I’m not sure that even my tendency to see information literacy connections everywhere will explain why I’m posting this, but I just thought it was really interesting. This morning, I got pointed to this article (via a delicious network) which argues that hands-on, unstructured, discovery-based learning doesn’t do the trick for many science students at the secondary level. Using preparedness for college science as their definition of success, most students are more successful if their high school science learning is significantly structured for them by their teachers.
Structure More Effective in High School Science Classes, Study Reveals
What jumped out at me here was that the reason seemed to be linked to the math – students with good preparation in the math, did benefit from unstructured, discovery based learning. And then there was another “similar articles to this one link at the bottom of the page, pointing to another study, making another point -which supports this idea too (which is not hugely surprising because both items point to different papers by the same researchers).
You do better in college if you’ve taken high school classes in chemistry, better in physics if you’ve taken physics – but the one big exception to the success in one doesn’t generalize argument? You do better in everything if you’re well-prepared in math.
College Science Success Linked to Math and Same-Subject Preparation
After that there are more “articles like this one links” leading to articles about middle-school math teachers in the US being really ill-prepared, or things about gender and math and science which really got me thinking about further implications of those findings – if math is such a lynchpin. So there is something there about how this dynamic, browsable environment makes your brain work in ways that make research better.
There’s also something there about context – getting the “math teachers aren’t prepared” article in the context of the “math is key” research made the significance of the former clearer, made how I could *use* that research much clearer than it would have been if I came upon it alone. There’s also something there about the power of sites like ScienceDaily (and ScienceBlogs, and ResearchBlogging.org and others) to pull together research, present it in an accessible way in spaces where researchers/readers can make those connections.
And there might even be something there about foundational, cognitive skills that undergird other learning. But mostly, I just found it interesting.
Studies referenced were reported on here:
Sadler, Philip M. & Tai, Robert, H. The two high-school pillars supporting college science (Education Forum) Science 27 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5837, pp. 457 – 458. DOI: 10.1126/science.1144214 (paywall)
Tai & Sadler, Same Science for all? Interactive association of structure in learning activities and academic attainment background on college science performance in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, Volume 31, Issue 5 March 2009 , pages 675 – 696. DOI: 10.1080/09500690701750600