4 ms·

A kindergarten science education person suggested their kids have a human right to understand their world then, rather than a lifetime (for them) later. So atom

A kindergarten science education person suggested their kids have a human right to understand their world then, rather than a lifetime (for them) later. So atoms, etc. I think that far far harder than they thought - "adapt later material for a younger audience" vs "wield lots and lots of research community domain expertise to craft largely novel content". But I've found it an interesting probe question: How would you teach some domain differently, if you primarily cared about... what to call it... non-deferred epistemic agency and calibrated/unfiltered sense-making? No learning linear systems without learning how to do linear approximation of systems in a mostly non-linear world. Ideal Gas Law chapter questions still have numbers for solid argon, but the intended learning outcome is "nope!" not mindless "PV=nRT!". No "this course will leave you with lots of new misconceptions about the world, but we'll clean those up in later years for those who stay with us".

jjmarr 2mo ago
> No learning linear systems without learning how to do linear approximation of systems in a mostly non-linear world. That's why Common Core trains kids on estimation from Grade 2. Instead of adding 12 + 23 = 35, you add 10 + 20 = 30 to get a number close to the right answer. This plants the idea "I can simplified numbers to get the answer if I don't need the last digit, which lets me solve problems faster". Which gets generalized as "I can use the simplified Ideal Gas Law to model a complex system if I don't own a supercomputer". Even in university I had this: my physics course heavily emphasized properties of linear systems to demonstrate why I'd want to use one and we ran linear regressions in other courses if we didn't "know" the true equations.
- wizzwizz4 2mo ago
  It annoys me, though, that there's a prescribed method of estimation, which is hard to remember. I always used to get the "wrong" answer because I picked easier-to-add approximations, even though my estimates were generally both faster and closer. (To use your example, I'd have estimated 35 or 36: the sum of two small numbers, like 2 and 3, is normally about 5; and this sum is a little bit less than (1 + 2)×12 = 3×12.)
  - mncharity 2mo ago
    Yes, teaching and assessment of estimation can get quite dreadful. Wish I'd saved a video I saw years ago, intended as an exemplar of best practices in early primary, where it was clear neither teacher nor students had a clue, all the effort was around attempted signalling of the expected but misguided answers, and everyone was collaborating to pretend that understanding had occurred. Recording a class can be hard, but it was wild.
- mncharity 2mo ago
  Nod. A random TIL from Friday, courtesy to qwen.ai: In contrast to USA educational estimation, which emphasizes point estimates, China reportedly emphasizes directional estimation to establish an envelope, upper and lower (strict) bounds - Da Gu and Xiao Gu. I've long though we'd be better off doing incremental bounding, hard and soft, in part because the group discourse dynamics are so much better. "Ok, who can suggest another bound, upper or lower, hard or soft?" vs "Your step 2 is too big. Well, your step 4 is too small!". Which raises a question - might this diversity be leveraged? Science education content improvement is often bottlenecked on regional conditions. As when a high-stakes exam doesn't cover topic X, so there's regionally less interest/opportunity to explore better teaching of X, or using X to better teach other things. This especially bites when you wish to explore mashups, X+Y+Z with each taught well, but they're every one both in poor shape and bottlenecked. Both countries largely fail to create a physical intuition, a feel for reasonable values - in the US because it's a secondary priority, and in China reportedly because estimation has become nationally high stakes, so memorization gets emphasized over feel. Can we leverage that regional difference? For a strawman, might one develop content with improved bounding facilitating a rough quantitative feel for reasonable values, in China where it's sort of aligned with the flow, even if off to the side, rather than in the US, where the aligned energy is much less. And then, having developed that content in China, bring it back to the US, where again off to the side, there's perhaps the flexibility and inquiry perspective for the material to appeal in its developed form? And WeChat Groups seem potentially a way to get heterogenous ad hoc communities around content development, for which I don't know a US equivalent. For analogy, I'm told the US advanced placement exam for French, is both hard, and narrowly focused on a style of conversational French. So people teach to the test, and all else that is "French", is deemphasized. But let's say you have a VR app which develops both that conversational, but also cultural and business and travel. You might develop it the US, leveraging the conversational incentive. And release elsewhere, where there's interest and room for the other bits, even if there wasn't sufficient incentive elsewhere to build the app in the first place. Maybe?
  - wizzwizz4 2mo ago
    This kind of market shopping is common in grant-funded domains. There's a project that you know is a good, but nobody wants to pay for it… but grant body X will pay for component A, which can be slightly modified into component A' which grant body Y will be enthused by, and fund components B, C and D; and component C isn't very useful, but you can make sure to develop a generic architecture that makes implementing component E easy, and now you have a basic BEAD product… A little more effort than VC-funded work, but there are fewer strings attached.
yuye 2mo ago
I always bring up the example of how the atomic nucleus is taught: Elementary school: Stuff is actually made out of tiny little balls you can't see. Middle school: Those tiny little balls are actually atoms, they consist of a positively charged core of protons/neutrons with negatively charged electrons flying around it. An atom is the smallest thing matter is made of. (Rutherford model) High school: Those electrons don't just fly around, they actually orbit within specific energy levels. Also they're not really particles, but waves, but also particles, all at the same time. Also subatomic particles exist. (Bohr model) University: "Electron orbits" are actually orbitals defined by the wavefunction of those electrons, like probability distributions. (Quantum Mechanics)
- mncharity 2mo ago
  Fwiw, just to share old work, here's[1] an archived page (slowly loading; wasn't intended to be public; variously broken) exploring sort of a "teach scale down to atoms, and then nucleons up to materials" approach, based on hands-on scale modeling, physically realistic representations, and real-world connections. Vision was one would start early with piles of tiny sticky atom fuzzballs, containing massive blurred sometimes-oddly-shaped (eg, ground-state Neon's wine-bottle) nuclei. Nuclear dynamics are traditionally not much covered, but have analogs for atomic phenomenon which are, hypothetically providing an opportunity for "see it again, but different". [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/http://www.clarif...

jjmarr 2mo ago

> No learning linear systems without learning how to do linear approximation of systems in a mostly non-linear world. That's why Common Core trains kids on estimation from Grade 2. Instead of adding 12 + 23 = 35, you add 10 + 20 = 30 to get a number close to the right answer. This plants the idea "I can simplified numbers to get the answer if I don't need the last digit, which lets me solve problems faster". Which gets generalized as "I can use the simplified Ideal Gas Law to model a complex system if I don't own a supercomputer". Even in university I had this: my physics course heavily emphasized properties of linear systems to demonstrate why I'd want to use one and we ran linear regressions in other courses if we didn't "know" the true equations.

wizzwizz4 2mo ago
It annoys me, though, that there's a prescribed method of estimation, which is hard to remember. I always used to get the "wrong" answer because I picked easier-to-add approximations, even though my estimates were generally both faster and closer. (To use your example, I'd have estimated 35 or 36: the sum of two small numbers, like 2 and 3, is normally about 5; and this sum is a little bit less than (1 + 2)×12 = 3×12.)
- mncharity 2mo ago
  Yes, teaching and assessment of estimation can get quite dreadful. Wish I'd saved a video I saw years ago, intended as an exemplar of best practices in early primary, where it was clear neither teacher nor students had a clue, all the effort was around attempted signalling of the expected but misguided answers, and everyone was collaborating to pretend that understanding had occurred. Recording a class can be hard, but it was wild.
mncharity 2mo ago
Nod. A random TIL from Friday, courtesy to qwen.ai: In contrast to USA educational estimation, which emphasizes point estimates, China reportedly emphasizes directional estimation to establish an envelope, upper and lower (strict) bounds - Da Gu and Xiao Gu. I've long though we'd be better off doing incremental bounding, hard and soft, in part because the group discourse dynamics are so much better. "Ok, who can suggest another bound, upper or lower, hard or soft?" vs "Your step 2 is too big. Well, your step 4 is too small!". Which raises a question - might this diversity be leveraged? Science education content improvement is often bottlenecked on regional conditions. As when a high-stakes exam doesn't cover topic X, so there's regionally less interest/opportunity to explore better teaching of X, or using X to better teach other things. This especially bites when you wish to explore mashups, X+Y+Z with each taught well, but they're every one both in poor shape and bottlenecked. Both countries largely fail to create a physical intuition, a feel for reasonable values - in the US because it's a secondary priority, and in China reportedly because estimation has become nationally high stakes, so memorization gets emphasized over feel. Can we leverage that regional difference? For a strawman, might one develop content with improved bounding facilitating a rough quantitative feel for reasonable values, in China where it's sort of aligned with the flow, even if off to the side, rather than in the US, where the aligned energy is much less. And then, having developed that content in China, bring it back to the US, where again off to the side, there's perhaps the flexibility and inquiry perspective for the material to appeal in its developed form? And WeChat Groups seem potentially a way to get heterogenous ad hoc communities around content development, for which I don't know a US equivalent. For analogy, I'm told the US advanced placement exam for French, is both hard, and narrowly focused on a style of conversational French. So people teach to the test, and all else that is "French", is deemphasized. But let's say you have a VR app which develops both that conversational, but also cultural and business and travel. You might develop it the US, leveraging the conversational incentive. And release elsewhere, where there's interest and room for the other bits, even if there wasn't sufficient incentive elsewhere to build the app in the first place. Maybe?
- wizzwizz4 2mo ago
  This kind of market shopping is common in grant-funded domains. There's a project that you know is a good, but nobody wants to pay for it… but grant body X will pay for component A, which can be slightly modified into component A' which grant body Y will be enthused by, and fund components B, C and D; and component C isn't very useful, but you can make sure to develop a generic architecture that makes implementing component E easy, and now you have a basic BEAD product… A little more effort than VC-funded work, but there are fewer strings attached.

yuye 2mo ago

I always bring up the example of how the atomic nucleus is taught: Elementary school: Stuff is actually made out of tiny little balls you can't see. Middle school: Those tiny little balls are actually atoms, they consist of a positively charged core of protons/neutrons with negatively charged electrons flying around it. An atom is the smallest thing matter is made of. (Rutherford model) High school: Those electrons don't just fly around, they actually orbit within specific energy levels. Also they're not really particles, but waves, but also particles, all at the same time. Also subatomic particles exist. (Bohr model) University: "Electron orbits" are actually orbitals defined by the wavefunction of those electrons, like probability distributions. (Quantum Mechanics)

mncharity 2mo ago
Fwiw, just to share old work, here's[1] an archived page (slowly loading; wasn't intended to be public; variously broken) exploring sort of a "teach scale down to atoms, and then nucleons up to materials" approach, based on hands-on scale modeling, physically realistic representations, and real-world connections. Vision was one would start early with piles of tiny sticky atom fuzzballs, containing massive blurred sometimes-oddly-shaped (eg, ground-state Neon's wine-bottle) nuclei. Nuclear dynamics are traditionally not much covered, but have analogs for atomic phenomenon which are, hypothetically providing an opportunity for "see it again, but different". [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/http://www.clarif...