babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Which ionic compound would you like to be?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Which ionic compound would you like to be?
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 17 June 2005 09:33 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By MARGARET WENTE

Thursday, June 16, 2005 Updated at 8:08 AM EDT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Attention, parents. Teachers don't teach science the way they used to. If you suffered as much through Grade 11 physics as I did, you may think this is a good thing. On the other hand, if you're interested in scientific literacy, you may be interested in the trendy notions that have infected modern science teaching. Drill 'n' kill has been replaced by something called discovery learning, in which students are encouraged to stumble across the theory of relativity all by themselves.

That's not all. Science teachers are encouraged to make their material accessible and touchy-feely, so kids will feel good about it. "If you were transformed into an ionic compound, which would you be?" asks a sample test question included in Nova Scotia's official science curriculum. No, this question isn't for Grade 5s. It's for Grade 11s. In British Columbia, Grade 11 (!) students are instructed: "You are a moss. Describe your experiences."


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 17 June 2005 09:40 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i'm cuprous fluoride. i'm a red crystalline powder which melts at 908 C, a virgo, single and looking for love.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 17 June 2005 10:19 AM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"You are a moss. Describe your experiences."

How best to describe the triumph, tragedy, and heartbreak of photosynthesis?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 June 2005 10:26 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there a compound that specifically dissolves Margaret Wente screeds?

Let me put this another way: how much science knowledge does she remember from her vastly superior high-school training? Those science classes sound pretty fun, assuming there's a full curriculum to back them up. You could probably cherrypick oddball-sounding bits from a 1960s 3R's, just-the-facts-kid curriculum too.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 10:45 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ionic compound? I'm from N.S.and I don't recall even being thought that there were such things let alone being able to understand their different properties enough to prefer one over the other.

Sounds to me like todays kids are being taught things well over my head, and the science related subjects were my favourites and best subjects.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 11:17 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some profs have taken out old physics and math tests from the 70's, and found that they failed whole classes now ... even A students only got C's on the old tests. There's no debate that students are coming out of high school (and even out of undergraduate programs) with weaker science and math skills in the past, the debate is just if its important (some think it isn't important that anyone who isn't planning on being a scientist learn science skills, prefering that they're taught general awareness of the results of science), and if its possible to change given the funding of education and the social problems many students face.

Learning science is like learning a musicial instrument ... you need the fundamentals before you can be creative. Whether you remember it later on is beside the point - if that were the criteria there'd be no point in anyone going to school, as very few people remember much of what they learnt in school, and apply even less of it.

I think its a false dichotomy: you can teach the fundamentals and still have interesting, creative teaching (based on personal experience with some great teachers as a kid).


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 June 2005 11:21 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some profs have taken out old physics and math tests from the 70's, and found that they failed whole classes now ... even A students only got C's on the old tests.

Unfortunately there's no way to test whether the reverse is equally true.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 June 2005 11:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do esters and ethers qualify as ionic compounds? If so, I am an ester. Esters and ethers were the only part of high-school chemistry I liked -- they smell wonderful, quite unlike most of the other things I experimented with. They also have long, lovely, complicated formulae -- most satisfying.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Some profs have taken out old physics and math tests from the 70's, and found that they failed whole classes now ... even A students only got C's on the old tests.
Maybe. But maybe not significant. This reminds me of the well-known 1895 Exam urban legend.
quote:
This item, purportedly a final examination for graduating eighth grade students (or graduating high school students, depending upon which version you have) is of interest because it's supposed to be documentary evidence of how shockingly our educations have declined over the last century or so. Why, most adults couldn't muster a passing score on this test today, people think; that mere schoolkids were expected to pass it is proof that the typical school curriculum has been steeply "dumbed down" over the years, pundits claim...

What nearly all these pundits fail to grasp is "I can't answer these questions" is not the same thing as "These questions demonstrate that students in earlier days were better educated than today's students." Just about any test looks difficult to those who haven't recently been steeped in the material it covers. If a 40-year-old can't score as well on a geography test as a high school student who just spent several weeks memorizing the names of all the rivers in South America in preparation for an exam, that doesn't mean the 40-year-old's education was woefully deficient -- it means the he simply didn't retain information for which he had no use, no matter how thoroughly it was drilled into his brain through rote memory some twenty-odd years earlier. I suspect I'd fail a lot of the tests I took back in high school if I had to re-take them today without reviewing the material beforehand. I certainly wouldn't be able to pass any arithmetic test that required me to be familiar with such arcane measurements as "rods" and "bushels," but I can still calculate areas and volumes just fine, thank you.


[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 11:50 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
aRoused, take a look at new tests and then take a look at the old tests. The new tests are more or less designed to be hard to fail. Lots of subjective components, questions on isolated facts, and simple associations rather than deeper analysis (which seems to be the problem students have with old tests ... there'd be two or three complex problems on which you'd have to try several creative approaches before you came up with a solution, while the new ones tend to be a lot of straightforward cook-book questions).

One argument on the tests is not so much that the students aren't learning the fundamentals, but that they're not learning to analyse complex problems (sort of the attention span argument). If that were true it'd be worse than just not learning science fundaments, and I hope its not true. It's something I've heard from a few friends who are English profs - students have nice sentence structures, but no understanding of how to put them together into the unified argument that makes up an essay. But its harder to measure results in the humanities - old physics and math tests were pretty easy to mark.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 11:56 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Albeiro, at the end of undergraduate honors physics you're up to 1945 in terms of physics understanding - the Dirac Equation in quantum mechanics, General Relativity, Maxwell's equations and so on. Undergraduate physics hasn't changed in four decades, and the relevance has always been the same - an attempt to understand fundamental forces of the physical universe.

Some genius might come along and change what we know now, but that hasn't happened yet, and no one has found a way to do physics research without understanding the fundamentals.

Now if your argument is that its unnecessary to train students as if they were preparing to be physicists you have a point - an overview doesn't require fundamentals because it doesn't require any real understanding of what physics says.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2005 12:04 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I just tend to be very suspicious of claims that back in the good ol' days school standards were higher, curriculum was tougher, teachers were better and kids were smarter. I think that there is a tendancy to cherry-pick the best examples of education from way back when, and compare them to the worst examples from today. One could as easily do the opposite to show how much better education is today.

I'm not saying that there aren't many areas where our various education systems need improvement, but I'd rather have a better source of information than Margaret Wente grinding one of her many axes.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 17 June 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd be a free radical. I'm the leftist of ionic compounds. My unpaired electron will rip through the tissues of bourgeois society like a hot knife through butter. You might say that I'm a highly charged substance. Significant amounts of energy are required for me to come into being as I require covalent bonds to be broken homolytically. My presence is a necessary condition for combustion to take place. Here's a snapshot of my Hydrogen cousin:

H2 + hν → 2 H·

Oh yea. I'm not fond of antioxidants and other neoconservative compounds. Don't tell them I'm here.

***************

GJJ and Albireo: A friend of mine in Winnipeg was (and, as far as I know still is) teaching the history of his branch of Science at the University of Winnipeg. His branch is "Maths". I sure wish that the curriculum requriements included such courses when I was at University.

The myopic focus on technical proficiency to the exclusion of all else, at least as it seemed to me at the time, seemed designed to produce narrow-minded individuals. It turned me off Math altogether. Teaching the history of science, including controversial social and political matters (like, for example, the Einstein-Russell petition against nuclear weapons), seems like an improvement to me. Good scientists are important but good scientific citizens are better.

[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972

posted 17 June 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for fossilnut        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Physics involves fundamental principles that are univeral. 'Science' evolves (the understanding of physics)but not the physical properties of matter and energy themselves. A comment in an above posting is correct: knowledge of specific properties and 'general' questions aren't exclusive.

I find students these days quite versatile even if lacking in some of the hard equations we learned inside out a few decades ago. Then again, we didn't have access to the Internet. Our summer students (geology and geophysics) rely on going out into cyber space and using it as a resouce for ongoing learning. I could ace a chemistry test but often had a hard time with a perception of what I was actually writing. Today it's the reverse, a student can rotate a virtual carbon fuel molecule and create chains and see if they are stable or not.

So sure, they might get a 'c' on a test from the 70's but can get up to speed quickly on the problem at hand. The area most lacking is in communication skills. Science majors can't all be painted with the same brush but there's definitely been a dumb-down in verbal and written skills. If I was All-powerful I'd have science majors earning at least a third of their credits in the English department.


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2005 12:32 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't doubt that there has been a general deterioration in writing skills.

~~~~~

Another interesting phenomenon is the Flynn effect:

quote:
James Flynn, a political scientist working in New Zealand, observed in the 1980's that the scores of different groups of people on standard intelligence tests had consistently augmented over the past decades. Earlier researchers had failed to pay attention to that trend, because IQ scores are always calculated with respect to the average score for the present group. By definition, the average is set to 100. Someone who scores 20% more than the average would therefore get an IQ of 120. But if that person's score would be compared with the average for the corresponding group, tested one generation earlier, the final score would be about 130. Flynn was the first to systematically make such cross-generational comparisons.

Since then, the so-called "Flynn effect" has been confirmed by numerous studies. The same pattern, an average increase of over three IQ points per decade, was found for virtually every type of intelligence test, delivered to virtually every type of group.


Among the most surprising findings:
quote:
For one type of test, Raven's Progressive Matrices, Flynn found data that spanned a complete century. He concluded that someone who scored among the best 10% a hundred years ago, would nowadays be categorized among the 5% weakest. That means that someone who would be considered bright a century ago, should now be considered a moron!
This may or may not be related to the quality of education; are kids are getting "smarter" in spite of having poorer schooling? Or are our school systems not so bad after all?

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some profs have taken out old physics and math tests from the 70's, and found that they failed whole classes now ... even A students only got C's on the old tests. There's no debate that students are coming out of high school (and even out of undergraduate programs) with weaker science and math skills in the past, the debate is just if its important (some think it isn't important that anyone who isn't planning on being a scientist learn science skills, prefering that they're taught general awareness of the results of science), and if its possible to change given the funding of education and the social problems many students face.


I believe that an argument like this is simply not valid at all.

I'll take computer science as an example, because I know that area much better than any classical science field, but the same principle should apply.

I defy any recent computer science grad to match a 1960's or 70's grad in taking a test on the hot subjects of that time ... what would a current grad know about transistors, nand, and, nor, or, gates, binary math, assembly language, machine language, etc?

All these are "the basics" of computers, the so-called basic building blocks" that are required in order for computers and the computer science fields to even exist, but something that any recent grad *might* have heard about, but certainly didn't have to pass a test on in order to graduate, and would probably result in blank stares if they were asked to go into any detail on the subject.

But now adays, most computer science grads concern themselves with higher level languages and techniques ... they write applications in java which do all the binary math for them, design computer ships with software that figures out the nand gate configuration automatically.

I imagine that the same is true for any field of science ... a grad in the science of genetics no longer has to worry about getting into the issues that are now almost considered as a priori knowledge, and is now learning how to use all the knowledge that previous generations worked hard to discover to discover unknown things, and not to rediscover what is no longer considered in question ... no need to reinvent the wheel.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 12:57 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beltov, I doubt how myopic scientists are has anything to do with how they learn science - we don't live in a vaccuum, and in the course of education take many other courses which influence our world view. Its like saying learning scales makes musicians less likely to be good citizens.

No Yards and fossil, in the case of math and physics there's no new learning, and no evidence that students can picture things better (and given quantum mechanics and the abstract nature of algebras visual models tend to be misleading when they're used). There's no higher level physics or math language they're learning; like I said, end of undergraduate you're at 1945 knowledge. Even after a Phd you're only touching the fringes of new developments ... loads of fundamentals to get through.

Albeiro, no one I've ever talked to thinks students are getting dumber. These are proficiency tests in particular skills, not intelligence tests. Its like studies suggesting kids are now not as fit as they were a couple of decades ago - they say nothing about kid's inherent ability to run fast or do chinups, they just point out that their current levels aren't as good as the average was before.

Its surprising that people are quick to agree that writing skills have deteriorated, yet are loath to think the same of science and math skills ... and the only reason I can think of it is because you're only aware of what you yourself encounter. The reason some profs took out old tests was to see if what they thought they saw was really happening - working with students coming out of high school they had a sense of having to change their teaching material to cover material which used to be covered in schools, and they were often simplifying tests to get a reasonable grade curve. Ignore the tests (and by all means ignore Wente), but talk to some profs and see what they say.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No Yards and fossil, in the case of math and physics there's no new learning, and no evidence that students can picture things better (and given quantum mechanics and the abstract nature of algebras visual models tend to be misleading when they're used). There's no higher level physics or math language they're learning; like I said, end of undergraduate you're at 1945 knowledge. Even after a Phd you're only touching the fringes of new developments ... loads of fundamentals to get through.

That's not totally true. Take math for instance, when I was going to school I had to know in detail how to figure square roots, and got tested on those concepts both directly and indirectly (to solve sub steps in bigger problems.) Today, while there might be a couple of days spent on the process, it is more for historic purposes than as a needed practicle skill as was the case in my educational days ... same for trig and understanding how to use sine, cosign, tangent, etc to figure out resultant forces; maybe a day or two is now spent to show how it used to be done, but from then on the calculator is used to make those "common" math problems simple and let the student move on to figuring out problems that didn't even exist when I went to school.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
EZKleave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8369

posted 17 June 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for EZKleave        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A telling example of the changes (good or bad, I'm for bad but don't have much proof...) in our education system is that now we have classes in "test taking" and "study habits" and "time management".
We learn how to give an arbritrary system what it wants... spending time on learning a specific education style and system comes very often at the expense of the actual education, the distribution of previously discovered knowledge and techniques. "The medium is the message." or something along those lines...

From: Guelph, Ontario | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

That's not totally true. Take math for instance, when I was going to school I had to know in detail how to figure square roots, and got tested on those concepts both directly and indirectly (to solve sub steps in bigger problems.) Today, while there might be a couple of days spent on the process, it is more for historic purposes than as a needed practicle skill as was the case in my educational days ... same for trig and understanding how to use sine, cosign, tangent, etc to figure out resultant forces; maybe a day or two is now spent to show how it used to be done, but from then on the calculator is used to make those "common" math problems simple and let the student move on to figuring out problems that didn't even exist when I went to school.


Except it doesn't seem to work out that way. Back in the day you were supposed to be able to look at a partial differential equation and rougly describe what it did without solving it (to get a physical feel for what might be a reasonable solution before actually solving it). Now its thrown into a computer program and the solutions are handed back even if the results are physically nonesense due to accumulation of errors or instability in the routines given the parameters or boundary conditions.

You should still learn enough fundamental mathematics to know what an equation says without solving it, and enough fundamental numerical analysis to understand the errors that come with it instead of blindly throwing it into Matlab or whatever canned program you're using. In science you're not supposed to take things on faith - you have to be able to see when an algorithm is giving nonsense as a result. Moreover, every once in awhile someone takes a look at a fundamental hypothesis and sees an alternative that opens new worlds, and that never happens without deep understanding of fundamentals. Without exception, every major breakthrough has come from someone who has thoroughly understood the fundamentals (and in case anyone wants to bring it up - this is especially true for Einstein).


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of my biggest discoveries in dealing with "education" was that I could actually take some information as given and not have to understand every little detail.

If I had to use the symbol "beta" in a formula, and "beta" was defined as "pi x Z", then rather than getting stuck on going back over the history of "pi" and relearning how "pi" is defined, and the concept behind the need of "pi", I could simply rely on the fact that some smart person did that work for me hundreds of years ago, and there was really no need for me to completely understand the conept of "pi" in order to use it and discover newer concepts from its use.

So maybe 500 years ago, kids that were lucky enough to go to school, spent two years delving into the details of the concept of "pi", and could answer such important math questions of the time as "how many significant digits of 'pi' should we use when dealing with land measurement in the country of Sussex" vs the number of significant digits we should use when dealing with the creation of a horseshoe", we instead have learned to just spend a few hours on the subject and accept 'pi' as a replacement for a number and move on to the next subject.

Maybe a test from 500 years ago asking esoteric questions based on the intracies of 'pi' might stump most of us today, but by the same token, someone from 500 years ago might not ever be able to grasp the concept of base 10 vs base 16.

Which era got the better education?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

You should still learn enough fundamental mathematics to know what an equation says without solving it, and enough fundamental numerical analysis to understand the errors that come with it instead of blindly throwing it into Matlab or whatever canned program you're using.


Of course you should, but that doesn't say anything about how we should be tested.

A student in the 40's might have a test with 10 questions testing their ability to do what was important to be able to do back then, namely look at the equation and if not solve it, at least know if the equation even made sense ... today, maybe the student will be shown that process as a historical reference, maybe even given a small test of their understanding of that concept, and them move on to show them how to use the "Mathlib" method" of just "throwing the numbers into the computer model and see if the results look like a stable result or a complete mess".

Testing a student of today on the old methodolgy would surely end in poor results, but so would testing a kid from the 40's on using mathlib ... but which one, given a similarly level of intelligence of the student, would be better equiped to apply their knowledge to the real world?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
So maybe 500 years ago, kids that were lucky enough to go to school, spent two years delving into the details of the concept of "pi", and could answer such important math questions of the time as "how many significant digits of 'pi' should we use when dealing with land measurement in the country of Sussex" vs the number of significant digits we should use when dealing with the creation of a horseshoe", we instead have learned to just spend a few hours on the subject and accept 'pi' as a replacement for a number and move on to the next subject.

Maybe a test from 500 years ago asking esoteric questions based on the intracies of 'pi' might stump most of us today, but by the same token, someone from 500 years ago might not ever be able to grasp the concept of base 10 vs base 16.

Which era got the better education?


Except that's a straw man argument; you can learn how to derive pi in half an hour, and substitutions like beta = pi * z * gamma have nothing to do with fundamentals (and can be absorbed in a glance). Five hundred years ago school kids would have learned arithmetic and Euclidean geometry, which is still part of our education. A few years later and they'd have been learning algebra and calculus, which is again still part of our education.

Yes, there are new systems to learn, but that always involves learning different fundamentals because our understanding has changed, and even then often only in later years ... I doubt that quantum mechanics and relativity have replaced Newtonian physics in high school anywhere (except as some handwaving pictures like orbitals in chemistry, which are meant to give a flavor rather than real knowledge).

Details can be learned quickly. I've been responsible for hiring a number of engineers and programmers over the years, and I've learned never to ask what programming languages they know ... a good programmer will learn a new language on demand, its just detail. Fundamentals take years to absorb, and always make the difference between someone who can usefully apply what they know to new situations and someone who's lost when out of familiar territory. Maybe this doesn't matter for most jobs, but for physics or engineering its vital.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

A student in the 40's might have a test with 10 questions testing their ability to do what was important to be able to do back then, namely look at the equation and if not solve it, at least know if the equation even made sense ... today, maybe the student will be shown that process as a historical reference, maybe even given a small test of their understanding of that concept, and them move on to show them how to use the "Mathlib" method" of just "throwing the numbers into the computer model and see if the results look like a stable result or a complete mess".

Testing a student of today on the old methodolgy would surely end in poor results, but so would testing a kid from the 40's on using mathlib ... but which one, given a similarly level of intelligence of the student, would be better equiped to apply their knowledge to the real world?


In math methodology hasn't changed at all. In physics the only addition is computer programming, and that's so trivial its never even tested. Learning to use Matlab is the work of a single hour in the lab; knowing if your Matlab results are meaningful or not (and they can be wrong without divergence) requires understanding the fundamentals. Plug and play leads to very bad science and positively dangerout engineering - you wouldn't want to drive a car over a bridge designed that way.

The thing is, schools are now often spending most of their time on trivial details that will change in a few years, and paying less time of fundamentals that will be unchanged and still vital in a century.

Time spent learning how to program (with any language, it really doesn't matter) is worthwhile, time spent learning how to use a particular program, whether its Matlab or a spreadsheet or a wordprocessor isn't ... anyone who's ever had to train new hires or new graduate students on the local system knows this, its trivial, and its been so since the first computers. Time spent learning how to punch numbers into a provided computer program could better be spent doing almost anything else ... maybe exercise.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 June 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

Five hundred years ago school kids would have learned arithmetic and Euclidean geometry, which is still part of our education. A few years later and they'd have been learning algebra and calculus, which is again still part of our education.


Actually, five hundred years ago they wouldn't have been learning calculus- it wasn't discovered until the late 1600s.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 17 June 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think understanding the "concepts" are equally as important as understanding the math.

You may "break down the roads leading through to Gr understanding", but what use would it be to you, if you did not undertand that this gravity issue has moved you into a new realm of inquiry?

With one sweep of the hand such judgmental words could wipe out man's years of learning and not in the traditional sense. Pleaasse do not discorage thos who are motivated.

While slowly through having served, Faraday pronounced the day that he had discoveries with which Gaussian and Maxwellian perspective explain now in geometric shape in visionary qualities? It is not euclidean we see now, but with a non-euclidean view?

With cautious approach, opinions can be quite diverse, as to the basic requirements that lead perspective on the theoretical. A lot understand it is about "experiment as a basis to this exploration," but we equally understand as well, that theoretcal developement is based on the princpals with which such extensions are to be moved. There can be different takes on it. What model shall you use? What is quantum gravity then?

Each aspect and developement of the math models serve to extend the views, and how could you take this into our daily lives had you not understood that it becomes quite capable of forming visionary elements and still speak about real physics?

That political, and neighboors coud have been based on interactive features, that were more then the same words we share so casual. Remeber what John Nash revieved his Nobel Prize for? That such interactive features would share logic at a deeper level of integration, that only words of a man shouting defiance of the capitilistic way, was moved to more then the basis of humanistic values that can arise from such logic?

[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 17 June 2005 09:30 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:

Actually, five hundred years ago they wouldn't have been learning calculus- it wasn't discovered until the late 1600s.

Yeah, bad arithmetic on my part, Newton and Liebniz came more than a few years later. Its always the fundamentals that get you


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 June 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No GJJ, you're still missing the point. As I have already pointed out as an example, determining the square root manually, or using a slide rule ... these may be "side issues" to a modern mathematician, but that's not what we are tlaking about ... we are talking about kids in school.

When I was going to school a good part of testing was done to determine how well you could manually determine a square root, or get a log on a slide rule.

If todays student were asked to take a test from 30 r 40 years ago that included that kind of test material, they would fail ... not because of some obvious lack in understanding square roots, or logs, but because the methodology of determining that information has changed ... just as if someone had stuck me in front of a computer loaded with math programs when I was in high school, the 1960's me would have probably not even have figured out how to turn the damn thing on.

How many of todays students would pass a math test asking how may inches in a 3/4 of a mile? Is it because they don't know how to multiply by fractions, or maybe it's because they know nothing of what a mile and inches might be ... if they wre asked howm many centimeters in 3/4 of a kilometer and they had problems then you could say something.

If the tests are normalized to take into account that only questions that both groups would understand were used, then fine, but simply saying that math scores are worst than 40 years ago, or that when you give a 2000's kid a 1950's test they don't get as good a mark as the average 1950's kid tells us nothing.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 17 June 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And not understanding the history and developement of the geometry.

So choose a "discrete model" that makes you feel good?


Mendeleev, Dmitri (1834-1907)

Be adventurous!

Test your predicatve abilites and insert "new elements" that will become discovered?

[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 June 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Some profs have taken out old physics and math tests from the 70's, and found that they failed whole classes now ... even A students only got C's on the old tests.

I confess to the same thing.

I grabbed an old 1970s-era high school physics text, and inside it was an Ontario government exam for the grade 13 kids back then.

Just out of pique I tried taking a crack at it and found I couldn't set-up the problems properly. This was highly embarrassing considering this was summer 2003 when I was immersed in my Intermediate Mechanics course.

---

And which ionic compound would I be?

Depending on my mood, I would be:

1. Sodium chloride, that staid old standby which is very predictable and oomfortable,
2. Isoamyl acetate, that slightly-forbidden-sounding banana oil, always rumored to be the precursor for addictive substances, (Yes, I know this strictly doesn't hold, but relaxing the rules to allow for polar covalent compounds for this one... )
3. Zinc hydroxide, that amphoteric salt that can't make up its mind to be acidic or basic.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 17 June 2005 11:57 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
DrC,

Not quite sure what your comment means. I think it demonstrates the dumbing down of school curricula or demonstrates the dumbing down of school curricula. In any case it's bad.

I can say that between my own first year (a 75% failure rate meant we, the students, should work harder) and my last year of grad school (when a 40% failure rate meant the profs weren't teaching properly) there has been a profound shift in attitudes.

Noyards - you're missing the point - I don't care if you can use a slide rule. I do care if you can figure out a square root without a calculator (Newtonian Approximation is allowed).

Today I'm faced with the high school student that works part time in the local donut shop. I walk in and get two donuts @55 cents, a coffee at 75 cents, and a paper at 75 cents and the cash register shows $12.50 - took me 15 minutes and a threat to call to the manager to get the kid to check her entry - needless to say, when her resume comes across my desk in a couple of years it goes into the shredder.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 18 June 2005 03:00 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl: Ethers and esters are the best indeed.
They're organic compounds not ionic, but the fact that you remember so much about them is impressive...You need alcohol and acid to make 'em, and I always remembered that becuase combining alcohol and acid makes for a good Easter holiday.

As for the surrounding controversy-- The authors of school curricula have a tough job. It's hard to strike a balance between getting kids passionate about science, and not turning the science into circle poetry in the process.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 18 June 2005 03:10 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't it ionic? Don't you think?
Isn't it tooooooo ionic? Yes I really do think...

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2005 04:42 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:
skdadl: Ethers and esters are the best indeed.
They're organic compounds not ionic, but the fact that you remember so much about them is impressive...You need alcohol and acid to make 'em, and I always remembered that becuase combining alcohol and acid makes for a good Easter holiday.

Well, being a tad nitpicky, I would define esters as being partially ionic since they derive from the reaction of a carboxylic acid with an alcohol.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 18 June 2005 07:46 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sodium bicarbonate.

NACHO3

(typically, the H is written before the C, but I don't think it matters that much when I am trying to make the point that sodium bicarbonate has one of the coolest formulae in existence)

In addition to being a leavening agent, I help remove stains, whiten teeth, cure heartburn and acid indigestion, and dispel offensive odours. I'm a very useful ionic compound.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 June 2005 09:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, cabana and Dr C. cabana, I see that you even have a sort-of ester name.

I've been googling esters since I remembered them yesterday, and remembering how much fun they were -- apples, bananas, apricots -- and rum and solvents! Or should that be "other solvents"?

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 18 June 2005 10:18 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:

As for the surrounding controversy-- The authors of school curricula have a tough job. It's hard to strike a balance between getting kids passionate about science, and not turning the science into circle poetry in the process.

I think you hit on the crux of the problem, and I guess those of us who work in science and technology feel that its gone too far in the circle poetry direction - admittedly mainly based on what we see of the skills of graduates, and that could have more to do with social problems then what's being taught ...

I'm also not completely happy that the way to make kids passionate about science is to make it "fun". Most of the people I know who go on to do science do so because of curiosity, not because its always fun (some parts are great fun, but like most worthwhile endevours a lot of it is just plain hard work - as is writing, music, and of course teaching itself). But I'm not a high school teacher, and I don't pretend to know how to make students who aren't already curious about the physical universe interested in finding out more about it.

I'm also wondering why immigrant kids are almost always motivated and curious students (heresay evidence from teachers I know), but many local kids need to be entertained in order to get them to learn. It would seem that as a society we're doing something wrong - I know kids are born with almost insatiable curiosity and extremely motivated, where do we turn that off?


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 June 2005 10:29 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think Newspaper Columnists, much less Margret Wente, are in any position to comment on the teaching of Science.

What's next, a column critical of Emily Carr's work by Stevie Wonder?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 18 June 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like Wente's conclusion...

quote:
There's a fair bit of evidence that teacher-led instruction, high expectations and frequent tests work better than child-centred learning, especially in the early years. There's also quite a bit of evidence that people who have a background in and passion for their subject are better teachers than those who don't. But who needs evidence? The real question is, which ionic compound would you like to be?

Personally, I'd like to be salt.


Notice how she says that evidence exists but does not describe any of it? The problem with "evidence" in education is that what constitutes "student achievement" is highly subjective. Typically, educational research uses standardized tests as measures of achievement. There is evidence that frequently testing students makes them good test-takers. Go figure!

Of course, this line of reasoning is highly self-referential: i.e. using test results as evidence to promote more testing. Adopting a scientific perspective -- as Wente clearly would have us do -- you need to connect the test scores with some other empirical evidence of "achievement", such as future academic or professional success. The evidence here is quite scarce.

P.S. I think Ms Wente would be ammonium nitrate.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 June 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wente is a columnist. As such, she plays games with reason and picks and chooses evidence. If not, she'd be a reporter.

At some level, learning details of science, like chemistry or biology will come down to rote (sp?) learning of the periodic table or the fruit chart. Or you can write them in code on the toe of your sneaker for the exam.

But what has always been missing in science education, in any teaching technique, has been the essence of science: a sytematic way of finding things out. And no technique, and few teachers have ever grasped the advantage of teaching the wonder and the numenous of finding things out. In fact, the curicula and teachers seem to do their best to strangle all the joy out of science.

And believe me, there's no newpaper person alive today who wants kids and adults to be able to have a systemic way of figuring things out.

Harder to lie to people who have those skills, dontcha know.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The only way to understand a Wente column is to address what she's really saying, but not saying. Wente is a conservative and a regressive. What dismays her most about education these days is that it's not producing students who simply defer to the simple platitudes their elders feed them and are quite confident in telling you why that is. Conservatives don't like that; it threatens the privilege their elite status gives them. So it is that they've been on a warpath for the last 20 years discrediting any and all modern teaching methods, without ever examining some of the underlying realities of learning, knowledge and wisdom. And when they seem to discover real problems, their solutions always seem punitve.

Some in this thread have been focussing on the specifics of the content of the a grade 11 physics class. Remember, these classes are taken by most students, many of whom will not go any further in science education and should be expected to take away from that class something other than knowing what an ionic compound is. Like good practices in inquiry, observation and evidence. This is high school, after all.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 18 June 2005 11:47 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by no yards:
I defy any recent computer science grad to match a 1960's or 70's grad in taking a test on the hot subjects of that time ... what would a current grad know about transistors, nand, and, nor, or, gates, binary math, assembly language, machine language, etc?

no yards, the undergraduate software engineering program at mcmaster university currently has entire mandatory courses dedicated to machine language, assembly language (i thought machine and assembly language were more or less the same?), binary math, transistors and all those gates. (i was gonna put a link to the faculty's page, but my computer is so slow; sorry). the courses don't just skim the basics; they are quite detailed and thorough, and students are required to program in assembly language, and toy with gates themselves, i.e., they don't have a program/computer that already figures out gates for them.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 18 June 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:

the courses don't just skim the basics; they are quite detailed and thorough, and students are required to program in assembly language, and toy with gates themselves, i.e., they don't have a program/computer that already figures out gates for them.


Lost in Spacetime?

Smart *** You hit the cruz of the problem I think? That it takes innovative thinkers to push ahead.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 12:45 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FO, your previous personae at least tried to feign coherence. Did you just give up? Or is this something new you're trying?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 18 June 2005 01:10 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Machine language is the actual codes used by the computer's processor ... it tells in as small detail as you can get when and how to move data around. Assembly is a step up, using symbols for registers and locations; many (though not all) assembly language commands are in fact translated into several machine language instructions. Most students have the theory that the only reason for teaching machine language is that it makes them grateful when they can move on to assembly language, but in fact its a very useful introduction to both different philosophies of processor design (for instance CISC or RISC), and how the processors are in fact laid out.

As for Wente, yeah, she's a pretty bad columnist, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn (though I didn't particularly like her slant on it). She's just saying what anyone who has to work with high school (and even some university) graduates in a scientific or technical environment has been saying for some time, and its no more political than saying a bigger percentage of students are overweight and in poor physical condition than in the past. Maybe its about as irrelevant - who needs to run or even be able to walk and carry things when you have cars.

Ed: This topic makes me feel old fashioned, a conservative rather than a progressive. I grew up thinking science was important, and maybe I'm just reacting to a new way of thinking that doesn't think so.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Ed: This topic makes me feel old fashioned, a conservative rather than a progressive. I grew up thinking science was important, and maybe I'm just reacting to a new way of thinking that doesn't think so.

You're not the only one.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 18 June 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What non-scientists and non-teachers (especially conservative ones) fail to grasp, is that there is a differences between the content of science (empirical observations, and the scientific models developed to explain them), and the process of science, which requires a much greater degree of creativity. These commentators seem to think that by throwing content at students and ignoring the creative aspects of the scientific endeavour, students will somehow come out qualified to be scientists!

If today's students are indeed less able in science than their predecessors, it is likely because the standardized curricula (generally advocated by conservatives) emphasize content (easily forgotten after the final exam) at the expense of creativity, and even where curricula give lip service to scientific process, accountability measures (standardized tests, also advocated generally by conservatives) cannot test process outcomes, ensuring that accountable teachers focus on content over process.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 18 June 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MacD:
What non-scientists and non-teachers (especially conservative ones) fail to grasp, is that there is a differences between the content of science (empirical observations, and the scientific models developed to explain them), and the process of science, which requires a much greater degree of creativity. These commentators seem to think that by throwing content at students and ignoring the creative aspects of the scientific endeavour, students will somehow come out qualified to be scientists!

If today's students are indeed less able in science than their predecessors, it is likely because the standardized curricula (generally advocated by conservatives) emphasize content (easily forgotten after the final exam) at the expense of creativity, and even where curricula give lip service to scientific process, accountability measures (standardized tests, also advocated generally by conservatives) cannot test process outcomes, ensuring that accountable teachers focus on content over process.


Except that what those of us who are scientists see (I won't speak for school teachers) is that students are learning neither the content nor the process, and lack the fundamentals to allow them to pick up either quickly. And they don't have the ability to be creative as scientists because they lack the fundamentals ... it would be like me picking up a violin and expecting to compose a masterpiece on it simply because my creativity hadn't been restricted by actually learning to play it, or to write a classic work of Chinese literature without more than a rudimentary knowledge of the language.

Moreover, the complaints have been coming from scientists and university teachers, not from the general public, conservative or otherwise. Some of it is just selfishness ... it means we have to spend an increasing amount of our time teaching basics that should have been mastered long ago. But some of it is a real concern for the future of our society.

And its not just in science - talk to literature and history professors. There's a new attitude, part of which was expressed in a youth article in Macleans (don't have the link but some might remember it from the start of the year). The student pointed out that there was no need to actually know any history, since it was all available on the web if they were ever interested. I find that frightening, but like I said, I'm old fashioned.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 18 June 2005 02:11 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What, exactly, do you mean by fundamentals? Some of the fundamental tasks of a scientist from my perspective are:

1) To be familiar with current and historical scientific models of the world;
2) To be familiar with the evidence upon which those models are based, and the limitations of those models;
3) To apply (1) and (2) to construct hypotheses that attempt to explain observed phenomena;
4) To be able to derive testable implications from a hypothesis;
5) To be able to design and conduct experiments to test the implications of a hypothesis;
6) To be able to evaluate the outcome of experiments to produce a conclusion.

My view is that conservative pedagogy emphasizes (1) to the exclusion of all other "fundamentals." A students who succeeds at (1) only is not likely to be a very good scientist. And for students who do not want to be scientists (the majority), (1) is probably the least useful of these fundamentals.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I still think it's incumbent on those whose expertise credibly supports the idea that the current educational system is failing children to focus on what the remedies might be. I hear far too much blaming the teachers and "wooly-headed leftists" going on and not enough looking at a variety of other issues: a popular culture that values mindless consumerism, an economy that focuses too much on one narrow sort of education or a set of skills (which are expected to be acquired pre-employment), overworked parents who don't have the energy to support a learning environment at home, and a increasingly polarising political environment that does not invite any other solution than more standardised testing and back to the basics.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 18 June 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MacD:
What, exactly, do you mean by fundamentals? Some of the fundamental tasks of a scientist from my perspective are:

1) To be familiar with current and historical scientific models of the world;
2) To be familiar with the evidence upon which those models are based, and the limitations of those models;
3) To apply (1) and (2) to construct hypotheses that attempt to explain observed phenomena;
4) To be able to derive testable implications from a hypothesis;
5) To be able to design and conduct experiments to test the implications of a hypothesis;
6) To be able to evaluate the outcome of experiments to produce a conclusion.

My view is that conservative pedagogy emphasizes (1) to the exclusion of all other "fundamentals." A students who succeeds at (1) only is not likely to be a very good scientist. And for students who do not want to be scientists (the majority), (1) is probably the least useful of these fundamentals.


The fundamentals come long before scientific models. I'd say:

1) The ability to perform complex reasoning (generally learned through working through complex problems of many varieties - even writing a clear essay on a many sided political issue is good training, as are logical puzzles, hard math problems and so on).

2) For most physical sciences, strong math skills (and again that means solving complex problems ... not because the problems are important, but because of the skills it develops).

3) The ability to communicate clearly and consisely one's theories and discoveries.

Give me a student with those three and I'm happy. They'll learn the rest quickly if they're motivated - its common for grad students to completely change fields because they have the fundamentals down so well they can pick up content and methodology as they go along. But they have to have worked on complex problems without clear or obvious solutions ...

And yes, I'm off loading the hard work to teachers, since such problems are in themselves as irrelevant as doing laps or pushups, and must be an absolute pain to teach to a high school or elementary class.

What you list as fundamentals usually vary with the science and can be learned together with content, especially if there's a good history of science (which I think is pretty important as well, though not as important as the fundamentals).

And Hinterland, there's nothing political about this - you'll find scientists all across the political spectrum complaining about what comes out of the schools.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 18 June 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

I'm also wondering why immigrant kids are almost always motivated and curious students (heresay evidence from teachers I know), but many local kids need to be entertained in order to get them to learn.

Other societies have realized better than we have that science means progress.

Moreover, from an immigrant's perspective, studying science is a much safer bet for success in a strange new country, where the boundaries surrounding the liberal arts professions (law, business administration, journalism and politics) have already been well defined along racial and class lines.

These walls were broken down long ago in technical professions, because, at the end of the day, science is about results, and you can't argue with results.

So while a native Iranian might have a very hard time becoming a news anchor or an American senator, they would be readily accepted into the more meritocratic professional cultures in engineering or medicine.
Foreign students know this. We have alot to learn.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And Hinterland, there's nothing political about this - you'll find scientists all across the political spectrum complaining about what comes out of the schools.

The "complaining" is the political attitude. I'm not saying it's right-political necessarily, although it largely is, since complaining and rightwing politics go hand in hand these days.

Also, a lot of educated people (scientists included) remark that children don't know anything because we don't teach them anything.

Food for thought.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 18 June 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:
Other societies have realized better than we have that science means progress.
...
Foreign students know this. We have alot to learn.

Or it's because their parents are pressuring them to take science or business regardless of what their interests and abilities are. Some of them thrive, some of them survive, and some hook a hose up to the exhaust of their cars in the B lot and become a statistic.

There's nothing progressive about forcing one's children into a discipline that doesn't suit them, nor to state that there's anymore "progress" in science that in the arts, either liberal or fine. There are a good number of ethnic anchors in Canada. But to whatever extent racism is a barrier in professions it has to be with human attitudes, nothing "objective" or "subjective" divides it, because even "results" are interpreted by humans.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 18 June 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

The fundamentals come long before scientific models. I'd say:

1) The ability to perform complex reasoning (generally learned through working through complex problems of many varieties - even writing a clear essay on a many sided political issue is good training, as are logical puzzles, hard math problems and so on).

2) For most physical sciences, strong math skills (and again that means solving complex problems ... not because the problems are important, but because of the skills it develops).

3) The ability to communicate clearly and consisely one's theories and discoveries.


A standardized curriculum, an accountability regime based primarily on multiple choice tests, and a social context which values education primarily for its credentialing function, is hardly the ideal system for promoting the development of complex reasoning/problem-solving/communication skills among students. In fact, Wente's article specifically takes aim at the kind of open-ended thinking you describe as fundamental.

The system we have now encourages the opposite. High school students, for the most part, are dependent upon their teacher or textbook for providing the reasoning that justifies the knowledge they are expected to learn. Complex problem-solving demands risk-taking and a real possibility of failure -- after all, new knowledge is almost invariable produced to rectify failures in existing knowledge. When the objective of high school is getting the credential employers are looking for or the grades that the university admission office requires, what rational student would want to accept the risks that come with tackling truly complex problems?


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 18 June 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Edit to take out unnecessary quote

MacD, I agree, and I suspect so would most scientists and profs. This isn't a conservative criticism of the school program (conservatives tend not to be very popular among scientists simply because we're biased enough to think things like creationism isn't science, and that narrow mindedness in general is anti-scientific), its a criticism from working scientists on the trainees they get.

Standard curriculums and multiple guess testing weren't part of the system decades ago, so saying the students were better prepared in the past can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement for them. And you never hear talk of bad teachers or a desire for accountability (teacher testing - how in the world could you ever come up with a meaningful test?). We see a problem, and it worries us, but the assumption is that it has to do with government guidelines rather than teachers ... as well as the pressure to advance students who aren't ready to move on to new materials, restrictions on teachers that make it impossible to discipline students (and I'm not talking about re-introducing the strap).

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 18 June 2005 09:06 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kurichina:

Or it's because their parents are pressuring them to take science or business regardless of what their interests and abilities are. There's nothing progressive about forcing one's children into a discipline that doesn't suit them.

I agree completely. Parental pressure is tragic, but that happens among Canadians too. Happened in my family.

But I'm trying to explore the mindset of those foreign students, children and adults, who chose their discipline voluntarliy, and among them there is much more respect for scientific education then there is among those who were born and raised here.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Immigrant families are exceedingly interested in the education that is most economically advantageous for their children. It so happens right now that that's science.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 18 June 2005 09:50 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
FO, your previous personae at least tried to feign coherence. Did you just give up? Or is this something new you're trying?

Just trying on different shoes to see which one fits

INteresting conversation going on here.

I think I want to be a "bricklayer" tomorrow. You know it seems the philosophy arises from how people do things all their life, and here, we have evidence of the stringent rules of order.

I wonder if you entangled a baker with a scientist, what you would get? Lovely pastries?

Numerical relativity is always interesting given the amount of memory to provide for the language to see the way we do on cosmological things.

There's just to much uncertainty at a certain level and "no computer" is suppose to be able to provide all the information required to offer some prediction?

The quantum mechanical view has to be changed to provide for such changes.

That's why you need innovative thinkers


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 18 June 2005 09:55 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
INteresting conversation going on here.

Yeah, well stop ruining it. And by the way, northern New York State sucks so much ass, I'm surprised the UN hasn't stepped in.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 June 2005 10:02 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would be potassium chloride, and bring Margaret Wente's black heart to a stop.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 19 June 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

Well, being a tad nitpicky, I would define esters as being partially ionic since they derive from the reaction of a carboxylic acid with an alcohol.

They're not ionic, no electron transfer.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 19 June 2005 01:42 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

And by the way, northern New York State sucks so much ass, I'm surprised the UN hasn't stepped in.


Do something about it then.......become a minute man

Anyway, so many views, so many handles give "perspective a spin about it" and the color, well, it varies from person to person.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 June 2005 12:41 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:
They're not ionic, no electron transfer.

Oxygen, being fairly electronegative, causes an asymmetric electron density... oh blah, I don't want to spend a paragraph. Just go draw some electron density maps around the atoms in an ester.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 19 June 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Strictly speaking every covalent bond has an EM dipole moment, and can be called ionic .

But I don't think that's how the chemists (people who work with smelly materials that sometimes explode) make the classification ...


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 19 June 2005 07:26 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the risk of getting to nitty-gritty, you're not wrong in the sense that an ester, like anything else, does possess partial ionic character, but that concept is quite divorced from a true ionic bond which requires by definition a metal and a non-metal.
From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 June 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Do esters and ethers qualify as ionic compounds? If so, I am an ester. Esters and ethers were the only part of high-school chemistry I liked -- they smell wonderful, quite unlike most of the other things I experimented with. They also have long, lovely, complicated formulae -- most satisfying.

That is organic chemistry, alas. No ionic bonds.

Pretty advanced stuff though. Props to your high school chem teacher.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 June 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

Well, being a tad nitpicky, I would define esters as being partially ionic since they derive from the reaction of a carboxylic acid with an alcohol.


Not to harsh the buzz on a fun conversation, but whatever you are a doctor of, it ain't chemistry. No ionic bonds = not an ionic compound. Doesn't matter how you get there.

In a basic medium, you could make a salt out of an ester: R-CO2(-)Na+. That's an ionic compound, and I guess you could call it an ester, though you better keep it in a basic solution if you don't want the hydroxyl group to protonate.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 June 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PS: I'd probably be NaNH2. It will react violently with practically anything. .
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 20 June 2005 12:04 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good one, rsfarrell.

I would be magnesium sulfate. Coarse and irritable all the time, but nice and tender when I'm in the bathtub.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 12:42 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Strictly speaking every covalent bond has an EM dipole moment, and can be called ionic .

But I don't think that's how the chemists (people who work with smelly materials that sometimes explode) make the classification ...


I did say partially ionic. (which is another way of saying polar covalent. I'm a chemist, too, mister. )

Besides, yes, I know the thread's supposed to be about ionic salts, but good lord, can we be slightly un-anal retentive for a while?

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Not to harsh the buzz on a fun conversation, but whatever you are a doctor of, it ain't chemistry. No ionic bonds = not an ionic compound. Doesn't matter how you get there.

In a basic medium, you could make a salt out of an ester: R-CO2(-)Na+. That's an ionic compound, and I guess you could call it an ester, though you better keep it in a basic solution if you don't want the hydroxyl group to protonate.


I'm a chemistry major, although I admit to being rather down on organic chemistry (I'm a nuclear chem guy). Now please excuse me while I get the visions of reaction mechanisms out of my head.

(Although I find the first half of your post to be quite unnecessarily rude.)

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 20 June 2005 01:45 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 


Fool's Gold Proper?

I like to take away the illusions like Baez, but I wonder. How truly, did it all begin?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

I find the first half of your post to be quite unnecessarily rude.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


Maybe it was, a tad, and I apologize. But if you are going to be "a bit nitpicky" you have to expect that us other pickers are going to pick right back at you.

Nothing personal.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 20 June 2005 03:23 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which one is explosive and really bad smelling?

I want to be that one. Because then I'd be useful!


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I don't know about explosive, but some sulphide salts smell pretty bad.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 20 June 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Which one is explosive and really bad smelling?

I want to be that one. Because then I'd be useful!



you shouldn't, as it can leave a bad taste.... "imagine" smell thick enough to transcend, and in this memory, sealed forever.

Is that the way you want to be remembered?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 20 June 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Papal Bull,

You can try n-butyl mercaptan.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! I run in fear.

A buddy of mine has phenylmercaptan in the lab he works for, and if he withdraws even a drop, the guys next door start complaining.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 20 June 2005 10:28 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Which one is explosive and really bad smelling?

I'd bet on hydrazinium nitrate. Explosive for sure, and a good chance it smells pretty bad too (though I don't know how tightly bound the hydrazine is. Dr. C?)

Speaking of organic compounds of Group 6 elements, Alexander Shulgin reports that a German chemist in the early 20th century dropped a vial of dibutyl telluride out of his pocket on a train, and it broke. The coach had to be scrapped.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 21 June 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh heh heh...good old Alex Shulgin.
From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 21 June 2005 09:47 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its interesting she refers to Alberta having the highest test scores, considering the education department at the U of C is the most progressive in the country, and often has various professors and dignitaries from around the world coming to classes to observe.

quote:
here's a fair bit of evidence that teacher-led instruction, high expectations and frequent tests work better than child-centred learning, especially in the early years.

-from Wente
And from the studies Ive seen, the exact opposite is true.

This is just another of Wente's half-assed lazy researched pieces. Talking about fundamentals she may want to consider some night classes to brush up her writing and researching skills. It seems her fundamentalist education failed her...


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 21 June 2005 11:22 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, as usual Wente listened to professors and scientists talking about a real problem ... poor science and math skills from students coming out of high school into universities, and managed to draw conclusions almost completely opposite from what the professors and scientists themselves are saying. Kind of like she listens for a few seconds, and then lets her mind wander onto how to fit it into her political slant.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 21 June 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:
Papal Bull,

You can try n-butyl mercaptan.


Well, "marking territory" by pissing on a tree helps the animal world, why can't it help us?

Maybe our senses are not as keen, as to marks of individuality? Then again BO, might have release the "primitive agent" of evolution?

But then again, there is this reaction, if afeared enough, that one can transgress to infantile actions? Maybe this is a defensive mechanism of the animal world, to define such fear, and let the predator know, we are present, beyond the trembling form?

Solidification, in Pet Psychological


The Alchemist in You?

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 21 June 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sulphur - S

Hot Fire of the distilling process and passion of the adept

+


"Cold Fire" signfies spirit or mind

Lore insists that they are mirror images of each other Fire in the Crucible, Page 134, by John Briggs

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca