Science class: MIA

notebook2.jpg“Kids these days!”

It’s one of the oldest, most constant complaints: kids today are ruder, lazier, dumber, etc., than they were at some indeterminate point in the past—usually coinciding with when the complainer was a child. But what if it’s not the kids’ fault? What if they simply aren’t getting the opportunity to learn the basic concepts and skills that previous generations took for granted? For science skills, this might be the case.

A spring 2007 study by UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science and WestEd looked at science education in Bay Area elementary schools. Researchers found that science has been squeezed out of elementary school curriculums to the point that 80% of surveyed teachers reported teaching less than an hour of science each week—and a fifth of those say they don’t spend any time teaching science.

Teachers reported that, in addition to not having much classroom time for science, they don’t feel as prepared to teach science as other subjects, and what’s more they don’t have opportunities for professional development if they do want to improve their science skills.

Here are kids presenting the study’s findings:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/GqZUjR-Ex34" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Those statistics make me, who grew up with science fairs and frog dissections, exclaim, “Schools these days!”

But what if it’s not entirely the schools’ fault, either? School district representatives who were interviewed said that since the No Child Left Behind act took effect, less and less time goes toward science education. This is because all the schools’ energy is focused on meeting NCLB’s testing requirements, which concentrate on basic reading and math.

Where does that leave me in my litany of complaints?

“Education policy these days!!”

Source: “Science courses nearly extinct in elementary grades, study finds,” by Nanette Asimov.

The full LHS report is here.

Photo credit: Notebook photo by Flickr user Bas.K

Gerbils! (gerbils, gerbils)… In! (in, in)… SPAAAACE!

gerbil.jpgI have nothing useful to say about this, except that I really hope Russia posts videos of its ten Space Gerbils on YouTube…

Google Earth… and Sky!

stars.jpgFor everyone who has spent hours zipping around the globe with Google Earth, you can now cruise through space as well with the new Google Sky feature.

You’ll find their promo video below, with astronaut Sally Ride.

My only question is, why are cheesy videos still cheesy in the same way they were 30 years ago? Can’t we make some advancements in that area? ; )

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/SbiQBeDPT5U" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Sputnik, panic, and sciencenik

redswin.jpgOctober 4th, 2007, will mark the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Sputnik 1, the first man-made object to orbit the Earth. A new documentary, The Fever of ‘57, examines, through archival footage and interviews, the impact that Russia’s success in launching the first satellite had on American consciousness and science. The space race, NASA, increased funding for scientific research and education, and the brief phenomenon of boys’ rocket clubs were all results of the U.S. reaction to Sputnik.

The film hasn’t been picked up for distribution yet, but it’s been playing at festivals and the trailer is available online:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/Fdw4dWy3Dk8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

While I knew what Sputnik was, I hadn’t realized how devastating it was to Americans’ sense of national pride and of security—the film compares it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I’d be interested to hear readers’ recollections of the launch and of the period that followed.

Aliens, culture, and scientific fact

Man and His Culture 1 Ever wondered how alien visitors would describe human life on Earth? Well, if you were asking in 1954, Encyclopaedia Britannica Films had an answer for you. “Man and His Culture” observes—from the perspective of “explorers from Outer Space”—that human beings are organized into cultures, which vary in their languages, religions, how they meet basic needs, etc.

It’s a long film, almost fifteen minutes total, so let’s just skip to the fun bits. (You can view the video on this page, but it might not display elapsed time. Archive.org’s page, here, will.)

Download link 

Man and His Culture 2 We learn about social mores starting at 5:07: “In the country which its inhabitants call United States,” don’t steal cars, do wear the right tie to a dinner party, don’t come home with another woman’s hair on your jacket, and do wear pants when walking down the street. At 8:20, we hear what cultural values are non-negotiable: women can pursue their own careers “without serious repercussions,” but having children out of wedlock is not an option.

How do cultures change? The “primitive native” adopts “the advanced culture’s tools” (9:40) and then everyone trades shoes (10:04). There is also cultural resistance to change, a.k.a. your grandmother (11:53).

In conclusion (at 13:48), there are “tiny culture groups” in Africa and a “huge, civilized culture” that occupies pretty much everywhere else. All cultures, however, serve their people by showing them how to be happy by conforming (14:15).

Man and His Culture 3 Now, this film appeals to me because of its camp value—the humor in how it dates itself and the horror of some of its “science.” However, the question that most interests me isn’t “How far have we come?”—it’s “How far haven’t we come?” How will today’s scientific “truths” sound to people fifty years from now? Will our “facts” seem as faulty, our assumptions as dubious, our terminology as offensive? If we can step back—maybe not as far back as an alien spaceship, but outside of our normal paradigm—and examine our basic assumptions about science and our world, what might we learn?


My Topics

Meta