Why are We Failing in History and Science Education?

Joy Hakim in the Washington Post

For a variety of reasons, none good, many of our schools have marginalized the subjects that make you think, the subjects that provide intellectual stretching. History and science—taught as idea-based subjects—give you something to think about. Turning them into rote memorization disciplines gives you a headache.

From the comment section...

We are behind the pacing plan made up by our standards-driven teacher-leader. We have a pretty good textbook, Prentice Hall Chemistry, the 2000 edition. It isn't helpful for the pacing plan, because there is no time to develop any of the ideas in it, and still keep up with the trivial pursuit game of the multiple-choice common quarterly assessments thought up by the lead teacher, based on the quickest way to dispatch the Framework bullets.
 
Chemistry, for me, was the first subject where I could see the material world "make sense". My students today have NEVER had any opportunity to make sense of the avalanche of drivel they are being prepared to test on. Once the test is over, its architects and hangers-on don't care what happens to them at all.  

Becoming a Learner

"You see, in a rapidly changing, information abundant world, the people who are going to be successful – both professionally and personally – are the learners. And by “learners” I don’t mean people who just learn what we teach you here at AHS.

Now, I want to be clear, that doesn’t mean I don’t think you should learn what we teach you here at AHS. I don’t want you to go to your second period teacher, raise your hand, and say, “Mr. Fisch said I don’t need to learn what you’re teaching.” Please, don’t do that. That’s not at all what I’m saying. Your teachers here work very hard trying to share important, meaningful and relevant knowledge and skills. And that’s important, but it’s not enough. Because to be successful in the 21st century you’re going to have to be a learner, you’re going to have to learn how to learn, and go after things on your own. You’re going to have to be independent, curious, passionate learners, who don’t just sit back and wait for someone to tell them what they’re supposed to know, but who go out and try to figure things out for yourself. Who pursue your interests, your goals, your passions with intensity, and who actively participate in everything you do. Who go out and find other learners who are passionate about what you are passionate about and learn from them – and alongside them.

To quote myself (sorry), the world has shifted. The world of school, and the world of work, and the world in general has shifted, and so I need you to shift as well, and that’s what I’m trying to do in this class. I’m trying to get you to be actively involved in your own education, to be independent and curious learners..."

Gender equity in science

From: http://www.miller-mccune.com/blogs/news-blog/a-new-view-of-why-women-shun-science-careers-19392/

It’s a nagging question that has long haunted the equality-minded world of academia: Why are women so underrepresented in the fields of science and technology?

...

A team of Miami University researchers led by psychologist Amanda Diekman has come up with a different explanation. In a paper just published in the journal Psychological Science, they argue women perceive STEM careers (those in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) as largely incompatible with one of their core goals: Engaging in work that helps others.

For many young women, it seems, that a lack of interest in science careers may be a misperception that science is an isolated career.

The researchers found the more strongly a participant endorsed communal goals, the less likely he or she was to express interest in a STEM career. Not surprisingly, women were more likely than men to endorse these care-oriented objectives.

“If women perceive STEM as antithetical to highly valued goals,” they write, “it is not surprising that even women talented in these areas might choose alternative career paths.”
There’s a certain irony at work here; as the researchers point out, advances made by scientists “hold the key to helping many people.” Nevertheless, such careers “are commonly regarded as antithetical (or at best irrelevant) to such communal goals,” they report.

Human evolution in Tibet

Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists, a group at the Beijing Genomics Institute led by Xin Yi and Jian Wang. The report appears in Friday’s issue of Science.

If confirmed, this would be the most recent known example of human evolutionary change. Until now, the most recent such change was the spread of lactose tolerance — the ability to digest milk in adulthood — among northern Europeans about 7,500 years ago. But archaeologists say that the Tibetan plateau was inhabited much earlier than 3,000 years ago and that the geneticists’ date is incorrect.

When lowlanders try to live at high altitudes, their blood thickens as the body tries to counteract the low oxygen levels by churning out more red blood cells. This overproduction of red blood cells leads to chronic mountain sickness and to lesser fertility — Han Chinese living in Tibet have three times the infant mortality of Tibetans.

The Beijing team analyzed the 3 percent of the human genome in which known genes lie in 50 Tibetans from two villages at an altitude of 14,000 feet and in 40 Han Chinese from Beijing, which is 160 feet above sea level. Many genes exist in a population in alternative versions. The biologists found about 30 genes in which a version rare among the Han had become common among the Tibetans. The most striking instance was a version of a gene possessed by 9 percent of Han but 87 percent of Tibetans.

Such an enormous difference indicates that the version typical among Tibetans is being strongly favored by natural selection. In other words, its owners are evidently leaving more children than those with different versions of the gene.  

Experimenting with the Oil Spill

Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill

Frustrated with limited data on the BP oil gusher, a group of independent scientists has proposed a large experiment that would give a clearer understanding of where the oil and gas are going and where they'll do the most damage. The scientists say their mission must be undertaken immediately, before BP kills the runaway well. They propose using what's probably the world's worst oil accident to learn how crude oil and natural gas move through water when they're released at high volumes from the deep sea. Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico in late April, more than 200 million gallons of oil have gushed from the blown well. The scientists also want to see how the oil breaks down into toxic and safer components in different ocean conditions, information that would help predict which ocean species are most at risk. The experiment also could provide data that would help in dealing with any future spills. "Without this understanding, we're no better off when the next one occurs," said Ira Leifer, a researcher at the Marine Science Institute of the University of California at Santa Barbara who's leading the team that's proposed the experiment. The plan calls for about two weeks of experiments with two research vessels and robotic vehicles at a cost of $8.4 million. The scientist would use monitoring equipment and sampling to conduct experiments at various levels in the water column.

Don't make your bed!

Your mom is wrong, a messy bed is good for you...

Failing to make your bed in the morning may actually help keep you healthy, scientists believe.
Research suggests that while an unmade bed may look scruffy it is also unappealing to house dust mites thought to cause asthma and other allergies. A Kingston University study discovered the bugs cannot survive in the warm, dry conditions found in an unmade bed. The average bed could be home to up to 1.5 million house dust mites. The bugs, which are less than a millimetre long, feed on scales of human skin and produce allergens which are easily inhaled during sleep. The warm, damp conditions created in an occupied bed are ideal for the creatures, but they are less likely to thrive when moisture is in shorter supply. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4181629.stm