How Can We Encourage Scientific Thinking in Children?

[jack action]

I wish more people would understand this concept:

​

When I see an adult shutting down a curious mind, I'm always disappointed.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes! My wife is a Montessori teacher and this is a main tenet for them.

What are ways that we destroy that inner scientist?

 

[jack action]

I was with a 3-year-old once, throwing rocks in a small creek (1-2 feet deep). The creek had also a lot of big rocks in it (a few feet in diameter), such that they were partially out of the water.

So we're throwing rock close to the edge where we were and they were, of course, sinking to the bottom. So I asked the little boy why he thought that was. He answered: «Because rocks sink to the bottom.» So I challenged his statement by pointing the big rocks on the other side of the creek that appeared to be floating: «What about those rocks?» The kids paused for a few seconds and answered with all the confidence in the world: «Because some rocks sink and some rocks float.»

I was amazed by this behavior from a 3-year-old. It was exactly what a scientific does. He made an observation (small rocks sinking to the bottom) and elaborated a theory (all rocks sink). When his theory was challenged with a new observation, he corrected his theory accordingly! I wish I could have taken the time to take him across the creek to show him that the big rocks were actually resting on the bottom as well, but we were called by the other adults for supper and we left it at that.

Once with the other adults, I shared this amazing behavior to one of the mothers (not of the kid in question though) and when I mentioned that the kid said «some rocks sink, some rocks float», she replied: «That's stupid, rocks don't float!»

She was focusing on the quality of the answer of a 3-year-old, rather than the process he used to get to this answer. That kid was doing this process with no shame whatsoever. One can easily imagine that if people tell him that what he's saying is «stupid», he will stop doing things that lead to «stupid» statements. That is when shame comes into play and self-esteem & confidence goes down the window and kids begin thinking they're not good in science, they don't have the «gift».

 

[StatGuy2000]

My speculation is that adults who lack all curiosity of the world and believe in following strict dogma when following the world (e.g. people who are strictly religious) are more likely to end up being parents that squelch the curiosity of their young children. I feel this is particularly true of parents who lack a formal education

(I should clarify that lacking a formal education does not in of itself necessarily mean that one lacks curiosity or would not encourage their children to pursue an education or nurture curiosity and exploration).

 

[jack action]

My speculation is that adults who lack all curiosity of the world [...]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

Curiosity and sense of wonder is killed in the child slowly through parenting and social institutions. Sit down, shut up, don't touch that, pay attention. Early childhood development is mostly achieved via self experimentation. Over time, formal instruction takes over and they learn to be spoon fed and take directions.

 

[Bystander]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-electricity-made-out-of.940141/ , e.g..

 

[jack action]

Curiosity and sense of wonder is killed in the child slowly through parenting and social institutions. Sit down, shut up, don't touch that, pay attention. Early childhood development is mostly achieved via self experimentation. Over time, formal instruction takes over and they learn to be spoon fed and take directions.

Yes, but why? Why does it seems to be the «right thing to do» to do so? Even if the politically correct answer everyone will say is to encourage curiosity and experimentation (which means that people understand what is the right attitude), the natural reaction is still to steer people (and kids) in the «right» direction.

I love this article about kids learning how to read and that fits more with what I think about how humans learn.

@Bystander : That is a painful thread to read, that we see too often on PF. I understand the concept of requiring using proper language to clearly express your ideas, but I feel some go out of their ways to NOT understand what others are trying to say; Like there is some sort of competition to win on a grammar technicality.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes, but why? Why does it seems to be the «right thing to do» to do so?

I think it's a flawed system due to needing control and installation of strict code of conduct instead giving guidance and direction that is developmentally appropriate.

 

[symbolipoint]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

Children have less responsibility and can have more opportunity to think and play, and wonder, and depending on their impulses, try things. Adults, having more responsibilities to worry about, stop their play and curiosity - and sometimes try to stop it in others too.

 

[Andy Resnick]

{snip]She was focusing on the quality of the answer of a 3-year-old, rather than the process he used to get to this answer. That kid was doing this process with no shame whatsoever. One can easily imagine that if people tell him that what he's saying is «stupid», he will stop doing things that lead to «stupid» statements. That is when shame comes into play and self-esteem & confidence goes down the window and kids begin thinking they're not good in science, they don't have the «gift».

I see this kind of behavior- adults, specifically parents, inappropriately interceding in the child's efforts- all the time in science fairs, for all age groups. It's obvious who actually came up with the idea and figured out how to test it.

 

[Stephenk53]

In my experience my mother tried to take over almost all of the projects I did at home in school and got angry at all of the people I worked with saying they did not do enough no matter how much they did, thus she killed my love of working with my hands thus making me now confused as to what I will do as an adult. I think parents should try to help their kids if they struggle but should not take it over and let their kids fail some times instead of taking control and get angry when the kid tries to do it themselves. Unfortunately this also killed my curiosity and my curiosity is only recently coming back slowly but I developed a fear of failure which I think is due to her controling

 

[Tom.G]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

A rather thorough explanation is in The Authoritarian Specter, Bob Altemeyer, Harvard University Press, 1996. The first part, with all the background info, is a bit tedious where he establishes his bona fides. The major part is quite informative and insightful (sometimes dense), it really gives a view into the minds of those <<lacking all curiosity of the world>>. Look it up on books.google.com. (There are even some free excerpts available online if you dig for them.)

No, I'm not associated with it in any way. Just think it's a good read.
Tom

 

[nomadreid]

As Greg Bernhardt said, it's a flawed system. I taught mathematics and physics (and a few other subjects when the school required it) for many years in many different parts of the world and under different national systems- on the secondary level, but I had to see what was being done on the elementary level as well. In all of them the system was basically one going back to the Greeks with a few adornments from modern technology, in which subjects are compartmentalized ( I even went to interview in an alternative school once whose ideology clearly stated that there should be inter-mixture of the disciplines ...but in practice this was not executed. The International Baccalaureate system makes a brave try -- although too little too late -- with its "Theory of Knowledge" course that is supposed to be tie different disciplines together.), the pace of study is foreordained, the grouping of the students is inflexible, and the parents are more interested in the child receiving a certificate than whether anything worthwhile is actually learned. In most schools children are taught from an early age that the grades/evaluations/notes are the goal, because the teachers are under pressure to produce these numbers, and curiosity is transformed into grade-grubbing. Pavlov's dogs. Some alternative schools do away with grades until the last two years of secondary school, which is positive, but these same schools are coupled with ideologies which introduce several negative aspects which cancel many of the positive aspects. (I am thinking of the Waldorf Schools, with their hostility to technology and modern science.) Every time I hear a politician praise education, I shudder, because most times it is lip service which will not translate into anything concrete.

 

[PeroK]

I owe an enormous debt to the Scottish Education system. Twelve years at school and four at university. All entirely free.

Neither was perfect, but the good overwhelmingly outweighed the bad. And it was all there for the taking.

 

[jfmcghee]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

 

[rootone]

One of my own favorite experiments as a kid was to put my hand out of the car (or train} window and see if I could generate lift like a plane does,

... I was told that is dangerous

 

[jack action]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

Nice blog for this discussion. There are some parts I disagree with, but I'll try to address only what is on topic of this thread.

The author separates the 'curious' and 'bias' natural behaviors of humans, mostly saying the 'bias' nature goes against the scientific methodology, therefore 'kids aren't born scientists'. But it doesn't disagree with the fact that the 'curious' nature is the great motivator for science, which is the subject of this thread.

Her following anecdote:

When the girls were beginning to walk I told them to never, ever, touch the stove when I’m in the kitchen because it’s hot and it hurts and don’t, just don’t. They took this so seriously that for years they were afraid to come anywhere near the stove at any time. Yes, good for them.

is what relates the most to this thread. I'm not sure how much «good for them» is to frightening the kids that way (although I'm not saying a single incident like that is necessarily enough to influence an entire kid's life). Yes, they weren't burnt, but is that the only thing we care about? If a kid grows up to be afraid of everything, is «never been injured» such a plus in his or her life? I got burned in my youth (Once, when I was 8-9 y.o., I got off my uncle's tractor and used the exhaust pipe as a handgrip), the scars have healed and I probably have been less afraid and more respectful of heat sources I encountered afterward. It doesn't always (rarely?) end up with the most terrifying scenario.

But I do agree with her following statement, which is an extension of this thread:

The more prevalent problem though is the social biases whose effects become more pronounced the larger the groups are, the tighter they are connected, and the more information is shared. This is why these biases are so much more relevant today than a century, even two decades ago.

Expecting scientific thinking from everybody is needed more than ever today because there is so much information to deal with. Yet, it seems we prefer the «need-to-know» approach because we assume no one will ever be able to deal with such amount of information. But, it discourages curiosity and discussion, and encourages people relying on theses biases we naturally have, our last hiding place from the terrifying unknown.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

Insecurity?

Another guess would be that adults, in general, are conditioned not to admit, "I don't know.", as that would be admitting; "I'm kind of stupid."
hmmmm... I guess that probably falls into the "insecurity" category, also.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

Thanks for posting this- I had not read it before. For me, the critical paragraph is:

'Even though it often isn’t explicitly taught to students, everyone who succeeded making a career in research has learned to work against their own confirmation bias. Failing to list contradicting evidence or shortcomings of one’s own ideas is the easiest way to tell a pseudoscientist. A scientist’s best friend is their inner voice saying: “You are wrong. You are wrong, wrong, W.R.O.N.G.” Try to prove yourself wrong. Then try it again. Try to find someone willing to tell you why you are wrong. Listen. Learn. Look for literature that explains why you are wrong. Then go back to your idea. That’s the way science operates. It’s not the way humans normally operate.'

She's absolutely correct, and also provides some insight regarding anti-science attitudes. I don't like being wrong all the time, yet it's critical to produce good science. I imagine most people who are regularly exposed to 'you are wrong to think that', especially when they are young and in school, eventually tune out and decide rationality isn't worth a diminished sense of self.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In state level science fairs these past few years, it seems clear that kids are born BS artists. They are great at polishing turds and pretending to have done something important. Mrs. Dr. Courtney noted that as many times as science projects have claimed to cure cancer, it would be eradicated by now. Maybe 20% of the projects even demonstrate a proper application of the scientific method. And this is at the state level - these projects were award winners at the regional levels - none of the judges there caught the glaring errors and misapplication of the scientific method at the lower levels.

 

[Mark44]

IMO, it's a stretch to say that kids are "born scientists." Curious, yes, but curiosity isn't the only attribute of a scientist.

 

[jack action]

IMO, it's a stretch to say that kids are "born scientists." Curious, yes, but curiosity isn't the only attribute of a scientist.

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

 

[Mark44]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

OK, fair enough. The adult response you're talking about puts me in mind of a story I read by Ring Lardner many years ago. In the story, the son asked a question.

“Are you lost, Daddy?" I asked tenderly. "Shut up," he explained.”

 

[rootone]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

Not adults generally, but yes some parents can be overly protective of their children;
Everyone learns by making mistakes.

 

[symbolipoint]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

Adults get hit with real life and need to make practical decisions. Meanwhile children play.

 

[rootone]

Are we there yet?

 

[jack action]

Adults get hit with real life and need to make practical decisions. Meanwhile children play.

Oooh! I like this one.

Do you have a reference which defines «real life»?

So children aren't experiencing «real life»?

Forget that last question, as I think I already know the answer: They don't. Way back when, children used to follow their parents - like any other animal which takes care of their youngs do - and learned by copying what they did. If mom and dad were doing it, it should seem logical to any kid to watch them and copy their behavior. Somehow, we now isolate the kids from the herd for two decades or so and complain they don't know anything about «real life».

Imagine a kid that goes to school and learn about, say, trigonometry, and he or she returns to his/her home where the parents don't use it - barely know how to do it - and cringe with fear and disgust while looking at the problems. What is a kid supposed to think about this type of work? «My parents are fine without it and they seem in pain with it, why should I waste my time learning this stuff?»

Meanwhile children play.

Aren't adults supposed to play too? When is that cross-over in behavior suppose to occur? My neighbor has cats and she let's them go outside from time to time. The - very well-fed - cats hunt birds and mice. They don't eat them, we just find a dead one here and there, once in a while. They don't hunt because they need to, they do it because it makes them feel good.

How come what humans need to do to stay alive is seen as some kind of torture that we «have» to do instead of a joyful thing we «get» to do? How come trigonometry isn't this fun thing parents get to do to solve everyday problems? So fun, that when there are no problems to solve, they just create some, just for the pleasure of using their skills. So fun, so useful, that their kids can't just wait to do it too.

 

[Stephenk53]

I think kids are born scientists considering most of the kids I know growing up attempted to follow the scientific method without knowing it. I think kids are born bas scientists but scientists none the less. I think if parents supported their curiosity and taught them the scientific earlier and in a fun way they would be scientists, in fact as a kid I attempted to do some experiments and followed the scientific method before learning it. I think we need to make STEM fun for kids and not shut them down when they attempt to do STEM. Many parents including my own seem to hate learning causing students to have trouble trying to learn

 

[symbolipoint]

Kids naturally scientists? This depends on the kid (child). This topic did not really seem to be one of formally how children develop and not either seem to be a sociological study.

Imagine a parent and a child (maybe an older child) who have some work to do. They need to dig a hole in the ground to plant a small tree. To the parent, this is a task to do. Dig the hole. To the kid, this begins as "dig the hole" but as the child sees some earthworms emerging, and as he notices the different textures of some of what he is digging (like some parts gravely, but lower parts seem very smooth and thick), this child pauses, examines these and thinks about them for some time. If he is doing some of this, then maybe THIS child could be a scientist. Does the parent or adult care? Maybe. Depends on the particular adult. Or maybe the two of them really don't care about these irrelevant details and are more interested in getting the task done, "dig the hole".