I just posted the below in the feedback forum here:
http://www.earthscienceliteracy.org/
Here’s the introductory paragraph from that site:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Earth Science Literacy Initiative (ESLI), funded by the National Science Foundation, aims to gather and codify the underlying understandings of Earth sciences into a succinct document that would have broad-reaching applications in both public and private arenas. It will establish the “Big Ideas” and supporting concepts that all Americans should know about Earth sciences. The resulting Earth Science Literacy framework will also become part of the foundation, along with similar documents from the Oceans, Atmospheres and Climate communities, of a larger geoscience Earth Systems Literacy effort. |
I am pondering the purpose and scope of the initiative and how that maps onto real world action. It would indeed be wonderful if all Americans understood all of these big ideas and concepts, but I don’t see how a document this extensive has any hope of being understood by even a large minority of the population.
We can point to no other examples of a set of commonly held understandings this broad and deep.
I can’t think of a set of understandings that is commonly held that is extensive as one of these big ideas and its supporting concepts.
If we wish to have different results from our efforts than the similar efforts that have come before, then we need a different strategy, or a different set of strategies.
If our goal is an Earth science literate populace, then I see three possible strategies (or kinds of strategies):
1. Fundamentally change the nature of teaching.
2. Fundamentally change the nature of what is taught.
3. Create and implement a process of learning that replaces teaching.
Piece of cake.
My point is not that the good work done to create these literacy principles was for naught. I think they do represent what every American ought to know, but without some profoundly different strategy, we won’t get there. This work (and the parallel work in ocean, atmospheric and climate science) is a logical step in the process.
In my view, it makes sense for this group to work on fundamentally redefining what is taught. That requires at the very least a repackaging of these ideas.
If the effort is to have the desired impact it needs to repackaged with attention to how people learn. The National Research Council’s Committee on How People Learn have issued a series of reports all of which are attentive to three key research findings.
The second of those findings is the most relevant to the work on Earth systems big ideas. That finding is:
To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must:
– have a deep foundation of factual knowledge,
– understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and
– organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
The organization and presentation of these ideas really matters. Those at the CESE meeting heard me talk about this and I’m attaching a revised slide from my presentation that is an attempt at providing a framework connecting the ideas from the different Earth science disciplinary groups.
I look forward to the town hall meeting at GSA.
Cheers,
Don
