Getting kids excited about science

[Cavemonster]

I'm interested in the best ways to present a certain idea to kids 8-12:

What is the simplest, clearest way to tell kids why the scientific method and critical thinking are important?

I'm working on a show to present to school groups that underscores the importance of the scientific method as opposed to credulity. I was absolutely shocked to find that the scientific method is not currently part of the curriculum framework for children in my state until high school, and then only barely. It seems to me this is the first thing kids should learn about science. Conversations with teacher friends in other states confirm that it's missing from the curriculum all over.

I've done a lot on the show, but what I'm missing is the elevator pitch, and I think that will really help me to refine the show to a razor edge.

For those who may not know, an elevator pitch is the essence of a project in a very short form. What I'd like is a way to say, in only a few sentences, why science is vitally important in a way that is immediately and easily digestible to a ten year old.

Any ideas?

 

[Complexity]

Kids will learn science best by doing science.

Find questions that interest them that are amenable to being attacked by kids of that age. Guide them through brainstorming, hypothesis generation and selection, experiment design, experiment execution, and analysis, repeating as necessary.

 

[Cavemonster]

That is a great way to teach science, but that's not the platform I have.

I have to deliver a message "This is why critical thinking is important"

I have about 45 minutes to say "This is why choosing critical thinking over woo is very important"

I have some wonderful ideas for the process, I'm not looking for a process. I'm looking for the message distilled.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the wrong question to ask. Kids, in my experience, are always interested in science, as least some parts of it grab their interest. A kid might be bored to tears about chemistry, but fascinated by animals, planets, kinematics, sound, optics, or anything.

Kids are born excited about science. They poke, prod, lick, bang, and drop everything. They buzz with endless question and wide eyed curiosity.

The question we should ask is "How do we stop adults from quashing the excitement kids have about science?"

 

[rwguinn]

"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
I assume that you are giving this pitch to adults, from the time involved.
If you want the message to get out, for bog's sake, do not attack any "sacred cows".
Don't use homeopathy or "Creation Science" to make points--you will turn off some of the audience.
"Flat Earth" and "Geocentric Universe" are fair game, since the premise is so ludicrous to the vast majority of people.

 

[rwguinn]

That's the wrong question to ask. Kids, in my experience, are always interested in science, as least some parts of it grab their interest. A kid might be bored to tears about chemistry, but fascinated by animals, planets, kinematics, sound, optics, or anything.

Kids are born excited about science. They poke, prod, lick, bang, and drop everything. They buzz with endless question and wide eyed curiosity.

The question we should ask is "How do we stop adults from quashing the excitement kids have about science?"

Absolutely!
Do the "plastic bottle water rocket" thing with kids (say, 4th and 5th graders, explaining how rockets work (a combination of pressure and mass ejection), then demo a rocket completely full of water, and one almost empty.
Then watch the kids trying to determine optimum water level for maximum altitude. It's amazing.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Guide them through brainstorming, hypothesis generation and selection, experiment design, experiment execution, and analysis, repeating as necessary.

Be careful not to assign labels and establish steps too early. People will often memorize that, overlooking why things are done and failing to learn it isn't always that way. Teaching routine early is useful when one wants others to follow a preset path (e.g. low-level employees). With science, it's more important to learn the underlying philosophy and reasoning.

Absolutely!
Do the "plastic bottle water rocket" thing with kids (say, 4th and 5th graders, explaining how rockets work (a combination of pressure and mass ejection), then demo a rocket completely full of water, and one almost empty.
Then watch the kids trying to determine optimum water level for maximum altitude. It's amazing.

This is good so long as the focus is on discovering the physics behind the rocket's operation. I've seen some situations that spent too much time on building rockets, and at that point it's no longer science but engineering. Emphasis needs to be placed on understanding that science is an exploratory endeavor. It's about looking at what is and trying to comprehend it. One may construct tools to aid in this task, but that's the means and not the end.

 

[Cavemonster]

I left out many of the details of my project so as not to derail, but I'm realizing I should probably give a more full description.

I'm a puppeteer. The artist in residence at a small dedicated puppet theater. As part of my job, I get to create shows that are performed both at the theater and at schools.

Normally the shows are mainly good theater for theater's sake. Some of them have are cultural education presenting myths and art from various cultures.

For my new show, I'm working on a piece about the importance of the scientific method and critical thinking. This show, if it goes well will convey a strong message and at the same time tell a good story. The central image is going to be The medicine show and the battle between accepting the snake-oil salesman's claims at face value or subjecting them to tests.

As a standard show for the format of my theater, assembly periods in schools and young attention spans, I have an hour maximum, generally best at 45-50min.

When you're writing a play, there are a number of things that must be written that are never spoken by a character or shown to the audience in any way directly, but that guide the development of the piece. For me, one of those things is a simple thesis of the play, a very clear statement about why the play is worth the audience's precious time. Every part of the play needs to be checked against this. If it doesn't serve this thesis, then it probably shouldn't be a part of the play.

So as people on the JREF, you've all embraced critical thinking, if you had to say in a few sentences, as simply as possible, why critical thinking is vitally important, what would those few sentences be? Imagine them as an argument you're presenting to a fairly bright eight to ten year old.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not sure about a few sentences, but I know the approach I'd take, and it would be narrative based. Construct an example of a problem that needs solving, and present the story of the person who tries to solve it based on dogma and prejudice, with hilariously tragic results. Then present the story of the person who tries to solve it by scientific analysis, and find a dramatically effective way to compare and contrast the two results. Use comedy to keep the children's attention, and make the moral clear from the progress of the story rather than actually stating it.

In the case of the medicine show, a thought that springs to mind is Mark Twain's con man in Huckleberry Finn who sold a paste to remove tartar from the teeth, which removed the enamel as well. You could go through the awful effects on the teeth of the true believer, while another man decides to consult his dentist and simply gets his teeth cleaned. At the end of the story, they sit down side-by-side in a diner, where the man who used the scientific method orders a steak and the true believer has to make do with the soup.

It's obvious and trite, but obvious and trite can work very well with young children.

Dave

 

[PGH]

Just some ideas...

I'd present historical evidence of bad science and the harm it caused. You say you're a puppeteer. Any chance you could attach some leeches to a puppet and do a bit on ancient medical treatments? You could show how misunderstanding of the way the body worked led to such terrible practices. If you wanted to be fair you could even say that this was a step (though misguided) towards the medicine of today as even leeches were an improvement over believing people had little demons inside them.

I see that Dave above me has a good example as well.

Of course if you want to go the easy route just tell the kids as they walk in that every single thing they use, own and enjoy (including their very lives) are the result of the scientific method. That usually sums the importance of it up nicely. And you'll be done in under a minute!

 

[progressquest]

So as people on the JREF, you've all embraced critical thinking, if you had to say in a few sentences, as simply as possible, why critical thinking is vitally important, what would those few sentences be? Imagine them as an argument you're presenting to a fairly bright eight to ten year old.

For me, critical thinking is the way that I make sure that I'm right. If the world works a certain way, I would like to know that; even if it means that I don't get to keep the warm fuzzies all of the time. I would much rather accept the world the way it is and try to work within that framework than try to justify to myself why it isn't working the way I think it should.

 

[case#46cw39]

Well, to play it conservatively so that parents of all bents will appreciate it, you could base it on the "critical thinking rubric" of SUNY (State University of New York), of which getting a pass is a requirement for their students:

"The SUNY Trustees learning outcomes for critical thinking focus on arguments ... The word “argument” in the rubric is thus to be understood as applying to a wide variety of different kinds of activities aimed at deciding what to believe or to do. The word “premise” applies to the evidence or grounds on which a decision or recommendation is based.... the word “argument” is meant to include any kind of reasoning aimed at deciding what to believe or do. [conclusion]. ... The first learning outcome concerns a student’s critique of some argument and the second concerns a student’s attempt to develop one."
http://www.suny.edu/provost/academic_affairs/CriticalThinkingRubric.cfm

 

[dropzone]

More explosions. Worked for me.

 

[USEagle13]

I'm interested in the best ways to present a certain idea to kids 8-12:

What is the simplest, clearest way to tell kids why the scientific method and critical thinking are important?

I'm working on a show to present to school groups that underscores the importance of the scientific method as opposed to credulity. I was absolutely shocked to find that the scientific method is not currently part of the curriculum framework for children in my state until high school, and then only barely. It seems to me this is the first thing kids should learn about science. Conversations with teacher friends in other states confirm that it's missing from the curriculum all over.

I've done a lot on the show, but what I'm missing is the elevator pitch, and I think that will really help me to refine the show to a razor edge.

For those who may not know, an elevator pitch is the essence of a project in a very short form. What I'd like is a way to say, in only a few sentences, why science is vitally important in a way that is immediately and easily digestible to a ten year old.

Any ideas?

Show your boobs

 

[excaza]

Science fairs are what did it for me. My father used to be a volunteer judge at a science fair held at a local university, and he always took me along. He would always start off with the same questions: "What was your goal?" and "How did you get there?"

Even if you don't participate in the fair, you'll learn quite a bit just by going and checking out the projects. If it's a large enough event, everyone's bound to find something they find really interesting.

 

[kowalskil]

I'm interested in the best ways to present a certain idea to kids 8-12:

What is the simplest, clearest way to tell kids why the scientific method and critical thinking are important?

I'm working on a show to present to school groups that underscores the importance of the scientific method as opposed to credulity. I was absolutely shocked to find that the scientific method is not currently part of the curriculum framework for children in my state until high school, and then only barely. It seems to me this is the first thing kids should learn about science. Conversations with teacher friends in other states confirm that it's missing from the curriculum all over. ...

I agree that teaching about scientific validations of claims, in our physical world, is very important. But when to teach it, and how to teach it, is worth debating.

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles