Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

The extreme position, whatever its faults, is sometimes useful for pointing out less extreme possibilities in roughly the same direction. (I don't actually agree with the quotation but found it interesting enough to throw out there. There's a germ of good policy within that toxic hull and distracting endosperm. It needs to be refined, and combined with other ingredients to make a wholesome intellectual meal for schoolchildren.)

Remember, gravity is only a 'theory' ... (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm)

The idea presented in the quotation is problematic enough without considering how to extend it to history, so I'm going to stick to the science and use that extreme position as a launching point for some thoughts about science education (and probably reach some conclusions that better science teachers have already arrived at by other routes).

What if we start out only teaching the fundamental scientific-reasoning skills (using age-appropriate examples), let the students 'discover' (with guidance) things like Newton's laws, then as more complex scientific facts are discussed focus on explaining how others worked them out, and eventually make the shift to teaching facts and formulae as the concepts being taught get to the point that recapitulating the discovery process each time would take too long (with occasional science-history tidbits thrown in to remind the students of what they learned about the scientific method in earlier years, lest they forget that it all still applies).

Even the approach I've just outlined probably needs refinement (at least -- maybe it has more basic problems), as it's just an off-the-top-of-my-head first draft, but it connects Schank's prescription to a complaint I've seen elsewhere about too many science teachers Not Really Understanding the subject, and consequently teaching a bundle of facts as handed down from authority instead of teaching an understanding of -- and appreciation of -- the process that led to our knowledge of those facts.

(And that in turn connects to my own oft-repeated complaint about too many early math teachers not really understanding math, and consequently doing damage that I, when I was teaching and tutoring, wound up having to undo. With mathematics, you really can have the class derive everything from first principles so that none of it is ever "this is just how it works". With science, a lot of the experiments would take far too long or require absurdly expensive equipment (not many high schools have cyclotrons), so at some point we do have to shift to "somebody discovered this" instead of "you can find this out on your own with our help".)

Bingo. Teach accepted science, teach theories as theories, but above all else, teach the ability to think, which too many people seem to lack. I still remember one of my "aha!" moments in this vein quite clearly; a history teacher presented some evidence, explained "what it meant", and asked us how many bought it. Every hand went up. Then he read us "Digging the Weans" by Robert Nathan and most of us got it. (Sadly, a good chunk of the class still did not.) What's sad is that I remember this so clearly because it was unusual. I want that kind of poking, challenging, critiquing, and analyzing to happen every single day in a child's upbringing.

Ugh. A better point than I'd really like to accept.

But I wonder ... can that not-wanting-to-think be overcome -- at least for long enough to get the basics inserted into their brains -- by starting young enough, when children are still exploring and discovering their world at speed, before they've fallen into "just tell me" habits.

This does, of course, reflect a distinctly Montessori way of thinking about young students. :-) Which may make it harder to implement in US public schools. :-(