4 ms·

There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out", something like what

There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out", something like what the book A Brief History of Everything traces out. Things like "we used isotopes with different masses to figure out this thing about phosphorous in DNA". In general, the "what" makes no sense without the history. Why were we searching for DNA in the mid 20th century? What did we already know? Retracing science as an investigation would be much more beneficial to kids than making them remember the conclusions. It's much more portable as a skill to understand the path of investigation than some facts about organelles that they aren't likely to use. But the real reason I dropped biology when the choice came (and why did it come, dear IB organisation?) is that biology is not seen as the smart kid subject, when compared to physics and chemistry. Part if this is that you can grind your way through memorizing the biochemical cycles, probably easier for most than learning calculus that you need for physics. But part of it is simply reputation, and it's not reasonable. I have a friend who is a postdoc stats guy in the biology field. There's actually a deep need for numeracy in biology, people just don't seem to know it when they're in school.

jonplackett 3y ago
I had this same experience being taught physics and maths. Just a bunch of what feel like pretty dull experiments which ends with a gold leaf moving... But the STORY of physics is fascinating. Why each experiment was done, by who, to prove what etc etc. All the sciences are like a soap opera of personalities and disagreements that make them much more interesting - and memorable - if you know the back story. That 'thin deep slice' comment really sums it up. No context, just a thing to memorise. I think physics students should be give The Fabric of the Cosmos my Brian Greene to read before they start doing any actual learning. I bet there's a biology equivalent of a book that is a 'what we know so far and what we don't understand' - if you know of one please let me know.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > All the sciences are like a soap opera of personalities and disagreements that make them much more interesting Most people don't like soap operas and would zone out due to that, you might get a different set of people interested but you wouldn't get more.
  - mikea1 3y ago
    I took gp's use of "opera" to describe an inclusive, wide range of genres that feature human relationships, like space operas. There's definitely mass appeal (think of Star Wars alone.)
    - Jensson 3y ago
      If you took star wars and removed the action and acting and it was just a bunch of philosophical arguments written in a book then not many would like it. We know since there are many such books and they aren't very popular compared to the star wars movie.
- philsnow 3y ago
  > I had this same experience being taught physics and maths. Just a bunch of what feel like pretty dull experiments which ends with a gold leaf moving... > But the STORY of physics is fascinating. There’s a college some of my kids have been considering that takes a similar approach to their math (and sciences) curricula, starting math out with Euclid and progressing through Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler (maybe Leibniz / Newton? Not sure), at each point motivating the development of astronomy and mathematics by showing how each person developed our understanding of the natural universe. In comparison, in my college math courses, which were oriented towards engineering majors, I felt at the time like concepts were coming out of nowhere without justification, with no sense of how they fit in with anything else, other than the certainty that I had to keep up or I would be lost a week later.
Etherlord87 3y ago
As a safety inspector, I find to be more successful in teaching safety when I explain why some rules are in place. If not explained explicitly, people will figure an explanation on their own, and then sometimes they will be wrong - e.g. I'm safe to enter the hazardous zone, as it's a break time so no one works above = no risk of things falling down - except some things could be poorly secured and still fall down, or there could be a radiographic testing pending, or there could be holes in the floor… Knowing the reasons for a rule also make it easier to remember the rule.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I wish more people understood your thinking. Two instructions you get at a doctor’s office before having a surgical procedure: - Wear comfortable clothes. - Don’t eat anything before surgery. The first is so you don’t have tight clothes rubbing your achy body on the ride home. The second is so that you don’t vomit up your eggs Benedict, inhale it, and die an awful death. They’re both in the same size print in the same bullet list. That stuff should be explained beforehand but I rarely hear it said that concretely. I’ve wondered if rephrasing that like: - Don’t eat anything before surgery, because it might make you die. would save lives.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > I’ve wondered if rephrasing that like: ... would save lives It would make people more scared of surgeries since the wording is stronger, fear of surgeries causes a lot of issues as well including people dying since they refuse to get a surgery.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      Fair. Maybe they could be in separate sections like “For your comfort” and “Critical safety instructions”. The broader idea is that people should know the gist of why they’re being told not to do a thing, and that it’s for their own good. In this case the instruction isn’t to avoid them puking so that a janitor doesn’t have to clean it up (along the same lines of “no black rubber soles on the gym floor”), but so it doesn’t put them in intensive care.
globular-toast 3y ago
When I crammed virology before taking a computational biology role, the "how we know" was the most fascinating part for me. I suddenly understood science and realised I'd spent 20 years of my life learning facts, called "science", but not actually understanding science at all. A great example is the Hershey-Chase experiment[0]. What I realised is science isn't about learning and memorising facts, it's a creative process of prodding the universe in just the right way to learn something about it. I realised scientists have more in common with artists than engineers and that I am definitely more of an engineer. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%E2%80%93Chase_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%E2%80%93Chase_experime...
Lutzb 3y ago
This is why history resonated so well with me back in school. Instead of just blindly learning historical facts our teachers requested us to explain what were the grounds and cause of historical events. I still use this when learning new concepts. I try to Llearn what existed before and why the change made sense.
- Jensson 3y ago
  So instead of memorizing facts you were asked to memorize someone's theories, is that really better? To me that was always much worse.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Knowing some of the potential whys and using them to try to explain the following event is a lot more than just memorizing someone else's theory, it's learning to piece together an understanding from information. Even if you don't ultimately agree with "someone else's theory" (say, the common take) you should be able to understand why others think it then add in your arguments of what you think. Any of this is better than wrote memorization.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > Any of this is better than wrote memorization. This is rote memorization. > you should be able to understand why others think it then add in your arguments of what you think This isn't what you have to do on the tests however, the tests just wants you to repeat the theory from the book, or the theory from your teacher. Many seem to just adopt others theories as their own in such scenarios so people who do that might like it, but anyone who thinks for themselves will hate that since you quickly realize this is just another "memorize this thing" situation but you have to write it as if you buy into the theory.
      - zamadatix 3y ago
        Rote memorization isn't "any time you remember a fact" it's when you solely use repeated memorization to learn something. Discussing the why's and forming an explanation with the content and other things at the time is active/meaningful/associative learning (those are 3 different types of learning from rote memorization, not an ad hoc description). I'd agree this isn't what you do on a normal test. It didn't sound like GP was arguing these points in a normal test, nor does a normal test match 95% of my APUSH experience either even though that ended in a standardized test. Sure, you can find some worst case of student and worst case of teacher where this can devolve into being no better than raw memorization. Hopefully you can at least imagine other scenarios are possible too.
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out", something like what the book A Brief History of Everything traces out. The problem is that in school there is far too little time to teach this all. There is already too little time to teach the curriculum material. Thus, if you are interested in such topics, simply go to a decent (university) library.
- giogadi 3y ago
  I think we could reduce the scope of today's curricula to accommodate this kind of teaching. If students spent a few more months understanding the how of scientific discovery instead of the what, I think it would be a worthwhile trade-off.
hydrogen7800 3y ago
>There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out" I read Asimov's Guide To Science about 10 years ago, and came to the same realization that, for most people, understanding why we know what we know is probably more important than what we know. It's better than thinking that science is a series of facts about the world, rather than a process. It treats the current state of understanding (as of the book's writing) in several subjects as a series of developments, each raising new questions and problems, which are studied further.
- thimkerbell 3y ago
  There's a limit to what a prof. can pack in, if the development of understanding needs to be covered too. And for a student focused on efficiently learning the subject matter it's a digression. As a separate class though, it'd be good, and enlightening.
petemir 3y ago
> I have a friend who is a postdoc stats guy in the biology field. There's actually a deep need for numeracy in biology, people just don't seem to know it when they're in school. I was always amazed about a past acquaintance whose PhD thesis included game theory applications, as she was studying the breeding and feeding behaviors of some random bird.

jonplackett 3y ago

I had this same experience being taught physics and maths. Just a bunch of what feel like pretty dull experiments which ends with a gold leaf moving... But the STORY of physics is fascinating. Why each experiment was done, by who, to prove what etc etc. All the sciences are like a soap opera of personalities and disagreements that make them much more interesting - and memorable - if you know the back story. That 'thin deep slice' comment really sums it up. No context, just a thing to memorise. I think physics students should be give The Fabric of the Cosmos my Brian Greene to read before they start doing any actual learning. I bet there's a biology equivalent of a book that is a 'what we know so far and what we don't understand' - if you know of one please let me know.

Jensson 3y ago
> All the sciences are like a soap opera of personalities and disagreements that make them much more interesting Most people don't like soap operas and would zone out due to that, you might get a different set of people interested but you wouldn't get more.
- mikea1 3y ago
  I took gp's use of "opera" to describe an inclusive, wide range of genres that feature human relationships, like space operas. There's definitely mass appeal (think of Star Wars alone.)
  - Jensson 3y ago
    If you took star wars and removed the action and acting and it was just a bunch of philosophical arguments written in a book then not many would like it. We know since there are many such books and they aren't very popular compared to the star wars movie.
philsnow 3y ago
> I had this same experience being taught physics and maths. Just a bunch of what feel like pretty dull experiments which ends with a gold leaf moving... > But the STORY of physics is fascinating. There’s a college some of my kids have been considering that takes a similar approach to their math (and sciences) curricula, starting math out with Euclid and progressing through Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler (maybe Leibniz / Newton? Not sure), at each point motivating the development of astronomy and mathematics by showing how each person developed our understanding of the natural universe. In comparison, in my college math courses, which were oriented towards engineering majors, I felt at the time like concepts were coming out of nowhere without justification, with no sense of how they fit in with anything else, other than the certainty that I had to keep up or I would be lost a week later.

Etherlord87 3y ago

As a safety inspector, I find to be more successful in teaching safety when I explain why some rules are in place. If not explained explicitly, people will figure an explanation on their own, and then sometimes they will be wrong - e.g. I'm safe to enter the hazardous zone, as it's a break time so no one works above = no risk of things falling down - except some things could be poorly secured and still fall down, or there could be a radiographic testing pending, or there could be holes in the floor… Knowing the reasons for a rule also make it easier to remember the rule.

kstrauser 3y ago
I wish more people understood your thinking. Two instructions you get at a doctor’s office before having a surgical procedure: - Wear comfortable clothes. - Don’t eat anything before surgery. The first is so you don’t have tight clothes rubbing your achy body on the ride home. The second is so that you don’t vomit up your eggs Benedict, inhale it, and die an awful death. They’re both in the same size print in the same bullet list. That stuff should be explained beforehand but I rarely hear it said that concretely. I’ve wondered if rephrasing that like: - Don’t eat anything before surgery, because it might make you die. would save lives.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I’ve wondered if rephrasing that like: ... would save lives It would make people more scared of surgeries since the wording is stronger, fear of surgeries causes a lot of issues as well including people dying since they refuse to get a surgery.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Fair. Maybe they could be in separate sections like “For your comfort” and “Critical safety instructions”. The broader idea is that people should know the gist of why they’re being told not to do a thing, and that it’s for their own good. In this case the instruction isn’t to avoid them puking so that a janitor doesn’t have to clean it up (along the same lines of “no black rubber soles on the gym floor”), but so it doesn’t put them in intensive care.

globular-toast 3y ago

When I crammed virology before taking a computational biology role, the "how we know" was the most fascinating part for me. I suddenly understood science and realised I'd spent 20 years of my life learning facts, called "science", but not actually understanding science at all. A great example is the Hershey-Chase experiment[0]. What I realised is science isn't about learning and memorising facts, it's a creative process of prodding the universe in just the right way to learn something about it. I realised scientists have more in common with artists than engineers and that I am definitely more of an engineer. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%E2%80%93Chase_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%E2%80%93Chase_experime...

Lutzb 3y ago

This is why history resonated so well with me back in school. Instead of just blindly learning historical facts our teachers requested us to explain what were the grounds and cause of historical events. I still use this when learning new concepts. I try to Llearn what existed before and why the change made sense.

Jensson 3y ago
So instead of memorizing facts you were asked to memorize someone's theories, is that really better? To me that was always much worse.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Knowing some of the potential whys and using them to try to explain the following event is a lot more than just memorizing someone else's theory, it's learning to piece together an understanding from information. Even if you don't ultimately agree with "someone else's theory" (say, the common take) you should be able to understand why others think it then add in your arguments of what you think. Any of this is better than wrote memorization.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Any of this is better than wrote memorization. This is rote memorization. > you should be able to understand why others think it then add in your arguments of what you think This isn't what you have to do on the tests however, the tests just wants you to repeat the theory from the book, or the theory from your teacher. Many seem to just adopt others theories as their own in such scenarios so people who do that might like it, but anyone who thinks for themselves will hate that since you quickly realize this is just another "memorize this thing" situation but you have to write it as if you buy into the theory.
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      Rote memorization isn't "any time you remember a fact" it's when you solely use repeated memorization to learn something. Discussing the why's and forming an explanation with the content and other things at the time is active/meaningful/associative learning (those are 3 different types of learning from rote memorization, not an ad hoc description). I'd agree this isn't what you do on a normal test. It didn't sound like GP was arguing these points in a normal test, nor does a normal test match 95% of my APUSH experience either even though that ended in a standardized test. Sure, you can find some worst case of student and worst case of teacher where this can devolve into being no better than raw memorization. Hopefully you can at least imagine other scenarios are possible too.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out", something like what the book A Brief History of Everything traces out. The problem is that in school there is far too little time to teach this all. There is already too little time to teach the curriculum material. Thus, if you are interested in such topics, simply go to a decent (university) library.

giogadi 3y ago
I think we could reduce the scope of today's curricula to accommodate this kind of teaching. If students spent a few more months understanding the how of scientific discovery instead of the what, I think it would be a worthwhile trade-off.

hydrogen7800 3y ago

>There's too much focus on the "what we know" like Kreb's cycle, which is easily examinable. The focus should actually be "how we found out" I read Asimov's Guide To Science about 10 years ago, and came to the same realization that, for most people, understanding why we know what we know is probably more important than what we know. It's better than thinking that science is a series of facts about the world, rather than a process. It treats the current state of understanding (as of the book's writing) in several subjects as a series of developments, each raising new questions and problems, which are studied further.

thimkerbell 3y ago
There's a limit to what a prof. can pack in, if the development of understanding needs to be covered too. And for a student focused on efficiently learning the subject matter it's a digression. As a separate class though, it'd be good, and enlightening.

petemir 3y ago

> I have a friend who is a postdoc stats guy in the biology field. There's actually a deep need for numeracy in biology, people just don't seem to know it when they're in school. I was always amazed about a past acquaintance whose PhD thesis included game theory applications, as she was studying the breeding and feeding behaviors of some random bird.