Talk:Science education

Until there is no article here about pedagogy I've linked to eo fr pl Pedagogy. To be fixed later. AL. I remove the links. I confused Science education and Education Science. Arno Lagrange 11:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The distinction may be more prominent in the US than other countries, yet is still pretty subtle. Science Education refers to the study of how to teach science (pedagogy, inclusive practices, etc). Education in science I think would refer to actually doing the teaching. If you know the point of view of other countries, it is needed in this article. And you're right, an article on pedagogy is needed. --zandperl 17:05, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Questions

1. "it is by chance more rigorous" <- Can someone explain what this phrase means?
2. "On the one hand, the elitism of professional scientists and academia has prompted numbers of education specialists to take interest in science education and making it more accessible to individuals." <- Does this mean something like, "Some science education specialists work towards the goal of making science education and career paths towards science professions equally accessible to all demographic groups" ?
3. "Opposing the science educators, traditional scientists feel it is important to not dilute respectable science." <- I do not understand why "making science more accessible" should imply a "dilution of respectable science." There are many professional scientists who participate in enrichment and support programs that attract under-represented groups to science. The only organized efforts I know of by scientists to exclude any group from science are watchdog efforts designed to challenge con artists from falsely labeling their non-scientific activities as science. Such efforts to prevent the "dilution of respectable science" only oppose those efforts of "educators" who have special agendas for forcing non-science like "creation science" into the science curriculum.
4. "Allowing those less qualified to perform science will only result in the propagation of errors and less accurate science." <- I'm not sure what this sentence is telling us. Most professions define and work to maintain standards. However, there is a well-recognized and long tradition of "amateur science" which has produced some high-quality science. Nobody can be prevented from doing science. It makes sense to allow working scientists to require certain professional qualifications of those who they hire to do science.
5. "Both groups wish to train future scientists, they differ on how to do so, and whom is qualified." <- Can you provide some examples of these differences? JWSchmidt 13:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've numbered your points above for easier reference.

1. I think that means that despite the lack of regulation, American colleges are generally considered to be of higher quality than those in other countries.
2. yep you're right, specifically underrepresented groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. see The Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy for some of their concerns.
3. That section isn't referring to pseudoscience, but what potential scientists must go through to become accepted scientists. For example going to college is required as an early step. Going to college requires scoring well on the SAT. When's the last time a student in an inner city high school scored well on the SAT? This isn't intentional by the scientists, it's an unfortunate side effect, and can easily be dismissed as just trying to keep out the stupid people. While most science organizations (such as the National Science Foundation and NASA) today do engage in outreach activities to try and attract people to science, if you examine their history these were usually implemented only after science educators started examining trends in student recruitment and retention.
4. see above note
5. see above note

Are these adequate explanations, and do you agree? If so, how can we put it in the article? I think I did much of the work on the parts you questioned, so I'm sure additional input is sorely needed.  :)

1. The original intent seems to me to be a comparison between pre-college science teaching and what happens in college.
2. Elitism: the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals. I would like to see a specific example of how "the elitism of professional scientists and academia" is causally related to the problem of under-represented groups in science. For example, is there evidence to suggest that the percentage of female biologists is a higher than the percentage of female computer scientists because computer scientists are more elitist than biologists? Surely the problem is not that there are standards for the science track in education. The problem is that not all demographic groups equally meet the standards.
3. I'm still confused. Is there evidence that any scientists oppose addressing the problem of under-represented groups in science? Are there really science educators who want to "dilute respectable science" in the interest of equal representation of all demographic groups in science?
4. Are science educators in favor of requiring working scientists to hire unqualified personnel just so that there are no under-represented groups in science?
5. Can you provide an example of how science educators would train future scientists in a different way than how scientists currently do it? JWSchmidt 23:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--zandperl 22:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)