[Another Conversation Starter]
I was scanning through one of those “Which countries are doing a better job of taking tests?” reports when I ran across this in the chapter on context.
According to the National Science Foundation (NSF, www.nsf.gov/statistics), the average U.S.
citizen understands very little science. For example:
- 66% do not understand DNA, “margin of error,†the scientific process, and do not believe in evolution.
- 50% do not know how long it takes the earth to go around the sun, and a quarter does not even know that the earth goes around the sun.
- 50% think humans coexisted with dinosaurs and believe antibiotics kill viruses.
On the other hand, according to the NSF, the general public believes in a lot of pseudoscience.
- 88% believe in alternative medicine.
- 50% believe in extrasensory perception and faith healing.
- 40% believe in haunted houses and demonic possession.
- 33% believes in lucky numbers, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, and that UFOs are aliens from space.
- 25% believes in witches and that we can communicate with the dead. *
Of course we, as educators, are appalled at this. It is our mission to prevent this kind of ignorance.
But does it really matter that half of the people around us do not know the shape of the Solar System, the function of DNA, and when the last dinosaur died. Most of these folks are productive citizens. They have jobs, pay taxes, and care for their children. They do what they’re told. They believe what they’re told. They don’t think very much about it, but they’re busy with the day-to-day.
Should we be concerned? If so, why?
*Phillips, Gary W., PhD. “Chance Favors the Prepared Mind: Mathematics and Science Indicators from Comparing States and Nations.” American Institutes for Research. 14 Nov 2007. American Institutes for Research. 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.air.org/publications/documents/phillips.chance.favors.the.prepared.mind.pdf>.
After consuming several teas, I’m feeling much better about this post. I consulted my charts, looked at the date (7/18 – 18 being 7+11)and noted 2 7’s and an 11 and my vision of the futures indict things aren’t going to get any worse. The margin of error for this prediction is +/- 10%.
There are those who advocate freedom of inquiry for students: studying whatever piques their interest with little or no standardized content. Important dates in history, science formulas, even math facts like the multiplication table…all memorization would be eliminated, since necessary facts could be retrieved via the Internet.
Of course, this may be an exaggeration of their point of view, but there are educators who agree with it in theory.
Should our goal be to graduate productive workers or culturally literate citizens?
Will U.S. graduates find themselves embarrassed by their ignorance when interacting with more worldly business associates from other cultures? Or is this pragmatic outlook a global trend?
The majority of my students would not choose to study math, science, or social studies. I don’t feel that they should have a choice to narrow their focus at such an early age.
Just read an interesting discussion posted in October on Michael Wesch’s blog re. “A Vision of Students Today” and the nature of education.
http://tinyurl.com/23kpla
“Of course we, as educators, are appalled at this. It is our mission to prevent this kind of ignorance.”
Honestly, I’m a bit offended at the potential branding of myself as ignorant here. I understand DNA, “margin of error,†and the scientific process, and yet I do not believe in evolution. I know how long it takes the earth to go around the sun and that the earth goes around the sun, and I know antibiotics are for bacteria, not viruses, yet I believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. I think there’s evidence that some alternative medicine approaches do have some benefits, and the fact that we haven’t found a scientific way to prove it (yet?) doesn’t make it less real. I believe that there is plenty of evidence that the supernatural does exist, which explains some instances (not the faked ones) of extrasensory perception, faith healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, ghosts, telepathy, and clairvoyance. And yes, I agree that things like lucky numbers, astrology, and UFOs being aliens from space are bunk. There are witches (it’s the Wiccan religion) — I’ve known a few (maybe this is not the kind of witches meant by the article) — and again regarding the supernatural, there are instances where people can communicate with the dead (though again there is a lot of faking going on in this area). I know about the elliptical shape of the Solar System and the function of DNA, and I have a pretty good guess when the last dinosaur died (shortly after the flood, when the dramatically different environmental conditions probably precluded the continued survival of those which were carried aboard the ark). I reject the notion that evolution and a billions-of-years-old earth are somehow proven scientific fact and should be lumped in with the same categories as DNA, the Solar System, and the scientific process. My hope (my assumption?) is that I am not being lumped into the “ignorant” group because I have some carefully thought out objections to some present-day scientific theories? There’s a great book by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati called “Refuting Compromise” that I think does a great job of articulating the case in favor of the scientific theories I think are more accurate. You can read the introduction at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp.
I agree with you 100%. I was offended in exactly the same areas as you were. I’m thinking David maybe is the one believing in some pseudoscience.
I posted this and posed the question, hoping to reveal a variety of reactions, because I too had a variety of reactions. One of them was exactly what’s suggested here. I think that it is critical for us to remember that science doesn’t know everything. It never has. I do not know if it ever will. But we must accept the possibility that what we know and understand fifty years from now, may well make science of the 20th century (science we are teaching) look medieval. It’s important, because it’s the children in our classrooms today, who will discover this.
You’re conflating science as a body of knowledge (“scientific theories”, “scientific facts”) with science as a way of knowing and of approaching the unknown. In 50 years, we will have developed new explanations for things we don’t now understand, and we will have refined or tossed out some old explanations, but science as a process–in which people make predictions, collect evidence, test those predictions against the evidence and draw conclusions–will continue to serve us, as it has for centuries. In other words, what has changed and will continue to change is *what* we (as a civilization) know but not *how* we come to know it.
———–
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Just goes to show we haven’t really decided what the purpose of education is. Is it to make productive citizens, Renaissance men and women, or Mr. Robotos? If you examine the purpose of education for countries that do “better” than we do you will see their purpose is very clear.
I am going to use this blog as a professional development tool tomorrow in a workshop for faculty on Web 2.0 tools for independent professional development. ON the skill level, I can use the blog to teach faculty how to use RSS. And on so many other levels this particular blog provides opportunities for teachers to see the possibilities of blogs and RSS to improve, enhance their own and their students’ learning.
I think Diane touches on a valid point, and it is one that I have raised occasionally. I would be loath to see parents and teachers abdicate their position of responsibility in respect of the children in their care. While they are too young to make certain choices for themselves, parents make them on their behalf. As parents, we feed our young children on the food we know to be most nutritious for them. We purchase toys that we consider appropriate, safe and fun. We hold their hands as they cross the street.
Gradually, we relinquish these responsibilities to them as they demonstrate the capability to make wise/safe choices.
While we advocate a different approach to school, I still maintain that we need to beware of overloading them at an early age with decisions that they do not yet have the maturity, perspective and knowledge to make.
While I am a strong advocate of learner empowerment, I am a long way from advocating learning anarchy.
Someone please claim this money: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal]]
I’m a Christian, but I think that faith and science are separate topics. I mean, the whole concept of a leap of faith is that science isn’t proving it, so you have to decide to go beyond science. It’s OK to say that decisions you make go beyond what science says. The problem is when one doesn’t recognize they’ve done this and thinks that their faith means they have to contradict science, which usually just makes one sound silly.
Towards your actual topic: If we don’t learn what has already been done/discovered, we will repeat it – re-writing stories, re-doing research etc. It’s not inherently a bad thing, but if you expect society and technology and art to progress and grow, we have to learn what’s already been done and build on it.
I suppose that people who don’t understand how DNA works aren’t likely to re-do the research to learn that understanding, but I do think that familiarity with a wide range of topics gives you foundations to build ideas off of.
Maybe the question is “Does everyone need to have those foundations?” Perhaps not, but to not teach them to any children is to prevent those children from engaging in many of the most challenging and rewarding careers.