Gary Ackerman @garyackerman@qoto.org
- On the web:
- https://hackscience.education/
Director of Teaching and Learning Innovation at a community college in New England
Retired k-12 science/ math/ technology teacher/ technology integration specialist/ coordinator
Joined Nov 2022
It be great if politicians actually paid attention to science.... you know... logic, observation, reason.
It's interesting to me when I see students get excited about anything, but their teachers see it and reject its importance.
The less fully one accounts for variables, the less certain the cause-and-effect relationships.
The students got the answer right on the test. This should not be confused with "they know the answer:' there are lots of alternative explanations for correct answers
"I’ve looked for it and found lots of rhetoric, but not studies reporting that direct evidence gathered in schools.” This has been my entire career in education.... but I started my preparation only 40 years ago, so it might be the result of recency bias.
Education is based on the myth that test scores accurately reflect one's ability to use what they have learned in other situations..
Please don't confuse "ethics" with "this of things you should not do."
Your ideology is going to determine in large part, your cognitive biases... those determine what what you “know" to be true.
When we stumble upon a paradox, everything that leads to it makes sense, everything has been done right, everyone has answered questions truthfully, so we are accurate and true, but a contradiction remains. Let's not avoid them when teaching.
Scientists ask:
1) if the question was reasonable;
2) if the methods provide the data necessary to answer the question;
3) if the correct data was collected appropriately;
4) if data were properly analyzed; & the conclusions are logical & supported by the data.
Leader rarely do.
Data and information, which are the focus of instruction, are still needed, but alone those do not represent adequate education.
Once you have a way of thinking, you attempt to solve all problems through that method.
What you define as “natural” is grounded in familiar technology.
Before scientists accept an observation, other independent scientists must document the same observation. This requires science be done in a public and open manner and scientists must report what they did so that others can criticize and verify.
The less controlled the variables in our data collection, the more tentative the conclusions must be.
Scientists begin with the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between two groups), and then will either accept the null hypothesis (if there appears to be no effect) or reject the null hypothesis (if there appears to be an effect).
Good science allows us to predict observations and to explain those observations: If we do A it will cause B, because of this mechanism.
- On the web:
- https://hackscience.education/
Director of Teaching and Learning Innovation at a community college in New England
Retired k-12 science/ math/ technology teacher/ technology integration specialist/ coordinator
Joined Nov 2022
