rho_ said...
Physics... the queen of science can be deconstructed quite easily. ...
Ah, "deconstruct", that made-up buzzword of the so-called "postmodern" movement. Rich's usage of it may or may not betray anything new about his point of view; I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And I won't bother to critque postmodernism here. But if anyone is interested in learning more, this article (by an engineer, no less) provides some humorous insight.
Actually, at the time I hadn't read anything about Newton. At that age, narcissism is part of the mix. So, when a teacher
professes things like this, the effect is felt personally and the reaction is highly personal. And in my case, my religion was very important to me, so I found it most comfortable simply to ignore the teacher and read the book.
I see the same thing happen in children in all kinds of learning contexts having nothing to do God or science.
If we are failing... we need to consider some of the reasons why... and not just blame the kids and/or teachers.
If we are failing... we need to consider some of the reasons why... and not just blame the kids and/or teachers.
Rich
Interesting and thoughtful phrase:·If we are failing.
Certainly we are failing to educate the masses.· Is that failure?· Perhaps not.
Perhaps 1% or maybe even 5% of people become truly literate.· That was as true in Jefferson's day, or Chaucer's for that matter.· It's a little better in fora like this one, where the fraction may be as high as 20%.
But I think·that our real failure is in trying to make silk purses out of the sows' ears that constitute the remainder.
Perhaps I am unduly pessimistic, though.· Some cultures -- I started to write "many cultures", but that's not so -- some cultures do better, at least as regards basic literacy.· I think at least half of·Japanese adults could, in their native tongue, state a question succinctly in a subject line; here, that's rare.· Here, if someone wants to ask how to interface a veeblefetzer bender to a Stamp, the subject line will be "Veeble Bender", or perhaps just "Bender", which leads one to think the guy is celebrating a drunken spree.· Perhaps he is.
Perhaps we, too, with different practices, could teach half our kids to express their thoughts.· You reckon?
Carl hayes said...
Certainly we are failing to educate the masses. Is that failure? Perhaps not.
It's very definitely a failure if we expect to have a thriving democracy. One has to remember that even the uneducated can and do vote. And a poorly-educated electorate — especially one without a grasp of history — is a recipe for disaster.
rho_ said...
Physics... the queen of science can be deconstructed quite easily. ...
Ah, "deconstruct", that made-up buzzword of the so-called "postmodern" movement. Rich's usage of it may or may not betray anything new about his point of view; I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And I won't bother to critque postmodernism here. But if anyone is interested in learning more, this article (by an engineer, no less) provides some humorous insight.
-Phil
If you're into humor about postmodernism, google "Sokal Hoax". The morning that he exposed that hoax was one of the days that made me most pleased to be an academic. It was a little after that, IIRC, that Gross and Levitt published "Higher Superstition", popping the bubble of most of the related pseudo-academic nonsense.
Of course there are still people who talk that way running around pretending that they won the "science wars", but they're like that knight in "The Holy Grail" - the one who keeps shouting that he's winning even after his arms and legs are cut off.
Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) said...
And a poorly-educated electorate — especially one without a grasp of history — is a recipe for disaster.
And in fact democracy does not even work in theory if the voters reject science. Democracy without acceptance of science, with its emphasis on publicly available evidence is nothing but majority rule. Majority rule is merely the feeble "black sheep" distant cousin of democracy.
Post Edited (sylvie369) : 2/9/2009 10:20:06 PM GMT
So teach people.In a class room there are many different kinds of people who are skilled in different areas.The teachers ability to connect with every student is a gift.Programming,electronics,and the English language are some of the most difficult things to learn.
The biggest challenge I see in regards to motivating students has to do with situations that some of their parents have been facing in the global economy . When students see their parents, some of whom have advanced degrees in science and technology from prestigious schools, losing their jobs after years of hard work... well...
This thread reminds me of how much I miss Carl Hayes' pithy commentary. Where is Carl, BTW? 'Haven't seen him on the forum in a long time. I hope he's okay.
This thread reminds me of how much I miss Carl Hayes' pithy commentary. Where is Carl, BTW? 'Haven't seen him on the forum in a long time. I hope he's okay.
In reading the entire thread, with it's many, well thought out replies, I noticed several contributors have missed the oblivious and most import aspect of communication: To Clearly and accurately, in which ever language as needed, to convey a thought or thoughts, each of which stands on it's own merit as being a complete thought, so another person can readily extract and understand the conveyed thought through it's conclusion.
Each and every person whom took the time to articulate their thoughts did so in a mannerism conductive to further the subject matter; including the contributors who's native language may impose difficulties in expressing their thoughts. How can one have a conversation with another person if there is a language barrier to overcome? One can. There is more then one level of communication. My son, at age 5 could tell me he didn't feel well. The same as my now 24 year old daughter, however, the words each used, and the level of useful information each provided is vastly different. In the one example, my son and I would have an exchange of nearly 1/2 hour, and the example with my daughter would be a few minutes. I believe there is, to an extent, a quality of communication that is below perfect, we are all willing to accept.
Can a person preform a given task they have been trained in without the ability to communicate in terms and expressions above that most educators believe to be "street" or "slang". The answer here is an astounding yes.
Now, it the above paragraphs I have deliberately used the wrong word, tense or a non standard meaning of a word, to express my feelings. Does this subtract from the meanings? Even though I used big words, properly formulated paragraphs and sentences, the misplaced tense's and words only show I haven't mastered the English language. As a number of previous posts pointed out; this doesn't subtract or diminish the intention of the statement.
However, what my mistakes could lead to is miss communication; a thought not clear enough to the intended reader leading to unneeded clarifications. Had the original communication been clear, additional communications would not be needed to clarify the original.
Io the issue of education: I believe each and every student should have two "practical application" years of class. For example, for a student to go into the 8th grade, they must have and pass a class (a full school year) during their 7th year, where the only subject is applying what was learned in previous years. In reality this would be all subjects, just preformed as working applications of the subjects already studied, within a social context. The same would apply at grade 12. This would add costs to the primary education program, however, on exiting the program, the student would have social skills that can't be taught from a book and only learned from experience.
EDIT: Just a point here: While writing technical documents, MS Word's grammar checker green lines various lines for word usage, and yet, that is typed is correct for the what is being expressed?
... Looking around at my fellow students, I find that they tend to do the minimum possible, and never try to build anything of their own. ... I think that they have been cheated, and that it takes a special set of circumstances to work around the deficiencies of schooling and to learn how to engineer. ...
My apologies for rambling here...
I'm all in favor of doing whatever it takes to stimulate interest and provide experience in science and technology. But - what's the old saying? - something about wild horses dragging people to water from which they won't drink?
In any case, I don't expect the average person to get excited about math and science. I don't expect the average engineer to learn how to draw or paint or play the cello or write great prose. Or get bowled over by poetry. And I don't expect the average person to be creative or much of anything other than, as Da vinci put it, "a mere passage for food." Even among engineers and scientists, you have "cookbook" types that just follow rules they've learned and then off-the-wall creative types that pull rabbits out of their hats, solve problems, but get fired anyway because they're just not fitting in or kissing the boss's butt with the proper flourish. So there's no way an education system can be one size fits all when society itself is not structured that way.
Still, I hope for the best. I like to think we're all capable of sudden, unexpected quantum leaps in consciousness. In fact, looking around, I tend to think that is what the human mind is - a quantum leap of some sort - something that just sprang up high above our animal cousins. That's a mysterious phenomenon in my opinion, so I hope that, as a society, we run with that phenomenon, nurture whatever that mystery is, and avoid decaying back down into the grunty brutal world of our cave-dwelling ancestors and simian relatives. So, hoping for the best, I think we need to stimulate intellectual and creative activities of all sorts but also recognize we can't all be specialists - mathematicians, engineers, artists, etc. At least for grades K-12 I think it's best to lay down a firm foundation. Then let kids sort out their interests, etc. in college, and later in life. However, during those K-12 years, I hope that extracurricular activities can nurture those with special interests and talents. Politically, however, there are big portions of the society that think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of that attitude comes from vague fears and superstitions that some people have toward science in general. Also, some of that attitude springs from members of society who insist that they "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps so why should I have to pay for someone else's brat" - in effect taking for granted the massive infrastructure that makes their worldly success possible - an educated work force, libraries, highways, a relatively safe and peaceful society in which to do business, etc. Those things are not free. They never were free. But I think people decades ago were much more aware of that fact. Too many people today are taking for granted the basic foundations that make our lives possible. But the bottom line is: we all get what we pay for. If we don't invest in the future, we ain't gonna have one. At least not the kind we'd like to have.
And one last rambling thought - I tell kids this: you might lose your job, you might lose your girlfriend, you might lose your hair, your hearing, your bank accounts. You might lose your house. You might lose your car. You might lose your liquor from an old fruit jar. But, unless you lose your mind, you will always have your education.
I think the same can be said about a society. Though it be wrecked to pieces. Though it be heartlessly left in heaps of rubble, the minds that survive can always rebuild. There's always light at the end of the tunnel so long as there are people with a few bright ideas.
In 1968 I was pushed to US by “evil empire” tanks. Prospect of living my daily life among them did not appeal to me.
After discovering that Americans buy ice cream by a gallon and beer comes in aluminum cans I also learned that vast majority of Americans do not appreciate any criticism of their perfect system
Remember the popular slogans "if you do not like it here go back where you came from "?
Anyway, here is my insignificant contribution to this discussion.
While I was in high school the only decoration in the classroom were portraits of J. Stalin and K.Gottwald There was no flag to pledge to, no prayer to recite...
The teacher appeared promptly on the hour and you better be sitting in your seat then.
Next few minutes were spent by calling on someone to go to the blackboard ( for real!) and be questioned on last lessons(s). Talking about “hands on”, no multiple choices! There were no anger management, no “ How do you feel today” etc...
American classrooms are cluttered from floor to the ceiling with everything imaginable - “crafts”. alphabet posters ,multiplication tables, dinosaures, dolphins etc.....
.
And we are wondering why there is so much “attention deficit” infected kids around!.
As long as the primary goal of educators is to make you feel good we will never have an ambitious engineering candidates to restore “Made in USA” label to it past glory.
From my life long engineering experience I believe that Murphy was right.
Engineering professions are not for “feel good”sissies.
As someone's who's career lies rather heavily on STEM Education, I figured I'd add my two cents.
I think ElectricAye makes a good point. Some students just won't be interested in math & science. And that's OK, but I think a greater effort needs to be made on the part of schools to accommodate those who are.
I graduated from high school in 2004, which I think is recent enough to give a somewhat valid opinion. As I've stated before, I was heavily involved in drama. While I was very good when it came to math and science, I wasn't really offered any outlet to explore those talents. I stopped taking science classes after my junior year having exceeded my requirement for graduation, and while our school did offer a Trisics program (trignometry + physics) which offered some engineering applications, I didn't take it due to rumors of how terrible the Physics teacher was, and how taking the class almost guaranteed a C (and I certainly did not want to taint my GPA, but I suppose that's an entirely different problem). Apparently my high school also had a robotics club, but I didn't find out about it until my senior year.
Hopefully things are a bit different now, but had I been introduced to engineering concepts/clubs earlier on, maybe I would have gotten into the electronics business before my sophomore year in college. Heck, had it not been for my aunt pushing me to pursue a technical field, I may have not gotten here at all. I think more advertising goes into Drama Club, band, chorus, sports and student government than it does for technical clubs.
Here at Parallax, I have the opportunity to visit schools in addition to volunteering with events through the Society of Women Engineers. When I visit schools that use Parallax products, I would say almost 85% of the class is excited by the material. Conversely, when I attend outreach events with SWE, I talk to a large number of students who don't want to pursue a technical field because it's 'too boring', or they honestly believe they can't do it.
I don't think there's enough of a connection for students between math & science classes and actual practical applications. Students are introduced to a concept, then do a lab following carefully laid out instructions. Let's face it, that's pretty boring. Think how much cooler it would be in a physics lab that instead of watching a car roll down a ramp, you programmed a robot and calculated it's velocity!
Anyway, that's just my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. Make math & science more fun, and the students may come.
... Some students just won't be interested in math & science. And that's OK, but I think a greater effort needs to be made on the part of schools to accommodate those who are....Make math & science more fun, and the students may come.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, in this regard the biggest practical problem is competing with the likes of video games and Mythbusters, expecting everything science-related to result in an explosion or a stunning vehicular crash of some sort, etc. There is one non-destructive venue I've found that might be worth exploring, though: kids seem to like to channel water. My experience is merely anecdotal, but I sometimes wonder if schools could build giant mud boxes with running water where kids can make dams, bridges, get muddy, and measure water flow, water levels, etc. Besides blowing up things, mucking around with that sort of thing seems to keep their interest.
Engineering professions are not for “feel good” sissies.
Good point. Rumor has it Jessica eats rusty nails for breakfast and crawls under barbed wire every morning to get to her desk. My son tattooed Maxwell's equations to his chest with a bottle of ink and a bowie knife. I myself sleep on broken glass until the solution to a tough problem screws into focus. Engineering is a dirty business but somebody's got to do it.
Disagree with you here. To borrow from Forrest Gump - stupid is what stupid does.
The other :problem" is that even the students/ adults who choose, and pay for dearly, "technical" educational ( for profit) institution are treated with emphasis on an attendance and with 10 to 15 years old "technology".
For instance - how many clases are there on how to build breadboard or design circuit board?
My most " favorite": - what is a pull - up / pull- dovn resitor for? But that is getting off the subject too far.
I would like to end up on positive side - but I think the brite spot at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train!
Just found this post, I'm starting in on this direction. I notice the entire first page went off on the direction of "proper English", and the basics, reading, writing, arithmetic; and how our culture is being destroyed by TV and video games.
Peter's post, and the acknowledgement that "not all kids will be interested" indicate (to me) that the "traditional" views and approaches maybe "trying to stop the sunrise" rather than addressing the current set of circumstances.
I am considering alternatives to the current policy of "No child left behind/No child moves forward". Something alone the lines of "Specifically appropriate to this child, or group of children; or this class of participant".
Many of these posts are complaining about "how bad it is" rather than examining "what we can try next".
The best suggestion so far (although a bit too general to apply) is "Make it more FUN". Any more thoughts on "What we can try next"?
I am considering alternatives to the current policy.... Something alone the lines of "Specifically appropriate to this child, or group of children; or this class of participant".
Sure. I'm working towards teaching STEM stuff to my kids, but they don't want a boring old geezer lecturing. They want to do fun stuff with their friends.
So I get group of them and their parent together, and say something like: "This usually causes a relatively small explosion, those of you nearer the front may want to start running NOW!!!!"
All are engaged, all are VERY attentive, and everybody has fun. I had few teachers that put enough effort into the material to even consider including how it related to the learner, how it is used in real life, how to play with it and make it fun , and how it can be interested. All these things, as shown, are not difficult to achieve. My example is actually copied from a favorite teacher, this rare individual was the exception to the dozens that had negligible impact.
But, one has to play to the particular audience, and in the context of the material to be presented. I wouldn't use the same presentation if I were to explain statistics (maybe I would, if I could work it in). But nearly every subject is inherently interesting, (otherwise it wouldn't be topic). Its only a sanitized, droning presentation that turns into mind numbing boredom.
I was wondering is any of the forum participants had other techniques or insights to share.
I was wondering is any of the forum participants had other techniques or insights to share.
As mundane as this might sound, I have found that our household is often more engaged in STEM-like activities when, for some mysterious reason, the TV cable connection malfunctions on a rainy day. It seems to force the kid brains to shift gears and sometimes, in desperation, they will turn to something interesting to do. Also, I think when they see you doing something with gadgets and wires and you have the stuff around the house all the time, they are more likely to want to get involved, especially if you will tolerate their making huge messes with things.
But, as a first order magnitude solution, I would say pulling the plug on TV and video games will get you off to a good start.
I was hoping more for for suggestions on starting a technology club at the school, or gearing a presentation for elementary school kids.
"Education starts in the home" is already being covered with good result, kid is in the top 5% of the class (evaluation taken with a grain of salt), so I might have the right idea.
Blaming TV and video games may be too simplistic. Video games are no worse than, for example, chess; and "Grand Master" in Chess is perfect example of Way Too Much Time on The Game. The lessons of resource management, strategy and stealth practiced in game simulation cannot easily learned in real life without significant pain. As much as I loath "Pokemon Silver and Platinum", one must admit that it provides an awful lot of practice at strategy and resource management that a third grader could not get from many other sources.
This is a "Reply to Thread" and not a Reply to the last Reply.
Not everyone can be a scientist, a technologist, an engineer, or a mathematician.
No amount of fun or exposure can change that. People have different aptitudes and talents.
Not every MD's son is an MD. I wonder if they anguish for that.
Maybe kids need to be better students. Maybe teachers ought to have degrees in more than "Education". A guy at work who's only graduated high school informed me that kids today are smarter, "way smarter", than previous generations. The context, it turns out, was in all of their button-pushing and exposure to things.
Some important stuff isn't fun. Life isn't "Sesame Street", and "Pokemon" isn't C.V. material.
Sometimes work can be fun, but it usually isn't, otherwise they'd call it "fun" instead of "work".
I say that all of the STEM exposure in the world is for naught without a foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving.
I've noticed that young people these days are not willing to work long and hard for anything. Rather they expect everything to be done for them and for it to be easy...
Back in the early days of the internet, you would see many people asking where they could find books to read to learn how to do something themselves. They would then learn all about the subject by reading one or several books, then come back and ask questions about what they did not understand. They put a LOT of effort and long hours into learning.
These days it is more like "Tell me how to do this step by step". Or "Tell what the problem is with my [whatever], then tell me step by step how to fix it". They don't want to invest the time and effort to learn about something...
...and I must admit this is the fault of people like ME!
For years I have designed systems which are "idiot proof" and EZ to use. No learning/thinking required. "User friendly".
And I just did this again Friday... I sent an email to a businesses computer guy saying that he should install a certain software program on a new computer because the employees there know how to use it. (No learning required.)
Every business on the planet has made things easy as well. They have used technology to design systems which don't require any thinking and prevent errors.
Grocery stores have all sorts of food products which require no knowledge of cooking. Just stick it in the microwave or follow simple instructions. I notice they just expanded the "deli" section at my local grocery store. More food products which are ready to eat.
And then instant gratification with video games, TV, and the like.
So what is the solution to all this?
I think we should go back to using MS-DOS! Make things user un-friendly...
This is a "Reply to Thread" and not a Reply to the last Reply.
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion, sort of implies the Reply to last reply part.
Maybe kids need to be better students...I say that all of the STEM exposure in the world is for naught without a foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving.
There is a not-so-new idea that play is an important part of learning, to me it implies that kids should be treated in some way differently than engineers being hired for specific, established skill set.
STEM exposure IS the foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving.
...young people these days are not willing...
When I was kid there was a song from a band called "the Monkeys" titled "Pleasant Valley Sunday" that said just about the same thing. From this and earlier recurring examples I infer that kids are consistent each generation, as are old people. People are consistently average, only the criterion for measuring them changes. Things were NOT better in the good old days, only different.
I'm still hoping for suggestions or ideas on how to move forward with this STEM thing in real situations. Or should that be the topic of a separate thread?
I'm still hoping for suggestions or ideas on how to move forward with this STEM thing in real situations. ...
A lot depends on the age group. Below about grade 5 I think kids yearn to get messy, splash around in water and mud and do lots of things they aren't usually allowed to do because parents worry too much about their clothes getting dirty and schools can't accommodate the mess. I think I made an earlier comment on this - maybe a dam-building contest where technology gets involved in measurements - tsunami engineering, etc. Or one group tries to create a big tsunami while the other builds defenses against it.
Water rockets made out of 2 liter soda bottles also seem to be of interest and people have created versions capable of going 1000 feet high.
Building metal detectors to find hidden things.
The more goggles, gloves, and body armor they are required to wear, the better - at least I think that's true for the boys.
At the risk of sounding sexist, there really is a difference between girls and boys, generally speaking. In science, girls seem more interested in living things, using microscopes, dealing with plants and animals. While boys just want to blow things up. Having said that, I've seen plenty of "girly girls" put the little he-men to shame when it comes to splashing around in a muddy creek. It all depends.
"Sorry, I thought this was a discussion, sort of implies the Reply to last reply part."
Oh, JFC... Unless you're the only other person here or, maybe, the OP then a Reply is not automatically a Reply to the last reply (or post.)
"STEM exposure IS the foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving."
That's putting the cart before the horse.
Comments
-Phil
Actually, at the time I hadn't read anything about Newton. At that age, narcissism is part of the mix. So, when a teacher
professes things like this, the effect is felt personally and the reaction is highly personal. And in my case, my religion was very important to me, so I found it most comfortable simply to ignore the teacher and read the book.
I see the same thing happen in children in all kinds of learning contexts having nothing to do God or science.
If we are failing... we need to consider some of the reasons why... and not just blame the kids and/or teachers.
Rich
Certainly we are failing to educate the masses.· Is that failure?· Perhaps not.
Perhaps 1% or maybe even 5% of people become truly literate.· That was as true in Jefferson's day, or Chaucer's for that matter.· It's a little better in fora like this one, where the fraction may be as high as 20%.
But I think·that our real failure is in trying to make silk purses out of the sows' ears that constitute the remainder.
Perhaps I am unduly pessimistic, though.· Some cultures -- I started to write "many cultures", but that's not so -- some cultures do better, at least as regards basic literacy.· I think at least half of·Japanese adults could, in their native tongue, state a question succinctly in a subject line; here, that's rare.· Here, if someone wants to ask how to interface a veeblefetzer bender to a Stamp, the subject line will be "Veeble Bender", or perhaps just "Bender", which leads one to think the guy is celebrating a drunken spree.· Perhaps he is.
Perhaps we, too, with different practices, could teach half our kids to express their thoughts.· You reckon?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· -- Carl, nn5i@arrl.net
Sweat free zone.
kenjj
-Phil
If you're into humor about postmodernism, google "Sokal Hoax". The morning that he exposed that hoax was one of the days that made me most pleased to be an academic. It was a little after that, IIRC, that Gross and Levitt published "Higher Superstition", popping the bubble of most of the related pseudo-academic nonsense.
Of course there are still people who talk that way running around pretending that they won the "science wars", but they're like that knight in "The Holy Grail" - the one who keeps shouting that he's winning even after his arms and legs are cut off.
And in fact democracy does not even work in theory if the voters reject science. Democracy without acceptance of science, with its emphasis on publicly available evidence is nothing but majority rule. Majority rule is merely the feeble "black sheep" distant cousin of democracy.
Post Edited (sylvie369) : 2/9/2009 10:20:06 PM GMT
...would you like fries with that?
-Phil
Phil,
did you not see Carl's wisdom in entry #18 above?
I wonder if all government employment is entitlement. US soldiers? Undercover CIA? FBI? Congressmen? Police officers? FDA inspectors?
-Phil
I, tew, found it illuminating.
In reading the entire thread, with it's many, well thought out replies, I noticed several contributors have missed the oblivious and most import aspect of communication: To Clearly and accurately, in which ever language as needed, to convey a thought or thoughts, each of which stands on it's own merit as being a complete thought, so another person can readily extract and understand the conveyed thought through it's conclusion.
Each and every person whom took the time to articulate their thoughts did so in a mannerism conductive to further the subject matter; including the contributors who's native language may impose difficulties in expressing their thoughts. How can one have a conversation with another person if there is a language barrier to overcome? One can. There is more then one level of communication. My son, at age 5 could tell me he didn't feel well. The same as my now 24 year old daughter, however, the words each used, and the level of useful information each provided is vastly different. In the one example, my son and I would have an exchange of nearly 1/2 hour, and the example with my daughter would be a few minutes. I believe there is, to an extent, a quality of communication that is below perfect, we are all willing to accept.
Can a person preform a given task they have been trained in without the ability to communicate in terms and expressions above that most educators believe to be "street" or "slang". The answer here is an astounding yes.
Now, it the above paragraphs I have deliberately used the wrong word, tense or a non standard meaning of a word, to express my feelings. Does this subtract from the meanings? Even though I used big words, properly formulated paragraphs and sentences, the misplaced tense's and words only show I haven't mastered the English language. As a number of previous posts pointed out; this doesn't subtract or diminish the intention of the statement.
However, what my mistakes could lead to is miss communication; a thought not clear enough to the intended reader leading to unneeded clarifications. Had the original communication been clear, additional communications would not be needed to clarify the original.
Io the issue of education: I believe each and every student should have two "practical application" years of class. For example, for a student to go into the 8th grade, they must have and pass a class (a full school year) during their 7th year, where the only subject is applying what was learned in previous years. In reality this would be all subjects, just preformed as working applications of the subjects already studied, within a social context. The same would apply at grade 12. This would add costs to the primary education program, however, on exiting the program, the student would have social skills that can't be taught from a book and only learned from experience.
EDIT: Just a point here: While writing technical documents, MS Word's grammar checker green lines various lines for word usage, and yet, that is typed is correct for the what is being expressed?
Just an opinion or two here.
KK
http://forums.parallax.com/entry.php?181-observations-of-a-student
STEM would solve the issue of no hands on skills at a young age .
and bring the US back in to the front of Tech .
Peter
KG6LSE ...
My apologies for rambling here...
I'm all in favor of doing whatever it takes to stimulate interest and provide experience in science and technology. But - what's the old saying? - something about wild horses dragging people to water from which they won't drink?
In any case, I don't expect the average person to get excited about math and science. I don't expect the average engineer to learn how to draw or paint or play the cello or write great prose. Or get bowled over by poetry. And I don't expect the average person to be creative or much of anything other than, as Da vinci put it, "a mere passage for food." Even among engineers and scientists, you have "cookbook" types that just follow rules they've learned and then off-the-wall creative types that pull rabbits out of their hats, solve problems, but get fired anyway because they're just not fitting in or kissing the boss's butt with the proper flourish. So there's no way an education system can be one size fits all when society itself is not structured that way.
Still, I hope for the best. I like to think we're all capable of sudden, unexpected quantum leaps in consciousness. In fact, looking around, I tend to think that is what the human mind is - a quantum leap of some sort - something that just sprang up high above our animal cousins. That's a mysterious phenomenon in my opinion, so I hope that, as a society, we run with that phenomenon, nurture whatever that mystery is, and avoid decaying back down into the grunty brutal world of our cave-dwelling ancestors and simian relatives. So, hoping for the best, I think we need to stimulate intellectual and creative activities of all sorts but also recognize we can't all be specialists - mathematicians, engineers, artists, etc. At least for grades K-12 I think it's best to lay down a firm foundation. Then let kids sort out their interests, etc. in college, and later in life. However, during those K-12 years, I hope that extracurricular activities can nurture those with special interests and talents. Politically, however, there are big portions of the society that think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of that attitude comes from vague fears and superstitions that some people have toward science in general. Also, some of that attitude springs from members of society who insist that they "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps so why should I have to pay for someone else's brat" - in effect taking for granted the massive infrastructure that makes their worldly success possible - an educated work force, libraries, highways, a relatively safe and peaceful society in which to do business, etc. Those things are not free. They never were free. But I think people decades ago were much more aware of that fact. Too many people today are taking for granted the basic foundations that make our lives possible. But the bottom line is: we all get what we pay for. If we don't invest in the future, we ain't gonna have one. At least not the kind we'd like to have.
And one last rambling thought - I tell kids this: you might lose your job, you might lose your girlfriend, you might lose your hair, your hearing, your bank accounts. You might lose your house. You might lose your car. You might lose your liquor from an old fruit jar. But, unless you lose your mind, you will always have your education.
I think the same can be said about a society. Though it be wrecked to pieces. Though it be heartlessly left in heaps of rubble, the minds that survive can always rebuild. There's always light at the end of the tunnel so long as there are people with a few bright ideas.
After discovering that Americans buy ice cream by a gallon and beer comes in aluminum cans I also learned that vast majority of Americans do not appreciate any criticism of their perfect system
Remember the popular slogans "if you do not like it here go back where you came from "?
Anyway, here is my insignificant contribution to this discussion.
While I was in high school the only decoration in the classroom were portraits of J. Stalin and K.Gottwald There was no flag to pledge to, no prayer to recite...
The teacher appeared promptly on the hour and you better be sitting in your seat then.
Next few minutes were spent by calling on someone to go to the blackboard ( for real!) and be questioned on last lessons(s). Talking about “hands on”, no multiple choices! There were no anger management, no “ How do you feel today” etc...
American classrooms are cluttered from floor to the ceiling with everything imaginable - “crafts”. alphabet posters ,multiplication tables, dinosaures, dolphins etc.....
.
And we are wondering why there is so much “attention deficit” infected kids around!.
As long as the primary goal of educators is to make you feel good we will never have an ambitious engineering candidates to restore “Made in USA” label to it past glory.
From my life long engineering experience I believe that Murphy was right.
Engineering professions are not for “feel good”sissies.
I think ElectricAye makes a good point. Some students just won't be interested in math & science. And that's OK, but I think a greater effort needs to be made on the part of schools to accommodate those who are.
I graduated from high school in 2004, which I think is recent enough to give a somewhat valid opinion. As I've stated before, I was heavily involved in drama. While I was very good when it came to math and science, I wasn't really offered any outlet to explore those talents. I stopped taking science classes after my junior year having exceeded my requirement for graduation, and while our school did offer a Trisics program (trignometry + physics) which offered some engineering applications, I didn't take it due to rumors of how terrible the Physics teacher was, and how taking the class almost guaranteed a C (and I certainly did not want to taint my GPA, but I suppose that's an entirely different problem). Apparently my high school also had a robotics club, but I didn't find out about it until my senior year.
Hopefully things are a bit different now, but had I been introduced to engineering concepts/clubs earlier on, maybe I would have gotten into the electronics business before my sophomore year in college. Heck, had it not been for my aunt pushing me to pursue a technical field, I may have not gotten here at all. I think more advertising goes into Drama Club, band, chorus, sports and student government than it does for technical clubs.
Here at Parallax, I have the opportunity to visit schools in addition to volunteering with events through the Society of Women Engineers. When I visit schools that use Parallax products, I would say almost 85% of the class is excited by the material. Conversely, when I attend outreach events with SWE, I talk to a large number of students who don't want to pursue a technical field because it's 'too boring', or they honestly believe they can't do it.
I don't think there's enough of a connection for students between math & science classes and actual practical applications. Students are introduced to a concept, then do a lab following carefully laid out instructions. Let's face it, that's pretty boring. Think how much cooler it would be in a physics lab that instead of watching a car roll down a ramp, you programmed a robot and calculated it's velocity!
Anyway, that's just my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. Make math & science more fun, and the students may come.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, in this regard the biggest practical problem is competing with the likes of video games and Mythbusters, expecting everything science-related to result in an explosion or a stunning vehicular crash of some sort, etc. There is one non-destructive venue I've found that might be worth exploring, though: kids seem to like to channel water. My experience is merely anecdotal, but I sometimes wonder if schools could build giant mud boxes with running water where kids can make dams, bridges, get muddy, and measure water flow, water levels, etc. Besides blowing up things, mucking around with that sort of thing seems to keep their interest.
Good point. Rumor has it Jessica eats rusty nails for breakfast and crawls under barbed wire every morning to get to her desk. My son tattooed Maxwell's equations to his chest with a bottle of ink and a bowie knife. I myself sleep on broken glass until the solution to a tough problem screws into focus. Engineering is a dirty business but somebody's got to do it.
Disagree with you here. To borrow from Forrest Gump - stupid is what stupid does.
The other :problem" is that even the students/ adults who choose, and pay for dearly, "technical" educational ( for profit) institution are treated with emphasis on an attendance and with 10 to 15 years old "technology".
For instance - how many clases are there on how to build breadboard or design circuit board?
My most " favorite": - what is a pull - up / pull- dovn resitor for? But that is getting off the subject too far.
I would like to end up on positive side - but I think the brite spot at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train!
Vaclav
Hi All
Just found this post, I'm starting in on this direction. I notice the entire first page went off on the direction of "proper English", and the basics, reading, writing, arithmetic; and how our culture is being destroyed by TV and video games.
Peter's post, and the acknowledgement that "not all kids will be interested" indicate (to me) that the "traditional" views and approaches maybe "trying to stop the sunrise" rather than addressing the current set of circumstances.
I am considering alternatives to the current policy of "No child left behind/No child moves forward". Something alone the lines of "Specifically appropriate to this child, or group of children; or this class of participant".
Many of these posts are complaining about "how bad it is" rather than examining "what we can try next".
The best suggestion so far (although a bit too general to apply) is "Make it more FUN". Any more thoughts on "What we can try next"?
Could you elaborate on this a little?
Sure. I'm working towards teaching STEM stuff to my kids, but they don't want a boring old geezer lecturing. They want to do fun stuff with their friends.
So I get group of them and their parent together, and say something like: "This usually causes a relatively small explosion, those of you nearer the front may want to start running NOW!!!!"
All are engaged, all are VERY attentive, and everybody has fun. I had few teachers that put enough effort into the material to even consider including how it related to the learner, how it is used in real life, how to play with it and make it fun , and how it can be interested. All these things, as shown, are not difficult to achieve. My example is actually copied from a favorite teacher, this rare individual was the exception to the dozens that had negligible impact.
But, one has to play to the particular audience, and in the context of the material to be presented. I wouldn't use the same presentation if I were to explain statistics (maybe I would, if I could work it in). But nearly every subject is inherently interesting, (otherwise it wouldn't be topic). Its only a sanitized, droning presentation that turns into mind numbing boredom.
I was wondering is any of the forum participants had other techniques or insights to share.
As mundane as this might sound, I have found that our household is often more engaged in STEM-like activities when, for some mysterious reason, the TV cable connection malfunctions on a rainy day. It seems to force the kid brains to shift gears and sometimes, in desperation, they will turn to something interesting to do. Also, I think when they see you doing something with gadgets and wires and you have the stuff around the house all the time, they are more likely to want to get involved, especially if you will tolerate their making huge messes with things.
But, as a first order magnitude solution, I would say pulling the plug on TV and video games will get you off to a good start.
"Education starts in the home" is already being covered with good result, kid is in the top 5% of the class (evaluation taken with a grain of salt), so I might have the right idea.
Blaming TV and video games may be too simplistic. Video games are no worse than, for example, chess; and "Grand Master" in Chess is perfect example of Way Too Much Time on The Game. The lessons of resource management, strategy and stealth practiced in game simulation cannot easily learned in real life without significant pain. As much as I loath "Pokemon Silver and Platinum", one must admit that it provides an awful lot of practice at strategy and resource management that a third grader could not get from many other sources.
Not everyone can be a scientist, a technologist, an engineer, or a mathematician.
No amount of fun or exposure can change that. People have different aptitudes and talents.
Not every MD's son is an MD. I wonder if they anguish for that.
Maybe kids need to be better students. Maybe teachers ought to have degrees in more than "Education". A guy at work who's only graduated high school informed me that kids today are smarter, "way smarter", than previous generations. The context, it turns out, was in all of their button-pushing and exposure to things.
Some important stuff isn't fun. Life isn't "Sesame Street", and "Pokemon" isn't C.V. material.
Sometimes work can be fun, but it usually isn't, otherwise they'd call it "fun" instead of "work".
I say that all of the STEM exposure in the world is for naught without a foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving.
Back in the early days of the internet, you would see many people asking where they could find books to read to learn how to do something themselves. They would then learn all about the subject by reading one or several books, then come back and ask questions about what they did not understand. They put a LOT of effort and long hours into learning.
These days it is more like "Tell me how to do this step by step". Or "Tell what the problem is with my [whatever], then tell me step by step how to fix it". They don't want to invest the time and effort to learn about something...
...and I must admit this is the fault of people like ME!
For years I have designed systems which are "idiot proof" and EZ to use. No learning/thinking required. "User friendly".
And I just did this again Friday... I sent an email to a businesses computer guy saying that he should install a certain software program on a new computer because the employees there know how to use it. (No learning required.)
Every business on the planet has made things easy as well. They have used technology to design systems which don't require any thinking and prevent errors.
Grocery stores have all sorts of food products which require no knowledge of cooking. Just stick it in the microwave or follow simple instructions. I notice they just expanded the "deli" section at my local grocery store. More food products which are ready to eat.
And then instant gratification with video games, TV, and the like.
So what is the solution to all this?
I think we should go back to using MS-DOS! Make things user un-friendly...
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion, sort of implies the Reply to last reply part.
There is a not-so-new idea that play is an important part of learning, to me it implies that kids should be treated in some way differently than engineers being hired for specific, established skill set.
STEM exposure IS the foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving.
When I was kid there was a song from a band called "the Monkeys" titled "Pleasant Valley Sunday" that said just about the same thing. From this and earlier recurring examples I infer that kids are consistent each generation, as are old people. People are consistently average, only the criterion for measuring them changes. Things were NOT better in the good old days, only different.
I'm still hoping for suggestions or ideas on how to move forward with this STEM thing in real situations. Or should that be the topic of a separate thread?
A lot depends on the age group. Below about grade 5 I think kids yearn to get messy, splash around in water and mud and do lots of things they aren't usually allowed to do because parents worry too much about their clothes getting dirty and schools can't accommodate the mess. I think I made an earlier comment on this - maybe a dam-building contest where technology gets involved in measurements - tsunami engineering, etc. Or one group tries to create a big tsunami while the other builds defenses against it.
Water rockets made out of 2 liter soda bottles also seem to be of interest and people have created versions capable of going 1000 feet high.
Building metal detectors to find hidden things.
The more goggles, gloves, and body armor they are required to wear, the better - at least I think that's true for the boys.
At the risk of sounding sexist, there really is a difference between girls and boys, generally speaking. In science, girls seem more interested in living things, using microscopes, dealing with plants and animals. While boys just want to blow things up. Having said that, I've seen plenty of "girly girls" put the little he-men to shame when it comes to splashing around in a muddy creek. It all depends.
Oh, JFC... Unless you're the only other person here or, maybe, the OP then a Reply is not automatically a Reply to the last reply (or post.)
"STEM exposure IS the foundation in critical thinking and logical problem-solving."
That's putting the cart before the horse.
An exercise in futility.