5 ms·

OT, but... While working on One Laptop Per Child, there seemed potential to disrupt science education content. Science researchers who normally wouldn't priorit

OT, but... While working on One Laptop Per Child, there seemed potential to disrupt science education content. Science researchers who normally wouldn't prioritize contributing to education content, were being drawn in by the possibility of rapidly reaching millions instead of thousands of students. The "build it and they will come" of a massive new and empty app "store". Plus the context of non-commercial "change the world" Open Education Resources. So that didn't happen. And more recently, maybe if VR/AR had taken off more sharply, there might have been a similar effect. But no. So here in the future... I don't know how to quickly convey just what wretched dreck, err, how wonderfully better content could be. How about this: Kindergarten through undergrad, students are told the Sun is yellow, in textbooks and outreach. Then an infinitesimal few finally get an "oops, sorry, nope, our bad" from a graduate class on common misconceptions in astronomy education. Incoherent dreck, err, opportunity for wonderful improvement, doesn't begin to describe current content. So my question is, does anyone know of vaguely similar potential for disruptive improvement in the quality of science education content? Instructor performance art focuses on specific students, and limited outcome goals, under severe resource constraints. Science education research focuses on isolated deployable improvements. But "big interdisciplinary creative mashup of improvements, catalyzed by massive collaboration of research expertise"... isn't a thing, isn't something we're set up for, or incentivized to do. But it's what I'm interested in. So, any thoughts?

StavrosK 5y ago
Not exactly relevant to your post, but I'm dismayed by the number of people who refuse to believe that water is blue. I don't mind that nobody knows that, it's an obscure fact, but the fact that they refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena (like the color of the sea) makes me sad.
- mncharity 5y ago
  Nod. Color is often taught starting in preK, and yet even first-tier physical-sciences graduate students, asked "What color is the Sun?", often answer with something like "it doesn't have a color" or "it's rainbow color", suggesting wide-spread deep misunderstanding of color. It seems teaching of color isn't going well. So what might better look like? Phones/tablets are used preK on. Phones with multiple front cameras could permit a clip-on spectrometer to provide a simultaneous normal view for orientation, making it more accessible. UV and thermal IR cameras are increasingly inexpensive. Light engines for spectra synthesis regrettably seem less readily available? So what might a Kish-accessible spectrometer app look like? What might a spectra-centered preK-2 learning progression for color look like? It seems at least vaguely plausible that color might thus be taught successfully. Imagine that were true, and gave you early-primary students with a firm grasp of color. How might that then be used, to teach other topics better? UV protection; warm clothes and insulation; Earth's thermal-management BBQ roll, cold clear nights and mountains and deserts, greenhouse gasses; ... ? > refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena Integrated explanation of everyday phenomena does not seem a focus of current education. So perhaps refusal might reflect a lack of familiarity and comfort with such reasoning?
- astrange 5y ago
  Can't you know that by looking at a swimming pool? Don't think I've seen someone actively refuse to believe this.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    You'd definitely think so!
    - mncharity 5y ago
      Googling for questions and associated discussion, is one way to look for common conceptions. So I googled "what color is water"[1], and the top snippet of "Is water green or blue?" was this gem[2]: "Water isn't inherently blue; our eyes and brains interpret water as being blue because water molecules absorb reds, greens, oranges, and yellows—thus leaving only shorter-wavelength blues and violets unabsorbed to reflect back for our eyes to see." Lol. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water [2] http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-colors-in-different-places http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-co...
      - StavrosK 5y ago
        Ahh, so water isn't inherently blue, our eyes and brains interpret it as blue because it's blue. Looking for misconceptions is a great strategy, thanks!
      - astrange 5y ago
        Maybe it's like bluebirds, which are popularly scientifically said to not actually be blue because the way they're blue comes from a refraction effect. https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue-birds-are-not-blue/ https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue... (They are blue. Looking blue in white light is the same thing as being blue.)
        mncharity 5y ago

StavrosK 5y ago

Not exactly relevant to your post, but I'm dismayed by the number of people who refuse to believe that water is blue. I don't mind that nobody knows that, it's an obscure fact, but the fact that they refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena (like the color of the sea) makes me sad.

mncharity 5y ago
Nod. Color is often taught starting in preK, and yet even first-tier physical-sciences graduate students, asked "What color is the Sun?", often answer with something like "it doesn't have a color" or "it's rainbow color", suggesting wide-spread deep misunderstanding of color. It seems teaching of color isn't going well. So what might better look like? Phones/tablets are used preK on. Phones with multiple front cameras could permit a clip-on spectrometer to provide a simultaneous normal view for orientation, making it more accessible. UV and thermal IR cameras are increasingly inexpensive. Light engines for spectra synthesis regrettably seem less readily available? So what might a Kish-accessible spectrometer app look like? What might a spectra-centered preK-2 learning progression for color look like? It seems at least vaguely plausible that color might thus be taught successfully. Imagine that were true, and gave you early-primary students with a firm grasp of color. How might that then be used, to teach other topics better? UV protection; warm clothes and insulation; Earth's thermal-management BBQ roll, cold clear nights and mountains and deserts, greenhouse gasses; ... ? > refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena Integrated explanation of everyday phenomena does not seem a focus of current education. So perhaps refusal might reflect a lack of familiarity and comfort with such reasoning?
astrange 5y ago
Can't you know that by looking at a swimming pool? Don't think I've seen someone actively refuse to believe this.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  You'd definitely think so!
  - mncharity 5y ago
    Googling for questions and associated discussion, is one way to look for common conceptions. So I googled "what color is water"[1], and the top snippet of "Is water green or blue?" was this gem[2]: "Water isn't inherently blue; our eyes and brains interpret water as being blue because water molecules absorb reds, greens, oranges, and yellows—thus leaving only shorter-wavelength blues and violets unabsorbed to reflect back for our eyes to see." Lol. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water [2] http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-colors-in-different-places http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-co...
    - StavrosK 5y ago
      Ahh, so water isn't inherently blue, our eyes and brains interpret it as blue because it's blue. Looking for misconceptions is a great strategy, thanks!
    - astrange 5y ago
      Maybe it's like bluebirds, which are popularly scientifically said to not actually be blue because the way they're blue comes from a refraction effect. https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue-birds-are-not-blue/ https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue... (They are blue. Looking blue in white light is the same thing as being blue.)
      - mncharity 5y ago