Talk:Science education

Untitled

Until there is no article here about pedagogy I've linked to eo fr pl Pedagogy. To be fixed later. AL. I remove the links. I confused Science education and Education Science. Arno Lagrange 11:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The distinction may be more prominent in the US than other countries, yet is still pretty subtle. Science Education refers to the study of how to teach science (pedagogy, inclusive practices, etc). Education in science I think would refer to actually doing the teaching. If you know the point of view of other countries, it is needed in this article. And you're right, an article on pedagogy is needed. --zandperl 17:05, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Questions

1. "it is by chance more rigorous" <- Can someone explain what this phrase means?
2. "On the one hand, the elitism of professional scientists and academia has prompted numbers of education specialists to take interest in science education and making it more accessible to individuals." <- Does this mean something like, "Some science education specialists work towards the goal of making science education and career paths towards science professions equally accessible to all demographic groups" ?
3. "Opposing the science educators, traditional scientists feel it is important to not dilute respectable science." <- I do not understand why "making science more accessible" should imply a "dilution of respectable science." There are many professional scientists who participate in enrichment and support programs that attract under-represented groups to science. The only organized efforts I know of by scientists to exclude any group from science are watchdog efforts designed to challenge con artists from falsely labeling their non-scientific activities as science. Such efforts to prevent the "dilution of respectable science" only oppose those efforts of "educators" who have special agendas for forcing non-science like "creation science" into the science curriculum.
4. "Allowing those less qualified to perform science will only result in the propagation of errors and less accurate science." <- I'm not sure what this sentence is telling us. Most professions define and work to maintain standards. However, there is a well-recognized and long tradition of "amateur science" which has produced some high-quality science. Nobody can be prevented from doing science. It makes sense to allow working scientists to require certain professional qualifications of those who they hire to do science.
5. "Both groups wish to train future scientists, they differ on how to do so, and whom is qualified." <- Can you provide some examples of these differences? JWSchmidt 13:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've numbered your points above for easier reference.

1. I think that means that despite the lack of regulation, American colleges are generally considered to be of higher quality than those in other countries.
2. yep you're right, specifically underrepresented groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. see The Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy for some of their concerns.
3. That section isn't referring to pseudoscience, but what potential scientists must go through to become accepted scientists. For example going to college is required as an early step. Going to college requires scoring well on the SAT. When's the last time a student in an inner city high school scored well on the SAT? This isn't intentional by the scientists, it's an unfortunate side effect, and can easily be dismissed as just trying to keep out the stupid people. While most science organizations (such as the National Science Foundation and NASA) today do engage in outreach activities to try and attract people to science, if you examine their history these were usually implemented only after science educators started examining trends in student recruitment and retention.
4. see above note
5. see above note

Are these adequate explanations, and do you agree? If so, how can we put it in the article? I think I did much of the work on the parts you questioned, so I'm sure additional input is sorely needed.  :)

--zandperl 22:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. The original intent seems to me to be a comparison between pre-college science teaching and what happens in college.
2. Elitism: the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals. I would like to see a specific example of how "the elitism of professional scientists and academia" is causally related to the problem of under-represented groups in science. For example, is there evidence to suggest that the percentage of female biologists is a higher than the percentage of female computer scientists because computer scientists are more elitist than biologists? Surely the problem is not that there are standards for the science track in education. The problem is that not all demographic groups equally meet the standards.
3. I'm still confused. Is there evidence that any scientists oppose addressing the problem of under-represented groups in science? Are there really science educators who want to "dilute respectable science" in the interest of equal representation of all demographic groups in science?
4. Are science educators in favor of requiring working scientists to hire unqualified personnel just so that there are no under-represented groups in science?
5. Can you provide an example of how science educators would train future scientists in a different way than how scientists currently do it? JWSchmidt 23:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

References?

There are a number of links on this page, but few true references. --zandperl 20:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Negative views & lack of references

This article would appear to be written primarily from a negative viewpoint. It seems to violate the NPOV guidelines, especially seeing that references aren't given for the statements that are made.

I'll come back in a couple days and clean up the article unless references have been cited or arguments are made on the talk page.

• Examples
  • "In many U.S. states, K-12 educators must adhere to rigid standards or frameworks of what content is to be taught to which age groups." -- True...but a reference should be cited.

• • "Unfortunately, this often means teachers rush to "cover" the material, without truly "teaching" it." --Seems like a generalization. Definitely needs a citation. I'm sure this isn't the case all the time.

• • "In addition, the process of science is often overlooked, such as the scientific method, and critical thinking, producing students who can pass multiple choice tests (such as the New York Regents exams and the Massachusetts MCAS), but cannot solve complex problems." --Another generalization. Again, I'm sure that this isn't true as much as this statement seems to be implying it is.

• • "Although at the college level American science education tends to be less regulated, it is actually more rigorous" --Citation needed

• • "with teachers and professors fitting more content into the same time period." --Citation needed. Not to mention this seems to contradict the arguments in the second sentence.

• • "In 1996, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. National Academies produced the National Science Education Standards which is available online for free in multiple forms. Its focus on inquiry-based, rather than memorization-based, science education was somewhat controversial at the time, but has been shown to be more effective as a model for teaching science, if less amenable to multiple-choice tests." --Citation needed

• • "One the most approachable and important documents about science education is the volume "How People Think" by John D. Bransford, et al. In this compact and highly digested volume, the fruit of massive research into student thinking is presented as having three key findings:**"--Citation needed (a volume unknown to the international science education community is unwarrantedly applauded here)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Micz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 

In addition, there is more to this topic than the issues brought on by Curriculum Frameworks.

Benwildeboer 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Commercial supply company links

I don't feel that the Science education article is an appropriate place to put links for commercial companies that provide science equipment. These sites have very little to do with the content of the article. Not to mention there are hundreds of science equipment suppliers. How would you pick which ones to include and which not to? I feel that this article should focus not on equipment, but on pedagogy & curriculum. Benwildeboer 11:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

IMHO, the external links section should provide the reader with resources related to the teaching of science. I don't feel it should be a repository of links to lesson plans, in-class activities, or science sites for students. The link to ERIC databases was the only site previously listed that I though included the type of information that should be referenced by this site. Any other thoughts or opinions on the matter?

--Benwildeboer 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Science Education standards"

As this section is totally US-centric and may not reflect the rest of the world, I've changed this heading to "United States" in order to make it more commensurate with the "United Kingdom" heading below. Liverpool Scouse 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the Physical Science Study Committee

In the section about the United States I've added a link to the article on the PSSC and claim that this was the first of the reform efforts of the era. This could be wrong. Reform of mathematics might have preceeded establishment of the PSSC. Will someone please check and correct if necessary. Thanks. PeterEasthope (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

SciAm resource

Speaking Out on the "Quiet Crisis" Strengthening science education is the key to securing our energy future, says Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's president. Scientific American by Brendan Borrell December 5, 2011 (page 94 to 99 in print)

See Shirley Ann Jackson

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to the Italian

The link in the column on the left is to an Italian article about the "Science of Education", in the sense of teaching method in general, roughly corresponding to what would be taught in English-speaking countriea in a Faculty of Education, so there is no point in linking to it. I couldn't find a corresponding Italian article specifically about science teaching.Campolongo (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted content

I have removed copyrighted content taken from here. I have left the paragraph that was added along with the lists by the same user as it doesn't appear to a blatant copy/paste like the list was, but there may be some close paraphrasing that needs changed/removed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

formal vs. informal education

what should this article scope be in this regard? Fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

White House Astronomy Night

I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Science education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614211608/http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0601.pdf to http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0601.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 特色3 (Small).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Support the May proposal to merge Scientific teaching on the grounds of overlap and because it's a stub, whose scope is already better covered here. Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support scientific teaching seems just a neologism for science education. fgnievinski (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mxf1209 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Maeflowerbailey16 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Warum ist die Erde flach?

Erklärt mal 2A02:3030:8:A0CA:6090:1EC4:4B49:21B9 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)