by Henry N. Pollack.
Had to share this great book. Especially since I spent a lot of time typing up some choice quotes from it.
"This emphasis on acquiring 'knowledge' persists throughout the primary and secondary educational systems and continues unabated in many higher education curricula. Textbooks for the introductory survey courses in science too often are dull compendiums of what we do know, but without a stimulating summary of what we don't know.
"Where are the frontiers of science described in these textbooks? What are the unanswered questions that might excite imaginative students and rekindle the natural curiosity they had as young children? Why do they not learn of the uncertainties in the field?
"The history of how a field of science has evolved over time can be revealing of the false starts, the blind alleys that scientists followed in times past. Antonio Machado, a Spanish poet of the early twentieth century, captured this idea when he wrote: "Traveler, there is no road. You make the road as you go."
"So why do we have so much science illiteracy? Why are people so susceptible to simplistic ideas and false assertions? Why are they puzzled by scientific uncertainty? In part, I think it is because the science education that most students received stifles their natural scientific instincts. Many students lose interest in science in the primary and secondary schools because it does not take advantage of their natural curiosity.
"The higher educational system then perpetuates the problem, graduating science 'majors' who have absorbed all the 'facts' but who are not equipped to challenge them. The same stultifying system trains new elementary and secondary school teachers, who repeat these patterns, and at the postgraduate level trains new scientists as capable executors but not imaginative formulators. In short, educational practices common in many countries have led to a widespread adult population that is interested in and yet puzzled by science, principally because they do not understand how scientists go about the business of asking questions and evaluating answers."
I love it. And it's kinda true in a way. I know part of the attraction of 'science' as I knew it was the 'facts' taught us in primary school. 'Facts' had power. Knowledge was power. People praised you for being so 'smart.' And the more 'facts' you remembered, the 'smarter' you were. Hell, you could even freak your peers out because you were a veritable fountain of 'fact.'
And I know part of the reason why I wussed out of higher level science was because I started being unable to deal with the uncertainty, the not-knowing. It exasperated me that we didn't have all the answers.
(Of course, the other stronger part of the reason why I loathed higher level science was the "quicksand of technical jargon" involved. I'm sorry, I remain convinced that you can explain complex concepts using simple language that any layman can understand. If you can't, you aren't trying hard enough to come up with analogies, with explanations, with definition of terms. If you can't, then what you've discovered is worthless because you can't communicate its importance and implication to ordinary people. It was frustrating to have to wade through the morass of Scientific-ese that passed for English in a million science journals.
And wait till you have to read the mess that foreigners (through no fault of their own) come up with using English - their second or third or fourth language? Add on feeling that to be taken seriously, they have to couch stuff in scientific jargonese too... Ouch.)
And yet, what puzzles me is that there is also a part of me /meant/ to be a scientist. The Bartle Explorer part. The innate child. The part that thrills at any discovery, be it some new cool thing in a computer game, or reading about something in popular science news. The part that asks incessant questions about Why? and How? and refuses to stop until the answer is found - google, wiki, encyclopedias, experiments, trial and error, whatever.
The part that will sit down and brainstorm, formulate a plan of attack and systematically work and test through all possibilities, for the heck of it. Mapping the Astral Sea. Mapping anything in any computer game, really. Just to see the final big picture, just to record all (or some) of the nitty gritty detail.
The part that had tremendous fun the last 1.5 days because our overseas Lego contact came over to our Robotics Lab with the new NXT bots and his new workshop, and I sat down and playtested everything. Every path, every possible task, came up with new ideas for robot tasks and also intuitively and on the spur of the moment adapted a claw arm to grip a ball better. Dunno, is this more a scientist, an engineer, or both? Perhaps the real power is to straddle both territories like Buckminster Fuller and other such geniuses and inventors.
And part of their power is also their ability to communicate complex concepts in simple language. Buckminster Fuller. Eric Lander. Richard Feynman. Carl Sagan. Probably others too.
There is a part of me that finds uncertainty frightening. The glass half-empty. The pessimist, the depressive. The unknown is...scary. And it gets even more frustrating when the way ahead is sorta-kinda known, but put in a language that only few can understand.
But there is another part which finds the frontier of unknown knowledge exciting, a challenge, a ripe ground for the taking, staking a claim on being the first to figure something out. Heck, sometimes first doesn't even matter, it's just the figuring it out for yourself that's nice.
(For me it can't be too hard though, or I end up looking for a cheat sheet somewhere. I have to know how to find a way through. Maps I like because I have a diagramatic scheme set up. Stuff like finding KoL recipes become frustrating for me because there are too many possibilities to combine. I wonder how the real spades do it?
And still others really get a passionate kick out of precise measurement. That's really not for me, but some can sit happily with a stopwatch and time animations. Go figure, differences make the world go round.)
And in the end, I'm trying to formulate a Bioinformatics lesson. Which is the reason I've gotten on this lofty philosophy cloud. I refuse to make a lesson that reads like a cookbook. 1) Turn on the computer. 2) Go to this website. 3) Type in this thing. 4) Click the button. 5) See the results. 6) This is what the results mean. 7) Now repeat steps 2-6 with this other website and that other data.
How do I encourage people (with different interests and personalities and learning styles) to find answers for themselves?
I can show them the tools I (and other people) use to do so. But having a tool is only part of the answer. You have to know how to use it properly, what the tool is telling you, and the really important bit - the motivation to use the thing in the first place.
I can give you a lesson on "Using a Screwdriver - its possible applications, the advantages and disadvantages of manual vs electric, cordless, etc." But you won't give a shit about it until you have to build some furniture that you wanted and bought from IKEA, right?
Enlightened self-interest. :P
What's in it for me?
Tricky task. Very tricky.
4 comments:
How true. Take, for example, the multiple sorts of plugs and standards PC have nowadays. Interesting facts I suppose, but stuff that will simply slip out of my head even if I take a course on them.
Now I am trying to build my own PC (after finding my dell motherboard literally welded into my pc case with all sorts of non-standard parts). After spending evenings fitting things together and unfortunately, blowing either my generic power supply or my cheapo motherboard, I realise that I didn't "study" the knowledge about this stuff. I "learnt" the facts because I had to make furniture from Ikea, not take a lesson on the 100 varieties of nut/screw threads.
Too bad I have to wait until next month's billing cycle before I can try again. :P
I think the terrible flaw in Singaporeans, especially on the parental side, is not daring to experiment and do things, as well as stopping their children from doing things. If you don't try, you don't learn, although you can memorize. This is changing in our generation.
There is a "sacred cow" concept -- for example, my mother will happily crack open a kitchen sink and spend days hammering/sawing/power tooling it to get rid of a leak, but the thought of removing a single screw from a computer's case will send her into a fit of horror. Perhaps I myself will happily work over a computer or bicycle but start fretting when I have to deal with a dysfunctional car. Granted, cars are rather complicated nowadays, but let's talk about an old fashioned mechanical car. If you never go ahead and destroy that sacred cow, you will never progress towards learning.
This doesn't just apply to physical objects such as furnitures, computers, plumbing etc. It can be something as esoteric as Green Functions. Of course nobody is going to build a house the first time they Ikea something, and that is where "classes" come in, which can be as formal as sitting in a classroom listening to the science center officer talk, or as informal as just finding out how someone else did it and going monkey.
Anyway, I will coming back to Singapore at the end of September. Probably semi-permanently if my only job lead doesn't get anywhere. But in time for the lego exhibition, I think.
Now that you think about it, the way I rummaged in my old computer back in steamy moist singapore would have blown hundreds of computers if I'd been in southern california... O_o
Last comment :P
I think part of my paranoia in staying in one place or one job (or one whatever) too long is I am afraid that a not-rolling stone will gather moss. If I do one thing for too long, I will get "fixed in my ways" and become boring and braindead.
I agree, I too am very nervous of jobs (or heck, games, or other real life activities) that encourage one type of repetitive behaviour over and over. I don't want to be braindead and boring and...hem, "mainstream". Work, eat, watch TV, sleep.
I always keep in mind that I might switch jobs/careers eventually. Part of the reason why I really like the Science Center is because there's almost something new every month - sometimes practically chasing after each other or overlapping so there's a lot to juggle and change always happening. New exhibit opening, new lesson, new show, new tour, etc. In-built novelty factor.
Heh, I had a mentor (dad) helping me out on my first PC - on the actual construction part - if ordering around and laughing at me struggle can be considered 'help.' :)
But I was super nervous with the whole static electricity shebang. Even in wet humid Singapore. Having spent a month researching the parts and about a whole month's pay on the components, it would be kinda frustrating to have something zap and die on me. :P
It still took me like three nights to get everything running properly, hard disk detected, and wincrap installed. :P
I need to endure the nervousness again soon, my graphics card is feeling very clunky after my laptop. :( Just a lot of work stuff to deal with first, may get another month's pay before I even have time to start.
Let me know if/when you head back to Singapore.
I like that point about the sacred cow. Very true. My mom would never touch a computer because she's afraid it will magically break down if she pushes the wrong button or something. Ditto recipes. She's not the experimenting type, she will follow every single step to the letter. And failure is like catastrophe - oh no, the cake didn't turn out, DOOOOOOOM.
As you say, things are thankfully starting to change. As are the lessons at the SSC. (Oh, there are still -certain- lessons being taught with worksheets and apparatus I recognize from ten years ago...*hem*) But there's a general revamp coming, and a good many of the new lessons incorporate a more hands-on approach.
It's not quite at the "Ok, to learn about PCs, we're going to each build a computer with guidance by a faciliator" level yet, but it's getting there.
Most are at the hands-on cooking class level. Here's how I cook (watch teacher talk and demo), now you try to cook (hands-on attempt at doing it oneself.)
Not a lot of 'thinking' and 'self-reflection' or 'discussion' is truly incorporated yet, but it's something I try to stick in for higher level classes that can handle it.
I'd like to try and go the 'build your own computer' method for this Bioinformatics class. The question is how...*ponders*
Post a Comment