|
> and we couldn't come up with even one realistic example This worries me about how we approach teaching rough-quantitative reasoning. It's widely thought of great importance for expertise. But even when there seems outlier opportunity (a first-tier institution emphasizing teaching, a dedicated class, for non-freshman, in physics), the questions... "Calculate how long to cook a turkey for, without reading the label or googling?" Really? Getting to a clear payoff may require a broader scope, or a different emphasis, or a reimagining. > isn't any meaningful use of this step until it's combined with others A kindergarten science educator suggests their students have a human right to understand their physical world then, not a lifetime (for them) later. Intriguing to think what that might look like as a goal... at any level. Science education research, like teachers, is focused on the possible. Existing students, with existing resources, and constraints, and objective metrics. There's little incentive to stack counterfactuals: what if my incoming students had been taught A successfully, and B and C successfully, then done together, they enable D, and oh wow. Not when we're struggling to manage even one with any consistency. Disaster-triage chain-of-care doesn't encourage funding of population heath research. Especially when the possibility space is so little explored, that we don't even have a vision of what an E and F might look like. A incentive bootstrap challenge. |