Science isn't science in 2.0

[Anonymous]

IBO study - http://www.ibo.org/announcements/succeedincollege.cfm

They do indeed learn the basics, but in addition to basics, students learn how to make connections among the disciplines.

Anonymous wrote:
I had the impression that IB was not a good option for students who are interested in science - you seem to be saying something different.

Anonymous wrote:Science courses in the DP programme (IB) are fantastic! But that could be b/c of their international approach. They are asked to make sense of the facts. Many teachers of advanced science courses - honors and AP - focus on the facts and claim that the IB sciences are too touchy-feely, which isn't the case. These students do much better in their science college courses than their counterparts who took AP. (We often track their success.) So it's a mix of facts and critical thinking - at every step of the way, starting at the elementary level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your students are not Curriculum 2.0 babies. In fact, your students reflect the "older" content. So even when facts were emphasized in the instruction, they didn't make an impact on your current crew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the problem is inconsistency among schools. Some parents see anything with a science theme and think great, they are learning science. Other parents see the science theme but realize the curriculum isn't teaching in a way that will prepare the kids to understand and do well in science down the road.

I love our 3rd grade teacher. She is amazing. They have fun science experiments and tests but I do see that these are all language based assignments.

My hope is that common core will test kids on actual science knowledge. If it does, MCPS will eventually respond and start teaching science. This will not help our kids but will help future kids. If common core doesn't test for science knowledge then there is a snowballs chance in hell for MCPS to ever adopt a quality STEM curriculum. Just not going to happen with all the clueless education/liberal arts people running the show.

Thanks for posting this - it is what I am seeing in 6th grade and I am starting to worry about when (if) dc will learn science properly. I teach college and I find that many MCPS students are not willing to spend the time to master the facts or the theory they need to completely understand before they embark on theory applications.

Good point! I wonder what the future holds. I completed my secondary and much of my post secondary education outside the U.S. and we were expected to first master the facts and theory and then apply them. Creativity and critical thinking were encouraged but you had to first demonstrate absolute mastery of the basics. What I find at the college level here is that my students either simply repeat what they see in the textbook or if I give them an open-ended question, they answer it by giving me their personal opinion without using a theoretical framework or referring to concepts they have learned in class. I keep wondering how they are taught in high school.

[Anonymous]

Doing a language based assignment, quiz or test isn't showing that you make the connections or developing critical thinking at all. It may fool non science based individuals but it does nothing to prepare children for more advanced science work or build excellence in the subject.

The problem in MCPS is that if they actually adopted a rigorous curriculum not everyone would pass. They would need to fail or hold some students back which isn't allowed. If all the assignments are just language based rather than requiring knowledge of the actual theory or facts more students can pass.

They would also need to retrain or hire new teachers who are educated in these subjects. There is an inherent bias from education majors that hard science types need to develop more soft skills while its perfectly fine for soft skill types to not understand hard sciences. This is why the US is #31 is science compared to other developed nations.