Comments on: Science dull and hard http://simonhammond.com/blog/2005/06/24/science-dull-hard/ because sometimes 140 characters just isn't enough Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:18:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Simon Hammond » Blog Archive » BBC skips Skype http://simonhammond.com/blog/2005/06/24/science-dull-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Simon Hammond » Blog Archive » BBC skips Skype Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:54:08 +0000 http://simonhammond.com/blog/?p=97#comment-92 [...] I’ve picked at the BBC’s SciTech reporting before (here and here) but this is just plain negligent. No matter that it smacks of a press release and skimps on analysis. Like, isn’t this just backward compatibility? What about cost? [...] [...] I’ve picked at the BBC’s SciTech reporting before (here and here) but this is just plain negligent. No matter that it smacks of a press release and skimps on analysis. Like, isn’t this just backward compatibility? What about cost? [...]

]]> By: DaveG http://simonhammond.com/blog/2005/06/24/science-dull-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-91 DaveG Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:03:55 +0000 http://simonhammond.com/blog/?p=97#comment-91 I agree with you in part on this. However, I think the point is not that science itself is dull, but that "taught science" can be dull. I'm afraid I don't really have the necessary personal experience to comment on this. At school I did four science subjects: Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Technology (or CDT as it's sometimes called). Each subject was taught separately, rather than with the popular "combined science" practice that is popular today. Any successful teaching programme needs a cohesive structure, interest value and appreciable useful outcomes. Without these it can be difficult to engage students' attention and/or enthusiasm. In the case of science (and also mathematics) it is perhaps not obvious how to achieve these points, and if you fail you get a course that can be constrewn as "dull" or muddled. Once you start down the path to dullness, of course, it's only a short step to hardness as students put in less attention and effort than they need to. I agree with you in part on this. However, I think the point is not that science itself is dull, but that “taught science” can be dull.

I’m afraid I don’t really have the necessary personal experience to comment on this. At school I did four science subjects: Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Technology (or CDT as it’s sometimes called). Each subject was taught separately, rather than with the popular “combined science” practice that is popular today.

Any successful teaching programme needs a cohesive structure, interest value and appreciable useful outcomes. Without these it can be difficult to engage students’ attention and/or enthusiasm. In the case of science (and also mathematics) it is perhaps not obvious how to achieve these points, and if you fail you get a course that can be constrewn as “dull” or muddled.

Once you start down the path to dullness, of course, it’s only a short step to hardness as students put in less attention and effort than they need to.

]]>