tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post7213538925747238730..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Mendelian Inheritance: Basic Genetics or Basic Mistake? Part IVAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-57531728743494623792011-08-11T07:08:19.807-04:002011-08-11T07:08:19.807-04:00Of course I love the parallel between winner-take-...Of course I love the parallel between winner-take-all evolutionary theory and dominant alleles. Awesome.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-15553411118387242212011-08-04T13:31:17.770-04:002011-08-04T13:31:17.770-04:00We appreciate your comments, thanks. And of cours...We appreciate your comments, thanks. And of course, it's not just science teachers that should be teaching critical thinking!Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-37894043038348790152011-08-04T13:23:29.138-04:002011-08-04T13:23:29.138-04:00The country desperately needs more of you! Critic...The country desperately needs more of you! Critical thinking involves synthesis--even across science and literature--and less haste and less immediate material gain. <br /><br />Teaching dogma rather than at least reasonable levels of critical thinking leads to illusions and then to other ideologies. People as a whole may want simple truths to live by, but at least being aware of the subtleties is an important tempering factor.<br /><br />Of course all scientists are wrong to some extent, because Nature is complex and we are puny by comparison. Knowing that, it should not be beyond students' grasp simply to know that scientists use current ideas as a framework, and the best scientists are humbly aware of that.<br /><br /><br />If we lose all of our nuances, we may have huge 3D TV sets, but we'll have fewer dimensions inside ourselves.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-8334667903289972962011-08-04T13:15:38.805-04:002011-08-04T13:15:38.805-04:00"After all, they have the same IQ as their pa..."After all, they have the same IQ as their parents and teachers, just less experience!"<br /><br />"I guess, we try to teach critical thinking. I think 7th graders are open to learning this way, too. Some will find it difficult, but some college students resist, too."<br /><br />Thank you. I know there must be many others who feel as both of you have stated here. But it is nice for me to see someone actually gets it. The idea that children and teachers are more than the sum of their test scores. <br /><br />Both of your points are given nothing but lip service when it comes to the education legislation (NCLB) and common core standards movement. <br /><br />What reading your entries on Mendel have done for me is to help look a little deeper and plan to do more with my teaching of genetics this year.<br /><br />By the way if you are interested I came to your blogg via Pharyngula-Sandwalk (Larry Moran) Carnival of Evolution-The Mermaids Tale.<br /><br />You both confirm and remind me to do what I "feel" is the most beneficial for my students 1) they are 12 so my number one goal is to build a relationship with them as individuals (not be their friend) but trust is an issue; 2) help them to think critically and be skeptical of what they read and what I teach and if that carries over to other places so be it but they can safely practice by learning to ask questions in their science class 3) see writing as a way to communicate thinking. That is a beginning.<br /><br />One last thing that I liked about reading the Mendel posts was the idea of uniqueness also stated here in forward to Hermann Hesse's Demian:<br /><br />But every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world’s phenomena intersect, only once in this way and never again.<br /><br />This may be another way to help my students grasp how they can integrate what we are learning in science with other interests they may have such as a interest in literature (ok my interest in literature).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-21540060343567414842011-08-03T18:52:59.442-04:002011-08-03T18:52:59.442-04:00When we teach at the college level, our fundamenta...When we teach at the college level, our fundamental approach is to try to help students think about how they know what they know. We hope to teach them to critique what they learn, in classes or by reading, about science, to understand what's assumption, what's accepted without a solid foundation, what's probably believable, and how to tell the difference. In a nutshell, I guess, we try to teach critical thinking. I think 7th graders are open to learning this way, too. Some will find it difficult, but some college students resist, too.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-24839048894568529132011-08-03T18:34:50.980-04:002011-08-03T18:34:50.980-04:00It's hard to give a quick answer to your quest...It's hard to give a quick answer to your question that is not just a superficial one. If history of science an't be taught, or a rigid history must be taught, there's a problem.<br /><br />I would think kids would have no problem understanding that new ideas come along for a good reason, but they are almost always incomplete or partly wrong. That's because we don't know everything, but only that new facts (or generalizations) seem to suggest explanations for things we had no good prior explanation for.<br /><br />The new ideas are almost always more simple than the truth turns out to be, because the new idea leads us to explore things and we learn more, and understand more than we did before.<br /><br />Sometimes an idea or theory gives a basic understanding of underlying principles, but often we need to be careful that we don't mistake that illustration for the whole truth. However, all of us at any age yearn for simple and easy answers, so dealing with complex things that we know in our hearts we don't fully understand is unsettling. Even scientists like to cling to the 'teddy bears' of easy answers rather than frustrating difficult at finding major answers (like the cure for important diseases) that may take many people more than their lifetimes to be found.<br /><br />My own kids are long gone from the nest. But kids at 7th grade might understand that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and even teddy bears, provide very young kids comforting simple explanations for things in life. But later on, they surely can understand that those first things weren't literally true but reflected the deeper truth--that their parents loved them, but couldn't explain everything in adult terms. By the 7th grade kids can surely realize that as they got older they were able to understanding things more closely to the truth, and didn't need false but simplified explanations. And that Christmas and so on are more complicated than a magic gift-giver and elves, and that comfort isn't as easy as hugging a teddy bear.<br /><br />I'm groping here, because society needs frameworks, and even teaching to test standards represents some agreed-on cultural tenets and a way to (try to) ensure that children get properly acculturated.<br /><br />On a national basis, maybe it's true that most teachers aren't capable of teaching more nuanced views of the world. They themselves may not have been exposed to them (many if not most scientists aren't). But until the scientists, experts, politicians, and so on themselves are more willing to face the complexity of reality, it may be too much to hope that on a standardized basis, nuance is likely to prevail.<br /><br />I personally think that understanding the nature of complexity and the fact that we don't understand everything, can be understood by kids. And that if they do, they're more likely to be better citizens (and a few of them, better scientists) as a result. After all, they have the same IQ as their parents and teachers, just less experience!<br /><br />I hope this responds to your comment, and we certainly appreciate viewers of MT, and hope we can help inform them to things, at least as we see them.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-76401041326518253032011-08-03T18:09:32.133-04:002011-08-03T18:09:32.133-04:00As part of your audience and a middle school scien...As part of your audience and a middle school science educator (CA 7th grade with genetics and evolution as standards to be taught) what impact or changes would you like to see in science education for including concepts of "genomic variants?" But as you indicated in your first post that these ideas did set the stage for discovery as a way of testing and tracking results.<br /><br />Part of a move toward "common core" standards will preclude any of this history and thinking from making it into our secondary classrooms as teachers are handcuffed more and more as to what experts (not secondary teachers of course) think should be taught and when.<br /><br />Thank you for the thought provoking posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com