Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Another alternative theory horror




I don't post on this list often because it is quite likely that
responses will be condescending and unhelpful. Why end your post with
"Try it sometime"?

I asked a question which wasn't answered - "because it works so well"
didn't answer my question. And, while evolution seems like a simple
theory, the mechanism that leads to new species is anything but
simple. I struggle with many of the explanations that I hear. How did
amphibians become reptiles. A lot of changing has to happen.

We don't teach evolution because there is a mountain of evidence that
makes sense in terms of evolution and nothing else. We teach it
because it's on "the test". When it comes to what high school students
need to know to be successful in life, evolution isnot on of those
things that they absolutely must know. Understanding natural selection
will not make them better airplane mechanics or wall street analysts.
It might make them better biologists, but probably not better engineers.

The defense of why evolution is on the test was more than adequately
explained by a subsequent post. If one is to study biology, evolution is
absolutely vital. But this is a very good question which goes beyond this
simple idea.

Notice that this question can be rephrased as why is physics necessary to be
an airplane mechanic, or wall street analyst, or biologist? The answer is
that physics is probably irrelevant to most professions. Most professions
rely on a craft which can be learned without a lot of the things which are
taught in school.

What really needs to be done in HS is to raise student thinking so that they
can grasp the subtleties of many professions. For this they need
proportional reasoning, 2 variable reasoning, statistical reasoning, control
of variables reasoning... Sadly most of these do not improve in the
standard math of science course regardless of the subject. Again I would
reference any of the books and papers by Michael Shayer & Philip Adey. This
idea is also endorsed by Karplus, Anton Lawson, and Arnold Arons. Lawson
has written numerous papers in which he shows that student thinking can be
dramatically improved in a biology course which uses the learning cycle.
Oh, and he also gets evolution across. But if it can be done in biology,
why not also in physics.

Unfortunately it is difficult to write standards that force teachers into
modes of teaching that actually work to raise thinking. All they can do is
make simplistic tests of facts.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX