If he’s right, we’re fucked
This guy is an expert on science literacy at Northwestern University:
Dr. Miller’s data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
Electro Rock Said,
August 30, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
I hate these educational “researchers” that demonstrate people don’t know as much as they should. This stuff always reads in either of two ways – 1) A critique of educational systems or student motivation/interest OR 2) as making fun of dumb people. Fine. We get the point, these articles have existed since the 60s at least. Now Dr. Miller should invest some time in figuring out how to correct these problems. I don’t think anyone will be surprised by this stuff – every few months someone demonstrates that students don’t know who Hitler was or that the O in H2O is oxygen. Let’s expend more time determining how to instantiate correct knowledge in students, rather than developing these uninformative surveys and telling people the percentages of factoid knowledge. In fact, the interesting work in this area shows WHY people have these faulty beliefs based on real-world experiences. That, or perhaps people’s underlying HYPOTHESES about processes, rather than trivia like what is radiation…
As a side note, I have a grant with some earth scientists to examine faulty beliefs about geologic principles. We always find bizarre notions about earthquakes, volcanic activity, and the like. We could publish the same kind of useless attack/description with examples of what people do/do not know. But would it be surprising, and perhaps more relevant to Dr. Miller’s presumed underlying interests, how useful is that to informing the learning sciences (from applied work with instructors in schools to basic research on knowledge acquisition)?
And survey research…whoopee….those are exactly the folks that announce they are wearing plastic yellow bracelets. “Making good surveys is hard”…right, but keep in mind that most such survey work is written by folks with little to no training in item response theory.
bluegrass girl Said,
August 30, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
I completely agree with your points about the wrongheadedness of using people’s knowledge of science factoids as an index of their ability to understand scientific issues. Findings like that make for cute blurbs in the NY Times, but contribute to an educational culture that is increasingly focused on the dimunition of learning to the ability to respond correctly to a multiple choice test item. Our educational system should be focused on teaching people how to understand the processes in nature that scientists seek to explain and the way in which they go about trying to understand them. Science is about understanding cause and effect, not knowing the definition of isotopes. It’s not as if our secondary education system doesn’t expose people to this knowledge, it’s that it is doing a poor job of utilizing strategies that will increase students’ understanding of, memory for, and application of this knowledge. That’s what we need to know, not how many people think the sun revolves around the earth.
And, on an equally bitter note, I’m sure this Dr. Miller’s salary is triple mine.
Electro Rock Said,
August 31, 2005 @ 12:08 am
Right, and part of the issue is that if you design an appropriate educational lesson, individuals should understand that processes associated with the seasons, day/night cycles, temperature, sunlight, and so forth, actually require the earth to revolve around the sun, rather than vice versa. Dr. Miller is interested in documenting this problem, not figuring out how to rectify it; the former seems redundant albeit self-satisfying (and self-congratulatory, as I read that article) while the latter is much more useful but much harder work. Of course, his defense will be that to figure out how to generate change in comprehension, we need to know what to target. But dozens of existing articles, and not surprisingly, interviews with teachers, instructors, etc. would reveal this (and likely more).
Of course, you also point out the challenge of assessment – his survey methods may have fostered problems like this. Additionally, we know based on a well-worn body of psychological research that people are poor at describing their own knowledge. They underestimate and overestimate at different times for different reasons. So while a student may pick the wrong definition for radiation, they can likely tell you some useful things that suggest they know more. I am always surprised that these survey-touters seem unaware of a core tenets of developmental psychology (and learning, and therefore of valid assessment) – comprehension precedes production.
Boxen Said,
August 31, 2005 @ 9:13 am
According to Mass DoE, memorization and test-taking ability are pretty much all that matter to show a proficiency in science. Who are we to judge? The suppression of inquiry is not only a time-honored cultural institution, it’s also the law.
danger Said,
August 31, 2005 @ 11:11 am
“So while a student may pick the wrong definition for radiation, they can likely tell you some useful things that suggest they know more.”
I don’t see anything here (or in other similar surveys) that suggest people know more. This is just like “JayWalking” on the Tonight Show: showing that people ARE actually idiots.
And screw all this. I have no idea how to define a molecule, but I could have done it in 10th grade. And I could probably list more characters in Lost than I can Noble Gases. Does that make me stupid?
Hm… I guess it does.
Electro Rock Said,
August 31, 2005 @ 11:39 am
Those surveys don’t give the opportunity to provide insight. For at least 80 years interview methodologies demonstrate far superior knowledge than other techniques. And if you believe the Tonight Show doesn’t edit out stuff, we’ve got additonal problems.