Rooting out scientific misconceptions

[Naraoia]

A SciAm blog post reports:

Expelling these common misconceptions is key to improving overall scientific literacy. But trying to root out just where misconceptions lie can be a tricky part of the job for already busy teachers.[...]

A new Web site is taking aim at this challenge, providing educators with quick lists of scientific statements broken down by subject matter, highlighting concepts that tend to be misunderstood by students.

[...]

The site (which is accessible after free registration) also provides teachers with some 600 multiple choice questions for tests that could help pinpoint conceptual sticking points.

I like the idea. What does everyone else think?

 

[pgp_protector]

Do you know if they have an Online test that one can take to see what their own misconceptions are ?

 

[Jro]

I'm a fan! I think that conceptual difficulties are some of the most pernicious that students encounter, and you really need to know you're stuff to be able to reorganize your thoughts, and express them in such a way that people understand them. I think a lot of scientists and university level teachers function on a very slightly different wavelength, and having a resource like this is absolutely critical, especially for those of us who are a little... erm, whacky.

 

[Cabal]

Why is there nothing about creationism in there?

 

[Naraoia]

Do you know if they have an Online test that one can take to see what their own misconceptions are ?

I don't know, I'm afraid. I would think that if you register, you can at least look at their multiple choice questions without seeing the answers, but who knows.

 

[Naraoia]

Why is there nothing about creationism in there?

I'm sure it's featured somewhere among those 600 questions Though according to the FAQ, they were trying not to offend anyone with the way questions were worded. I hope that doesn't mean they shied away from touching creationism.

 

[Delphiki]

Oh, yes. This is fantastic. Simple stuff like this can help set mankind on the right track.

 

[Matthew712]

I like it, especially since I had my share of scientifically illiterate teachers. Hopefully it will help both students and teachers.

 

[juvenissun]

A SciAm blog post reports:

I like the idea. What does everyone else think?

It is OK. But I am not impressed. Those questions are only good for a pre-course survey. Even that, it does not help much to the teacher.

Most of those so-called misconceptions are simply the lack of small pieces of knowledge. Once the subject is learned, the misconception is gone.

An example of real misconception is: Creationists don't care about science. You simply cannot root this misconception out of many people even they have had Ph.D degree for a long time.

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.
The AAAS site only addressed the first one.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know if they have an Online test that one can take to see what their own misconceptions are ?

You make up one for your own purpose.

Otherwise, who cares? I have no misconception to evolution no matter what my test score says.

 

[Delphiki]

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.
The AAAS site only addressed the first one.

That's because you can cure ignorance (lack of knowledge).

 

[Hespera]

It is OK. But I am not impressed. Those questions are only good for a pre-course survey. Even that, it does not help much to the teacher.

Most of those so-called misconceptions are simply the lack of small pieces of knowledge. Once the subject is learned, the misconception is gone.

An example of real misconception is: Creationists don't care about science. You simply cannot root this misconception out of many people even they have had Ph.D degree for a long time.

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.
The AAAS site only addressed the first one.

Obviously a few creationists "care about science". You are trying to root out a strawman of your own invention, that someone (who?) thinks creationists. all of them, dont care about science. And of course into the bargain, you clearly imply it is for this reason: 2. stupidity.

Creationists for the most part are from the lower edges of the socio-economic-education ladder, so we dont expect them to be well enough informed to have a valid opinion about anything scientific. And too, their prejudice, their belief that they already know the answer and must resist learning at the peril of their souls helps keep them ignorant.


As for people with PhDs who believe in creationism. There are such, no doubt, who believe in all manner of odd things, especially in things unrelated to their field of study.

But all that is irrelevant to the real point here.

NO creationist anywhere has one single solitary data point to back his belief.

NO creationist has one single data point to falsify evolution.

So all their degrees and all your opinions plus a ten dollar bill will get you a bagel and a cup of coffee.

I have no misconception to evolution no matter what my test score says

IF you had students and one of them tried that line, I'm sure you'd be impressed.

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.

For you to have "no misconceptions to (sic) evolution" you would have to have no lack of knowledge. That is impossible.

You are in fact riddled with misconceptions about evolution. One really big one comes to mind.

So what, logically does that leave as an explanation?

 

[Matthew712]

I like the idea. What does everyone else think?

As I said before, I like the concept (can't see the questions though), but to me the real answer is to better educate the teachers before they teach and make sure they stay up to par. The education system is so messed up on nearly every level, I'll gladly take any improvement available.

 

[juvenissun]

Obviously a few creationists "care about science". You are trying to root out a strawman of your own invention, that someone (who?) thinks creationists. all of them, dont care about science. And of course into the bargain, you clearly imply it is for this reason: 2. stupidity.

Creationists for the most part are from the lower edges of the socio-economic-education ladder, so we dont expect them to be well enough informed to have a valid opinion about anything scientific. And too, their prejudice, their belief that they already know the answer and must resist learning at the peril of their souls helps keep them ignorant.

I guess that you said it from experience, biased or not. That is interesting. Why should it be that way? Could that also be a misconception?

 

[juvenissun]

As I said before, I like the concept (can't see the questions though), but to me the real answer is to better educate the teachers before they teach and make sure they stay up to par. The education system is so messed up on nearly every level, I'll gladly take any improvement available.

Could you name a few?

One might be that teachers are not knowledgeable enough, like you suggested.
What else?

 

[Jro]

Creationists for the most part are from the lower edges of the socio-economic-education ladder, so we dont expect them to be well enough informed to have a valid opinion about anything scientific.

I think you may have phrased this one poorly. :o

 

[Gracchus]

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.
The AAAS site only addressed the first one.

Well maybe, juvenissun, they will get around to a website for you someday.

 

[Hespera]

I guess that you said it from experience, biased or not. That is interesting. Why should it be that way? Could that also be a misconception?

You tell me why most of the fundies are ill educated; you are one of them.

What besides being poorly educated explains the misconception that there is any factual basis, any data, to support creationism?
which of these is it?

There are two levels of misconception: 1. lack of knowledge; 2. stupidity.

Those are the only two possibilities according to you.

 

[Hespera]

I think you may have phrased this one poorly. :o

Oh? How would you say it?

 

[Matthew712]

Could you name a few?

One might be that teachers are not knowledgeable enough, like you suggested.
What else?

I'd say the content itself (I essentially took the same math course 3 years in a row just following the standard progression from 7-9 grade) and how the teachers teach. Much of the work received in middle and high school is busy work and doesn't improve the level of understanding. Studies show that massive amounts of homework don't improve test scores compared to little-no homework.

Another big problem is how the school year is set up, we really need year-round schooling. Students loose so much progress during the summer, having shorter summers with longer spring and winter breaks (even without increasing the number of school days, although that can be improved too) will make our youth more competitive on the international circuit, which we are already behind and such is key to success in the post-modern world.