John Burgeson wrote:
A caveat - I'm thinking more of high school people than graduate
students.
This is an important caveat. Many of the students being exposed to the
teaching in the Kansas curriculum will only ever be exposed to it once, in
high school. They will not go to college, or if they do, they will not
take science courses there.
So, you could take one of two stands. Either, it is necessary to pare the
thories down to their bare bones so the entire scope can be taught in a
4-year curriculum. The subtlties of competing theories will have to be
reserved for those who choose to continue to study it.
Or alternately, we need to rethink how we teach science. Perhaps we should
not be teaching 'facts,' but rather taking the time to teach critical
thinking, analytical thinking, observation, and self reflection.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 08:58:36 EST