arithmetic I see.

      We spent a week or so memorizing out multiplication tables in early grade school. In my class we had to stand and deliver the tables in front of the class - it was like our first public speaking assignment

      riiight. A week. That's bull. Kids spend way, way longer learning the "times tables". It's also something I never learned terribly well in school and was always bad at "sums". Endless fucking sums. Nonetheless my dad taught me how to solve linear aimultaneous equations and I could do that algebraically when my classmates were learning times tables. I still sucked at times tables, but hey at least I was doing maths (as in figuring stuff out).

      Whereas I now just know those matters by heart, I think rather sincerely that looking them up every time I need to know what 5 times something is is incredibly inefficient, and will make a week's practice take years to master.

      What actually made me better at mental arithmetic than I ever was through rote memorization was doing quick back-of-the-envelope calculations and estimations while doing engineering. It also helped that I had much better understanding of numbers by then so I grasped things like magnitides and significant figures.

      So no, learning times tables by rote never really helped me.

      And while a calculator is a big help, it doesn't substitute for some basic knowledge.It's sadly humorous to watch today's students math skills fall apart when they deal with notation.

      Oh gosh we have anotation nazi. One of the things I had to do when teaching undergrads fresh out of school was get them to unlearn the extreme obsession with "correct" notation. They spent much time filling the page with mad-ass conventions (especially in geometry) that they seemed to be unable to extract the basic maths from the mess that resulted.

      And now we're going to bitch up the works even more with common core set theory based

      There are very many ways of doing things wrong. That doesn't make vast amounts rote memorization right. I'm not actually familiar with common core maths, or more specifically I don't know what precisely counts as common core. However given my interaction with some highschoolers through tutoring, my take-home messge that the only way to rescue the America cirriculum is to take off and nuke it from orbit.

      Once it's been reduced to a smouldering crater it can actually be replaced with something resembling maths. And rote memorization would play a very small part of that, if any.

      Olsoc's rule: using S*W automatically voids your argument

      Oh, I was just mocking you since you're the kind of person who uses the term "SJW" without irony. Did I say kind of person? I meant you ARE a person who does. In this post for example: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
      and this one:
      http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    36. Re:Science Requires Effort by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Ooh you're confusing maths and arithmetic I see.

      Where I come from, math is arithmetic. The higher orders are called by their respective names. Perhaps where you come from "Maths" is an all encompasssing subject. Perhaps that's why they call it "maths" instead of "math".

      Now on to other stuff:

      Jezus krispy kryst - who the fuck peed in your Wheaties today? Sensitive as fuck, and trying to determine what others are allowed to write - even if you have to make shit up, or ignore all the other posts in a topic.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:Science Requires Effort by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Where I come from, math is arithmetic.

      Wow!

      Arithmetic is maths, but maths is not arithmetic. Maths includes things like geometry which even quite young kids do a bit of. And, naturally it includes many, many other things.

      Of course you're free to completely redefine words so they have a meaning private just to you, but then why bother having conversations?

      Perhaps where you come from "Maths" is an all encompasssing subject.

      Yes, I do. Shall we see what the dictionary says about mathematics (of which math and maths are two abbreviations in common use in the US and UK respectively)?

      Merriam Webster (an American dictionary) says

      the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

      The OED (circa 1933) says:

      The abstract science which investigates deductively the conclusions implicit in the elementary conceptions of spatial and numerical relations, and which includes as its main divisions geometry, arithmetic, and algebra.

      The Oxford Dictionary (not OED) defines it as:

      The abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics).

      The Encyclopedia Brittanica says:

      The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects.

      Hardy (the mathemetician) described it as:

      A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

      Wikipedia notes:

      Mathematics (from Greek [slashdot y u no unicode???], "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2] structure,[3] space,[2] and change.[4][5][6] There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics.

      I could go on. Every reference source I can find agrees broadly.

      In other words, if you have a definition of "maths == arithmetic", then you're using a definition which is not the widely accepted English language definition of the word. Having argued with you before---and I use the word "argue" loosely as that implies somewhat optimistic that you follow a logical chain of thought to support conclusions---I can tell you are a very stubborn gentleman. Despite just about every reasonably well regarded reference work in existence disagreeing with you, I know you will not change your mind and will keep insisting that maths IS arithmetic.

      Jezus krispy kryst - who the fuck peed in your Wheaties today?

      Haaaaaahahahahahaha! Wow you really don't like it when someone points out when you're a hypocrite complete with links proving it! lolololololol :D :D :D :D :giggle:

      ahem. :snicker:

      I'll be done in a moment.... there.

      The reasonable thing to do would be to admit that while you may have used the term "SJW" in the past, you have come to the conclusion that it's a bad term and is a sign that the user's argument can automatically be dismissed. That would have been reasonable and non hypocritical: changing one's mind is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's much more entertaining to me that you chose to keep digging :)

      Sensitive as fuck,

      Ah this must be part of Mr Olsoc's private dictionary where "sensitive" means "points out that Mr Olsoc is a hypocrite". I will save you reams of copy-paste to wade through, but I can assure you that the various dictionaries also don't agree with your definition of sensitive.

      Anyway this topic very fun. So far you've publicly declared yourself to be rather ignora

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:Science Requires Effort by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Do, rather than memorize and the memorization will come naturally.

      Any evidence to support this? Counter-evidence follows:

      As proven by studies in human memory, like memory castle technique, spaced repetition etc.; as well as results of memory olympics - it is clear that techniques of best utilizing one's memory are not easy to "come naturally" when solving problems. E.g. it might so happen that some facts that are easy to memorize are repeated too often in typical problems - causing overlearning (Einstellung). Some other facts, difficult to memorize, not repeating often enough , making them easy to forget. Both are bad for future problem solving in this subject.

      Crafting problems to solve too carefully to avoid these issues makes them unnatural, and often takes away the fun of solving the problem itself. It also often makes the answer or a solution approach obvious - e.g. if the problem is stated like this, we should take this solution approach. Students thus become ill-equipped to handle real life which doesn't care about Einstellung or facilitation of memorization by the problem solver.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    39. Re:Science Requires Effort by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wait a few days for anything about a form of electricity generation to be posted here and you will see dozens. My favourite was the guy that said "all but X of France's power generation capacity in nuclear" who posted a link that listed among other things a coal fired power station that was larger than X by itself. He didn't read the link before spamming me with it and a few others that we not even on topic.

    40. Re:Science Requires Effort by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Learning to read music is required for learning to play, hence why I used it in my example. What you didn't do was _only_ memorize note positions for the first few years. Instead, you probably started attempting to actually play your instruments almost right away, not after years of memorization to learn to read music, and after a short time spent the majority of your time practicing actually playing the instrument, not practicing reading music without touching it.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    41. Re:Science Requires Effort by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The reasonable thing to do would be to admit that while you may have used the term "SJW" in the past, you have come to the conclusion that it's a bad term and is a sign that the user's argument can automatically be dismissed.

      Seriously dude, I'll reply to this and then let you go, because discussions with you are remarkably weird and unproductive, not unlike arguing with that homeless guy laying on the sidewalk mumbling about aliens.

      So in your smoking gun posts, which you brandish like the head of Mussolini, you declare I use the term S*W.

      Sorry muchacho, but you apparently count quoted text as someone's own typing

      In all those posts, I was responding to what someone else typed, and quoted their post.

      Which yeah, included that overused pejorative.

      That you are obsessive enough to search my history of posts is noted. That you think that other people's posts is what I wrote is likewise noted. Good night, my chachalaca.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Not everything is fun by Yergle143 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe we should stop raising children to think that everything is fun.
    Impactful science is a heck of a lot of work.
    Guess it's more about doing rather than viewing.
    Listening to a musician is fun. Learning to play is not.

    1. Re:Not everything is fun by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe we should stop raising children to think that everything is fun.
      Impactful science is a heck of a lot of work.

      Yes, but it's also more fun than just about anything else if you're doing it right. The great breakthroughs in science, as in art, come from minds that are full of play.

    2. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 2

      How common are "great breakthroughs"? Does it really make sense to pretend every kid is going to make "great breakthroughs"? If you really want to encourage more "great breakthroughs", you're going to have to stop treating the 1 in 1000 kid as just another member of the herd.

    3. Re:Not everything is fun by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Making sure that 1 in 1000 kid gets the start in science he or she needs to make those breakthroughs is a worthy goal of science education, but just as important is getting the other 999 kids to understand why science and its applications are wothwhile. If we could accomplish this, we wouldn't have to watch Asian countries stride boldly into the future without us.

    4. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 1

      just as important is getting the other 999 kids to understand why science and its applications are wothwhile

      Why? How do you measure "important"?

      we wouldn't have to watch Asian countries stride boldly into the future without us.

      Pretty sure "the future" is available to everyone, so it's really not clear what you're trying to say.

      These are just platitudes we're all supposed to mindlessly agree with, right?

    5. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Nope. Is there some reason you can't communicate your point in a couple of clear sentences?

    6. Re:Not everything is fun by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      just as important is getting the other 999 kids to understand why science and its applications are wothwhile

      Why? How do you measure "important"?

      Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?

      Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?

    8. Re:Not everything is fun by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?

      Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?

      Because Trollerina, they won't be the "science" crowd. They will be people smart enough to know when you are trying to biullshit them

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.

    10. Re:Not everything is fun by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.

      Thinking one is smart != being smart.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re: Not everything is fun by J-1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoken like a horrible teacher. Your problem is that you interpret fun to mean unimportant, easy, or silly. In fact, fun as it is used here simply means that the student discovers and embraces the desire to do it. Learning to play music isn't fun? That attitude is how you become a crappy musician.

    12. Re:Not everything is fun by Kohath · · Score: 1

      This is a science topic and you're arguing against learning from observed history. If you really want to make that argument, you might want to come up with something more persuasive than "what if" and "you never really know".

    13. Re:Not everything is fun by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Not everything is fun by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Yo can't teach smart.

    15. Re:Not everything is fun by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Didn't Einstein get his idea from Minkowski? And besides, what's the difference between being creative and being able to answer your own question? What if the sun were blue? What if time, not energy was discrete?

    16. Re:Not everything is fun by burbilog · · Score: 1

      Listening to a musician is fun. Learning to play is not.

      Learning to play is fun. A lot of fun. Well, at least it was fun for me. But the moment it becomes something you MUST do instead of hobby it's not fun anymore.

  6. Do they still have the cardboard box? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Any other children of the 70s remember the big brown box? It came from some company; but I forget the name. Our school would get these every other month or so. They were full of basic science experiments for elementary aged children. There was one with seeds to sprout and instructions, for example. Another might have had some relatively safe chemicals in it. Then you'd do stuff with the chemicals like put water or vinegar on them. Perhaps based on some earlier lesson you'd then answer questions like, "is that an acid or a base?".

    The opening of the box was always eagerly anticipated, and they usually brought in a teacher's aid or a parent volunteer to help with "experiment day" if it was something they thought might require that.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  7. Science isn't a game by mattwarden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous. The problem isn't that the fun is being taken or of science. The problem is the the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd has popularized science among people who do not understand science. Science is treated like a religion, and the philosophy of science and especially its skepticism is missing in the discussion, covered instead by "omg isn't this science looking thing cool". Pseudoscience abounds. Looks at nutrition science. You can't even tell anymore what is actual science and what is total nonsense based on anecdote... because the methods are almost the same.

    1. Re:Science isn't a game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you are onto something.

      The difference between these two shows is very stark.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

      Both have the same goal. One made me interested. The other was like watching a hyped up cheerleader. I had a pretty good idea what my science classes would be like from Mr Wizard. If I got my impression from Mr. Nye I would have been wildly disappointed and thought science is boring and stuffy. Probably why I like watching NurdRage (well that and I dont want to mess with acids).

      Pseudoscience abounds
      Not only that p hacking is huge in some fields. To be considered 'good science' someone needs to replicate what you did. But getting published is seems to be enough. We get silly things like 'the science is settled' when it has not been verified. Even verification/replication is not enough. We need to narrow in on things and make them better. Reiterate and reverify over and over even the mundane things. Sometimes people can look at something we have done for years and go 'hm thats weird why...' and either they learn something or we all do.

    2. Re:Science isn't a game by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous.

      Scientific education can very well be fun. The best way to convince people ignorant of science that the scientific method is useful is by doing exploratory exercises with them (often "fun") and then gradually introducing rigor to show them how scientific methods work better.

      I speak as someone who has taught high-school science. One of the first activities I would do with physics students was to give them a few different types of pendula and a stopwatch. I would divide them into groups and tell them to come up with a way of predicting what the period should be.

      That's about all the instructions I gave.

      They'd get a few days of this -- I'd bring the class together at the end of each period, and we'd talk about what they had discovered. Hmm -- the mass of the weight at the end of the string didn't seem to matter. The initial angle didn't seem to make much of a difference either. Etc.

      I'd walk around the room in each class and gradually give suggestions and hints on better ways to collect and organize data, answer questions, provide additional equipment upon request, etc.

      By the end of a week, most of them had learned more about the scientific method than many physics students do in a year (if they only performed calculations and solved equations). And most of them found it interesting -- it was a puzzle to solve, a physical thing that they were expected to figure out how it worked. Once one group figured out that graphing their data might help, all of sudden someone would realize it was a parabola... and pretty soon they could come up with an equation.

      Exploratory science is essential for education -- that's how little kids learn. But many of them have is stomped out of them by middle school, forced to sit in desks and learn things by rote or by doing dozens of repetitive exercises. There is certainly a place for memorization and repetition, but there's no reason why science can't also include fun exploratory activities.

      You can talk about the definition of a "theory" or "hypothesis" or whatever until you're blue in the face, but nothing beats making kids actually have to DO IT.

      Science is treated like a religion, and the philosophy of science and especially its skepticism is missing in the discussion, covered instead by "omg isn't this science looking thing cool".

      And this is precisely the problem with science education that isn't fun and exploratory in nature. If kids spend years sitting in science classrooms being dictated to and told the "facts" of science, when and how exactly are they supposed to acquire the skills to form and evaluate their own hypotheses with appropriate skepticism? If they never try to do it, how would you expect people to be able to do it regarding other science they encounter in the world in their lives?

      Of course those sorts of skills are hard to test on things like standardized tests, so teachers in many public schools feel like they don't have time to actually train kids in the actual process of DOING science, rather than memorizing facts ABOUT it.

      Pseudoscience abounds. Looks at nutrition science. You can't even tell anymore what is actual science and what is total nonsense based on anecdote... because the methods are almost the same.

      I'm not sure precisely what you're referencing. Nutrition science, properly speaking, is NOT based on "anecdote" more than anything else -- it requires data collection, control groups, data analysis, etc.

      But the big problem with much of science -- and not just nutrition, but medicine in general, and psychology, and most "social science" (increasingly even harder sciences) -- is the substitution of (badly done) statistical procedures for any semblance of experimental judgment. We now live in a world where we act as though simple statistics can "do science" for us -- and we have all the thin

    3. Re:Science isn't a game by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous.

      OB: xkcd.

    4. Re:Science isn't a game by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Science isn't supposed to be fun."

      Not for those who practice it, but for the rest of us it should be, so that we will support the scientists rather than being afraid of everything they accomplish.

      Yes, I Fucking Love Science and I'm proud of it.

    5. Re:Science isn't a game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Science isn't supposed to be fun.

      Speaking as someone with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and who is currently working in a scientific laboratory (as in, it's Sunday afternoon and I'm literally sitting at my desk in lab while I type this), this statement comes as a surprise to me.

      I definitely didn't choose it for my health (viz. I'm working in lab on a Sunday afternoon), and the money certainly isn't all that great. "Fame and fortune" are not really in the cards, either (there's no Kaley Cuoco knocking on my door) - the most I can hope for is respect among my peer group in the rather narrow field I'm in. Given the current science funding climate and the abundance of Ph.D.s in my field, job certainty also isn't all that grand either.

      So why am I doing it? Because I enjoy it. Because there is immense satisfaction in staring the world in the face and wrestling knowledge from it's byzantine grasp. Is science a laugh a minute and all excitement? Certainly not. It can be slow, tedious, and at points soul crushing. I have yet to meet a scientist who doesn't look at their time as a Ph.D. candidate and think that most of it was a pointless waste. And still ... "third time pays for all", as they say, and the good times outweigh the bad. It *is* enjoyable, and any time I forget that, I just need to go to a seminar where a colleague is presenting their latest research, and I'm reminded about how fun and interesting this whole enterprise really is.

      So I, as a scientist, completely reject your statement that "science isn't supposed to be fun". If you're dong it right, it *is* fun and it *should* be. But it's fun in the same way that playing sports is fun - you have moment of glory in the game, but tempered by hard work and perseverance during practice, with an underlying satisfaction about doing a job right. It's not nonstop excitement, but then neither is anything else in the world.

      I certainly agree that the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd really doesn't understand science -- but in part that's due to the very way we're teaching science that's being decried in the article. Science is presented as amazing knowledge bequeathed upon the world by mysterious adepts. The "How come? Why? What's this?" attitude which is really the core of science is replaced by "Thus sayeth SCIENCE!" proclamations. Actual scientist who do actual science have a much more "play like" attitude to the process: "what happens when I do X?" "I want to tweak X, Y and Z, and figure out what happens." The grade school formalism of "scientific methodology" is a caricature of what actually happens (much like the "how a bill becomes a law" story is a caricature). And this stilted formalism only serves to cement the image of scientist as stolid masters of arcana whose word is "truth".

      So, yeah, ccience is a method, and it is rigorous, but it's fun, too. And people would be better off if they understood why it's fun.

    6. Re:Science isn't a game by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Very, very true. Many treat science as a body of knowledge to be queried for what is true rather than a method of demonstrating what it is false.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Science isn't a game by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Science isn't supposed to be fun

      That is not the point. No, it's not supposed to be fun. But it can be. Science can be exhilarating, heart-pounding and absolutely amazing. High-definition images from Mars, cures for debilitating diseases, allowing disabled people to walk again, nigh-infinite distributed clean energy and even uncovering the very fabric of the universe!

      We probably thoroughly agree that (good) science is often also hard and arduous. Guess what: so are tons of jobs. Yet science is regarded as the stuffy shit the weird kids do. Many scientists should be regarded as heroes, furthering our society with hard work and giving us all amazing things, but the image has been destroyed by a culture of praising amateurism and expertise in pushing our most primitive and uncontrollable buttons instead of our most advanced reasoning skills.

      Coming back to education, even if you currently regard science highly you probably remember that there were maybe one or two teachers, zero textbooks and a handful of 'cool' experiments that were able to convey the awesomeness that science is and brings. Everything else was dry as shit. I'm not saying other subjects were different, but most of those subjects are either inherently less abstract or have other elements in society that give them traction. One of the most heard things about 'science subjects' is "when do you ever use this shit in real life?" which immediately gives away that all the textbooks are horrifically lacking in showing kids exactly that. It's hard to do that properly, but using terribly improbable examples of trains crashing head-on into each other is certainly not the way to do it.
      This guy has gone to what I regard as being an extreme, but the central message is the same and the effect apparently present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I'm not sure whether making science 'fun' in schools is the way to increase appreciation for science, but it might help. Personally, I'd much rather see a lot of public funding put into putting proper science in a media-friendly form at various levels of complexity to get the entirety of our societies into science. People are so used to either a highly technical dry presentation of science or the extremely dumbed down sensationalized versions of it that they never have a chance (let alone be enticed) to take the next step up in their grasp of it.

      I was recently reminded of the cartoon "Once upon a time.. Life" which is one of the best examples of media-friendly entertaining science presentation that is remarkably accurate and jargon-filled, for a show aimed at kids and written in the 80's:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re:Science isn't a game by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous.

      Really, you either suck at science or you do not know how to do it at all. Unless you are having fun with some parts of what you are doing as a scientist, you will never produce anything worthwhile.

      That is not to say that there are not a lot of bad actors are using the claim that they are doing "science" these days to sell you things, including "philosophies". I do not dispute that and it is truly despicable and repulsive.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Science isn't a game by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Science isn't supposed to be fun.

      Speak for yourself. Science is a blast. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean eveyone is like you.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Science isn't a game by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Science isn't supposed to be fun

      That is not the point. No, it's not supposed to be fun. But it can be. Science can be exhilarating, heart-pounding and absolutely amazing.

      Yer damn right its fun. I've caught shit in here by a lot of Slashdotters because of all the hours that I worked, and lots of things outside my education.

      But I went to interesting places, did a lot of interesting things, and did a lot of science.

      Why? It was freaking fun. Made for a career rich beyond measure.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Science isn't a game by JazzLad · · Score: 1
      Loser, you didn't call him out of being a scientist misspelling science

      So, yeah, ccience is a method, and it is rigorous, but it's fun, too.

      If you're going to be pedantic, at least be good at it.

      As for the GP, his assessment was spot on, despite a couple typos.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  8. Time vs. "fun" by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Whenever we had to do anything in school that was supposed to be "fun", I wished I'd skipped school that day. I could have used the time to do something I actually liked doing, but instead we spent hours learning something we could have learned in a few minutes. And it wasn't fun.

    Fun and a sense of "discovery" aren't really possible in a highly structured school environment. You can't do anything but follow the instructions. How is that fun? What did I discover other than the fact that science experiments sometime work and sometimes don't?

    I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun". Rewarding and interesting maybe. But probably very, very rarely "fun".

    Perhaps that's the real problem: the people who say science is "fun" are grossly overselling it. Kids aren't having fun in science class because it's just not genuinely fun.

    1. Re:Time vs. "fun" by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun".

      If that's true, it's only because professional scientists spend the vast majority of their time doing things that aren't science: grant management, administration, job interviews, committee meetings. Every scientist I know is desperately trying to get away from all of that bullshit and get back to having fun: i.e., doing science. Science is so much fun that scientists are willing to put up with all the PHB college adminstrators that fill their days, just for those moments of science, which are pure joy.

    2. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I still doubt it. But if someone genuinely experiences "joy" doing such work, then I'd suggest that's not a feeling that would be common to a large percentage of people. I'm not sure why everyone should have to do things a specific way because that method might appeal to a small minority. Maybe one-size-fits-all government education isn't really desirable...?

    3. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun".

      My father was a computer scientist and oceanographer for 40 years and always marveled at the fact that people would pay him to do what he would gladly do for free. He had quite a bit of fun.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BS.
      I'm a physicist, doing basic science at a research lab.

      I can assure you: None of the people there do it for the money! We all do it because it is _FUN_!
      Doing something nobody has ever done before, thinking about things nobody has ever considered before, and building stuff to do an experiment is fun, fun, fun!

      Rigorous method and stuff: yes. Grant management, admin, etc.: Yes. Of course we have to do it.
      But the the driving force, the reason _why_ we are doing it is _exclusively_ fun!

      [ I could easily earn a lot more money, with less work, in industry. But been there, done that: Not so much fun!]

    5. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      My father was a computer scientist and oceanographer for 40 years and always marveled at the fact that people would pay him to do what he would gladly do for free. He had quite a bit of fun.

      People exaggerate. When someone says something like this, it's not literally true.

    6. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun".

      Everyone I worked with disputes your ridiculous claim. WE were enjoying ourselves so much that we sometimes forgot to go home. Around 7: the wives started calling.

      Just because you have a white hot seeting hatred for any and all matters science, doesn't mean everyone else thinks like you do.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Time vs. "fun" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Seems hard to believe. But even if true (and no one offers any evidence or any supporting arguments at all, just anonymous claims posted on the Internet), what's fun for a very small subset of people isn't necessarily going to be fun for anyone else.

    8. Re:Time vs. "fun" by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      There's anonymous claims on the Internet with scientists claiming that science, overall is fun, and people describing scientists that agree with that. Do you have any actual evidence that scientists don't think science is fun, or are you just stuck to your own opinion?

      To put this another way, why do people become scientists? Considering the level of education required, the pay is crap, the hours are long, the job market is bad, and it's often necessary to move all over the world. Since the extrinsic rewards are bad, there really does have to be some major intrinsic reward(s) or we wouldn't have all those scientists.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Knowing about things by gTsiros · · Score: 1

    is not 'science'. Knowing how to repeat a recipe is not a scientific endeavour, neither is the process of repeating it. Your barber knowing about pH is not a scientific endeavour.

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  10. Science is dangerous and math is stressful by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I don't want my child anywhere near chemicals. They are bad for us and evil companies are destroying the planet."

    My son was excited to take high school chemistry. After the first day I asked him what they had done. Nothing, just a lecture about good behavior and harassment. Second day: lecture about safety. Third day: more safety and protective equipment. Fourth day: Had the fear of god put in them for doing anything whatsoever unauthorized. Fifth day: Forced to sign a "contract", brought home for parent's signature too.

    Second week: Fully kitted with coats, glasses, gloves - observed effect of vinegar and baking soda solution on litmus paper.

    Lord help us.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Science is dangerous and math is stressful by tomwrake · · Score: 2

      Good god! I hope they never mixed the baking soda and vinegar!

    2. Re:Science is dangerous and math is stressful by Rhywden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I'm doing my safety lecture, I'm always demonstrating why some behaviours are not smart. Either by showing videos and photos, or actually doing an experiment which "goes wrong".

      Much better if pupils know why some stuff is forbidden.

      However, I'm, also showing them that the acids and lyes they'll be working with are not something to be massively afraid of. Respectful, yes. Afraid, no.

    3. Re:Science is dangerous and math is stressful by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that is the only way to do it right. Some theoretical warnings will either get ignored or, worse, result in people that are to afraid to try anything at all. You have to justify an warning. A warning is something that should come with some level of shame and things can only be made right by really demonstrating why the warning is necessary. Unjustified restrictions are the hallmark of a controlling, totalitarian mind-set.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Science is dangerous and math is stressful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My wife does something similar when teaching science. The first few experiments are ridiculously safe. The goals are to get into a safe habit and (more importantly) figure out which students are going to act like total morons. Later on they get to play with acid, fire, sharp objects.

    5. Re:Science is dangerous and math is stressful by anerki · · Score: 1

      Also a big fan of the method mentioned above. I'm a programmer, but I dig Chemistry and Biology. The main reason for this is that the teachers made it 'fun'.

      The best moments in class were the experiments that involved him saying 'Hmm, this should be more than enough to have a reaction by now' and 'Oh a little more sure can't hurt' leading to spectacular reactions. If this was intended or not is besides the point, he entertained the class and taught us something while doing it.

      Simple experiments like eloctrolysis to make water and generate a 'plop' sound are fun. Having the teacher give you free reign to experiment as you want to (we scaled up, broke the glass bottle container) only adds to the fun.

      I pity the people who think science isn't fun. For them it might be, but I sure hope the scientists don't feel the same way. And I'm sure any scientist who has achieved greatness had great fun while at it.

      --
      Life is great! (as told by Lady Susan)
  11. Not really supported by the article by phantomfive · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure this is really supported by the article. The first paragraph says,

    Despite the subject’s reputation, and the fact that schools treat it like the class where fun goes to die, kids are more excited about science, on average, than math, English and social studies, according to a new report.

    So science classes must be doing something right.
    Seriously though, school isn't entertainment. If kids want to enjoy themselves, they should be taught the pleasure of learning something new.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. Science is really two topics by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are two parts to "science". There is learning some of the vast amount of science that has already been done, and there is learning how to do science. Both are important, and both can be made interesting by a good teacher and dull by a bad one.

    1. Re:Science is really two topics by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There are two parts to "science". There is learning some of the vast amount of science that has already been done, and there is learning how to do science. Both are important, and both can be made interesting by a good teacher and dull by a bad one.

      Go to youtube and do a search on "Periodic Table of Videos" The main host of the series is Martyn Poliakoff, an incredibly charming fellow with a wild head of hair.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  13. Not just science ... by Xaemyl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a problem for school overall. Its pretty fucking boring.

    1. Re:Not just science ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And barbed wire. And, like, guard towers and stuff. And Dobermanns, don't forget the Dobermanns.

    2. Re:Not just science ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Neil Postman has a book about that. Amusing Ourselves to Death

  14. The hairdresser isn't a scientist by Lumpio- · · Score: 1

    She's an engineer. She probably doesn't even know what "pH balance" actually means, somebody just told her that "this in hair good, that in hair bad". She's probably never even read a peer-reviewed journal. And she doesn't need to. Of course all this was at some point discovered by scientific researchers, but the research itself was "fun" in the way most kids perceive fun. It was probably hard work, and boring. Science is study, discovery and hard work. Engineering is applying the results of that study.

    1. Re:The hairdresser isn't a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what "pH balance" means either. I know what a pH is, what's it balanced with?

    2. Re:The hairdresser isn't a scientist by Lumpio- · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm more of an engineer too. I've never read a peer-reviewed journal either, or contributed to scientific research. I use it all the time though. What are you rambling on about?

    3. Re:The hairdresser isn't a scientist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A hairdresser isn't an engineer. She's an artist. There's no equations for getting your hair to behave. Well, I'm sure there are, but they're not teaching them in beautician college.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:The hairdresser isn't a scientist by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      A hairdresser isn't an engineer. She's an artist. There's no equations for getting your hair to behave. Well, I'm sure there are, but they're not teaching them in beautician college.

      Citation needed. A selfie will do.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  15. Education went all Chinese/Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone was freaking out 15-20 years ago about how the Chinese and Japanese were ahead of the US on science/math scores, so..we went and followed that method. Problem is, creative problem solving has suffered with the focus on rote memorization. I'm not sure it serves any of the cultures mentioned well.

  16. Entirely beside the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The essence of science is discovery, true. But the enterprise of actually doing science requires quite a lot of memorization. One cannot independently rediscover every discovery ever made, and it would not be a useful investment of time even if it were possible.

    An interest in discovery, alone, will not make one succeed at science. One must have the ability and desire to memorize a lot of stuff and make good use of that knowledge, in order to succeed at science.

    And it turns out that plenty of people DO have an interest in discovery, both before and after school. But far few people have the memorization power (or will) necessary. So, filtering such people out of the set of potential scientists as early as possible makes the best use of everybody's time.

  17. Mythbusters do it right by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Mythbusters do it right - they show that it's nothing special with science.

    The problem is that today it's more popular with implausible reality shows.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  18. Australia or the place with triangular stamps? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Where? In the US that wouldn't be allowed for fear of lawsuits if someone got a splinter. In the UK it would be supporting terrorists. In France it would be a breach of workplace rules. And in Germany they'd find some tenuous link to holocaust denial.

    By my reckoning that leaves Australia and that place with the funny shaped stamps.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Australia or the place with triangular stamps? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      By my reckoning that leaves Australia and that place with the funny shaped stamps.

      Some years back the word went out that the high schools had to dispose of all their stock of sodium for safety reasons. The principal of my school (sometimes also a science teacher) crumbled up all the sodium in store and placed it on an anthill of some large stinging green ants in the school grounds. A couple of hours later after the ants had taken some underground he called out all the students to watch from the buildings some distance away and then turned on a large sprinkler. There was a nice little explosion, a bit of fire, the sodium was disposed of and all the students saw that sodium metal reacts with water.
      Sodium is now out but some other things that burn are acceptable.

    2. Re:Australia or the place with triangular stamps? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Shhh, PETA might be listening!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Australia or the place with triangular stamps? by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of freshmen year of high school. There was an unscheduled fire drill, so being good students we filed out of school in an orderly fashion as the fire dept. was coming in the front doors. It seems an AP chemistry experiment got out of control, so the fire dept and haz-mat squad got called. Once it was determined that the experiment was under control we were allowed back in school. It made for a "guess what happened at school today" story. Now I guess the news crews would show up and scare the hell out of the parents with the obigitory "my baby is in there" sound bite (note: we were all on the football field), the school would need to send e-mails/texts/ letters to the parents explaining in detail what happened, fire the teacher, and charge the student with trying to blow up the school.....

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
  19. At least one post says forget about facts by Streetlight · · Score: 2

    Science does involve knowledge of facts as well as hypotheses and theories. Without knowledge of the known facts determined by scientific experiment one might just be condemned to relearning what others have already discovered instead of extending that knowledge to ongoing studies or new areas of discovery.

    Furthermore, one of the problems in some parts of the world and in particular some states of the USA is an anti science culture. Some folks have used various governmental school agencies to restrict the teaching of many scientific disciplines including evolution because they think it contradicts biblical authority.

    In Colorado recently a state authority has reduced the standards for high school graduation by allowing lack of competence in science by graduates. Imagine a small school district that has budget problems and finds that the best way to solve it is to eliminate science education from the HS curriculum. Apparently that's possible with the new rules. These HS graduates obviously will be at a disadvantage trying to get into college, but the school district may have balanced its budget.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  20. "Fun" versus "rewarding" by j-beda · · Score: 2

    There is also the danger of selling something as "fun" in the way that going to a carnival might be "fun" versus selling it as something that is "rewarding" like perhaps the efforts necessary to train as a team to win a race, or the preparations necessary to do tasks like rock-climbing or other challenging tasks. If you tell someone "This thing is FUN!" then it seems much more likely that when they encournter aspects that are not effortless and completely entertaining, they will (rightly) decide that it is not "fun" and have much less chance beliving that is worthwhile.

    Coaches generally don't tell the players that "running lines" or doing pushups is "fun", but the players believe that doing those tasks is worthwhile and necessary to do what they want to do - get better at their sport and do well in the competitions. Almost nothing we do is "fun" in every aspect. Helping people to develop the ability to get satisfaction from doing a task well, and recognizing the benifits of focussed effort should be a primary goal of our general educational system. Having the student understand why they are doing whatever they are doing might also go a long way towards providing motivation for the activities. Having the instructors understand the purpose of activites as well is probably worthwhile too...

    With that said, unless one is trying some revers psychology or something, we shoud be trying as much as possible to limit the unpleasant aspects of learning in all areas. Pushups might be necessary in order to build athlete strength, but we do not have to do them on a field of broken glass.

  21. Re:Ahmed Mohamed had fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's several electronics hobbyists that have already proven his "clock" was a scam... http://blogs.artvoice.com/tech... People that donated to this "cause" got ripped off big time, including POTUS.

  22. We had "Hot Wheels week" in high school physics by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh sure, we were calculating velocity and acceleration and angles, but we were putting it to practical use with a Hot Wheels car on tracks set to angles to make them fly through a target. It was tons of math but also lots of giggling 17-year olds playing with cars like they haven't done in ten years.

    During another unit, we calculated our own personal horsepower by running up the stairs.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:We had "Hot Wheels week" in high school physics by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      Then getting pregnant and dropping out of school to look after a kid who grows up in a poverty stricken household because daddy bought a stupid truck that he doesn't need.

  23. Re:Animals by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    There used to be a saying that getting up earlier for DST confused the cows, so no it wasn't for the animals. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...

  24. New Paradigm in Education by trout007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem as I see it is that in the old days teachers were educated intellgent young unmarried women. They dedicated their early years to their students. Parents respected the teachers because typically the parents were less educated then the teachers.

    But this is no longer the case. The most intellgent women now become doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, business people, etc. Teachering is now a life long profession for C students. If you have ever gone to parent teacher night I find many of the young teachers to act very uneducated. They also have their own young children so basicly clock out when the school day is over because they have to pick their kids up from day care or school. There are a couple exceptions to where education is a calling buy you can't build a system on this.

    In addition the parents are often much smarter and more educated then the tecahers. This I beleive is what is behind the homeschool movement. It is in our family. We got tired of C students trying and failing to educate our children. It got to the point we were spending entire evenings teaching our kids what they should have learned that day. So we homeschool them now and have much more free time with the kids. And I live in an "A" school district (whatever that means).

    We need to transition to a new system. I have no idea what it should be. Maybe have retired professionals teach their subjects of expertise. How great would it be to have a Chemistry teacher who was a researcher or worked in the petrochemical industry? Or a NASA engineer as physics or math teacher? You need people with a passion to transfer that passion to students.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:New Paradigm in Education by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Maybe have retired professionals teach their subjects of expertise.

      With woodwork, metalwork and drafting that used to be the case, real experienced trade qualified people with a teaching diploma - but the pay sucks too much for most who have been in other fields to commit the time to get past the increased barriers of entry to get into teaching.

    2. Re:New Paradigm in Education by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You don't need a Masters or PHD to teach 8 years olds maths. You need teaching and class management skills. You need an understanding of child psychology. Maybe you are just looking for the wrong skills in teachers.

      The way to get skilled professionals into teaching is to pay skilled professional wages. It would also help if we could attract more men into the profession, especially for the youngest kids.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:New Paradigm in Education by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but without the degree in maths you might not realise that maths isn't rote memorization of arithmetic tables.

      Hyperbole of course, but there are far too many people without proper maths education in education trying ot teach and dictate how maths is taught. Not understanding maths slightly, they seem to keep on pushing the insane perversion of maths that you see in schools today.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:New Paradigm in Education by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      It's not the pay that sucks, but the environment. I went to a school and about 1/3rd of the teachers were retired professionals. It was also a private school and the pay was less than a public school - if they got paid at all, a few were there voluntarily. The facilities were old and outdated also. It was nothing like the public schools that I'd come from.

    5. Re:New Paradigm in Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll second this. The only thing that most primary school math teachers seem to pass on to their students is their conviction that math is scary and hard.

  25. No Formulas Science ??? by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    Recalling my Physics and Chem classes in high school (not even mentioning Math here), you lost half the general population after v = s / t.
    Newtonian Physics is already too hard to grasp for most students (in general) except for the ones in Advanced Math/Science classes.
    Yes experiments are fun, but they just showcase the problem or the reaction. The actual understanding comes from deriving formulas and doing the actual paperwork. That's the biggest part of the actual science.
    This is like saying they should make English Litterature more fun by introducing more Comics.

    1. Re:No Formulas Science ??? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is like saying they should make English Litterature more fun by introducing more Comics.

      English literature would be vastly improved by concentrating less on the "classics" and having a lot more of the sort of books that the students actually enjoy reading. I have, through a rather tortuous route come around to much of the stuff I didn't learn in school in recent years with respect to English lit. It turns out English is taught nearly as badly as maths.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  26. Science by Inquiry by DrLudicrous · · Score: 2

    While in grad school, I was lucky enough to be selected to teach elementary school science in an inner-city school as part of the NSF's GK-12 program. I team-taught with the main classroom teacher 4 afternoons a week, using inquiry-based methods. Our pedagogic approach was very hands-on, and we had to think on our feet a lot. It was not easy for us to lesson plan, but we did our best.

    The results? Out of ~35 kids, all of whom were getting free lunches (and all save one living in single-parent/grandparent households), most of whom had no previous science education, roughly 55% passed the state-mandate science proficiency test. That might not sound so great, but since the previous year's class had a passing rate of about 17%, we were ecstatic. We also had good participation in a "science club" held after-school, with more inquiry-based activities. At one point, late in the year, our students even understood free body diagrams (they were about 10 years old) as part of understanding Newton's 3rd law- something my college students typically struggled with.

    Inquiry is powerful stuff. It harnesses the thing that makes people interested in science in the first place: innate curiosity.

    1. Re:Science by Inquiry by fldsofglry · · Score: 1

      My hat is off to you. This is how it should be done.

  27. KISS by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Never blame the human for mangling that autocorrect hath most probably wrought.

    On a side note, you are just the kind of pretentious stuck-up grammar nazi that we would all expect to back the slow moving train wreck that is modern public school.

    On a further side note, Teachering is a brilliant word and is used more commonly than you would seem to realize. Or did you not realize languages evolve.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:KISS by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Teachering is a brilliant word and is used more commonly than you would seem to realize. Or did you not realize languages evolve.

      I know - I was engagerating in a lot of chuklefication when he wroteified that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  28. Why don't we just be honest, and say it by vsigma · · Score: 2

    The vast bulk of elementary school teachers in the United States don't like Science, just as much as they don't like math.

    I am *NOT* saying that they are not good teachers. But rather - you're taking someone who probably never really liked those subjects in the first place, and are trying to get them to instill a joy in something that they, themselves, don't have in it to people. It just is not going to work!

    Let's look at the elementary school teachers here in the US.. most of them are coming from a liberal arts teaching background. Which is great, because they're expected to teach a plethora of subjects, and also spend the bulk of the day with the students. So they also have the crowd control skills and so on. But ask them in a non-school setting about any basic science - most of them would roll their eyes at the questions, and even tell you that they never even liked it. A lot of them look at science as almost a voo-doo thing, and they just do what's in the textbooks/curriculum.

    What really should be done, is to bring in science (and math!) specialists for just those subjects at that level. Let people who have a ready understanding on the material, and who can relate it to every day things interact with the kids for those bits. Let them explain every day things to these kids, to keep the joy of learning there!

    Note here: I am an engineer (still consulting) turned Chem/Physics/Math HS teacher in the public sector here in the US. I have also worked these alleged crazy new fangled math stuff that are trying to conceptualize things, when they really need to just go back to basics, and instill basic skills so that the advanced things can be 'fun' , or at the very least be seen by the students as something that they can do, because they already have the tools to do so. Instead of just flat out giving up.

    And yeah, we should involve more parental involvement and so on. And oh yes, say it's ok to drop out. Go get a job, and see how awful it truly is without an education - and when their heads are screwed on right - to go get their GED/whatever degree from that point on.. as they'll be self motivated - as opposed to having us to motivate them!

  29. What school is she talking about? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "NASA astronaut Mae Jemison schools treat science like the class where fun goes to die. "Kids come out of the chute liking science. They ask, 'How come? Why? What's this?' They pick up stuff to examine it. We might not call that science, but it's discovering the world around us," says Jemison. "Once we get them in school, we turn science from discovery and hands-on to something you're supposed to do through rote memorization"

    That doesn't describe any school I've ever been to.

    It certainly doesn't describe my high school, which was mostly experiment based.

    And it certainly doesn't describe my daughter's high school, which is pretty much entirely experiment based.

    As far as my limited sample goes (which included a number of high schools in the area) the curriculum is much more experimental than when I was in school, and I wouldn't call my classes anything remotely like rote memorization.

    Maybe she should do some more experiments on schooling.

  30. Superstimulus by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should stop raising children to think that everything is fun.

    Maybe we should start teaching children to beware of any superstimulus. We've designed foods that are tastier than found in nature -- but we've dissociated food's tastiness from its healthiness. We've designed entertainment to be fun, addictive, etc -- but it is a dead end, boredom now leads to the rut instead of away from it. We've sabotaged almost every drive we have, soon sexbots will complete the job. This is what we're doing, only one level removed.

    Science is a combination of work and fun. It used to be done only by people who had enough money to do anything they wanted, the reward was satisfaction of discovering something and fame. Now people put in that sort of work to "level up" their character or unlock/discover rare "equipment" or "achievements", sure it's less work, but the reward is dissociated from real world value.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  31. The article is correct. It all comes down to PACE! by javabandit · · Score: 1

    Any subject in general could be extremely fun to learn if the educational pace was more easy going. THAT is the problem.

    We are a generally long-lived species these days. Why in the hell do we need to compress several times the knowledge of 60 years ago into the same time span they had 60 years ago? It makes no sense to me. High school teenagers in AP (advanced placement) classes are competing so hard that they need to be up until 1am or 2am in the morning three or four times a week just to keep up with the homework. 4 to 5 hours of sleep per night. Terrible sleeping and eating habits. No physical activity. It has gotten RIDICULOUS. I don't know what in the hell we think we're teaching kids these days, but we're sure not teaching them that learning is fun.

    There has to be a breaking point soon. Kids should be able to enjoy being kids. Kids should also feel like they don't have to pressured to have half of their college credits finished by the time they graduate high school. They also shouldn't feel like they should need to get their PhD by the time they are 21.

    What are we doing to these kids?

  32. Modern schools and science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Science is pretty much illegal in the modern school system. Back in the prehistoric days (before 2011) school administrations were actually interested in teaching students knowledge, instead of teaching social conformity. I remember many science demonstrations in my school that would land the instructor in prison today. For example we built a "physics gun" which fired a ping-pong ball with compressed air at the same time it released a second one that fell straight down (shows that gravity affects both objects at the same rate despite differing rates of horizontal velocity). The fact that this demonstration has the "G" word mentioned in the title and actually shoots something would cause modern school administrators to panic and call the Feds to come and protect them from reality. My high school chemistry class had actual Bunsen burners available. Today school administrators would be afraid of the liability, imagine the horrors if little Johnny burned his thumb and had to be hauled away and put on life support for the rest of his life. Sure you can do titration labs, but everyone loved the electrolysis one because they could ignite the results (hydrogen/oxygen) with a bang afterward. That would get them expelled in a modern school and probably charged with terrorism.

    Science is boring in the modern school because the administrators are afraid some student might learn science and use electrolysis to try to blow up the school.

  33. I thought I didn't like science by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    For uninteresting reasons I droppedo uto f high school and took the GED. After the science portion, the woman administering the test asked if I liked science. I said "no..." assuming the worst. I scored in the 99th percentile. I got every question right. It took me a while to figure out what happened: I didnt hate science. I hated science *class*. I in fact loved science. But after 11 years, science had gotten so mixed up with science class in my head that I thought I didn't like it. That upset me. I wonder how many others have fallen into that same state I was in.

  34. Don't blame the schools, blame the teachers by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    It's the teachers job to make science fun, not the schools.

    1. Re:Don't blame the schools, blame the teachers by j-beda · · Score: 1

      It's the teachers job to make science fun, not the schools.

      Well, the school, the district, and the state all have the job of supporting the teachers by way of training, hiring, and rewards systems - all of which can greatly impact how easy it is for the teacher to do that job. The community, the family, and of course the students themselves all have important and large infleuences on outcomes. As much as we would like to think that one amazing teacher can magically turn things around ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), it really is not that easy.

  35. Re:While we are at it... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Mean student debt is ~$30k/student. When normalized against the wage premium of a college degree, student debt is now lower than in the 70's.