After reading this I asked myself: Is it any wonder college students get sucked in to emotionally based eco-causes/NGO’s that spout claims based on questionable science? This troubling press release comes from Michigan State University. A link to the full paper follows below, which is well worth reading because it gives insight into the questions and answers given. It is quite an eye-opener. – Anthony
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle – an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change, according to research published in the January issue of BioScience.
The study, whose authors include several current and former researchers from Michigan State University, calls for a new way of teaching – and, ultimately, comprehending – fundamental scientific principles such as the conservation of matter.
“Improving students’ understanding of these biological principles could make them better prepared to deal with important environmental issues such as global climate change,” said Charles “Andy” Anderson, MSU professor of teacher education and co-investigator on the project.
The study was led by Laurel Hartley, assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver who started the work as a postdoctoral researcher at MSU. Co-researchers include Anderson, Brook Wilke, Jonathon Schramm and Joyce Parker, all from MSU, and Charlene D’Avanzo from Hampshire College.
The researchers assessed the fundamental science knowledge of more than 500 students at 13 U.S. colleges in courses ranging from introductory biology to advanced ecology.
Most students did not truly understand the processes that transform carbon. They failed to apply principles such as the conservation of matter, which holds that when something changes chemically or physically, the amount of matter at the end of the process needs to equal the amount at the beginning. (Matter doesn’t magically appear or disappear.)
Students trying to explain weight loss, for example, could not trace matter once it leaves the body; instead they used informal reasoning based on their personal experiences (such as the fat “melted away” or was “burned off”). In reality, the atoms in fat molecules leave the body (mostly through breathing) and enter the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and water.
Most students also incorrectly believe plants obtain their mass from the soil rather than primarily from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “When you see a tree growing,” Anderson said, “it’s a lot easier to believe that tree is somehow coming out of the soil rather than the scientific reality that it’s coming out of the air.”
The researchers say biology textbooks and high-school and college science instructors need to do a better job of teaching the fundamentals – particularly how matter transforms from gaseous to solid states and vice-versa.
It won’t be easy, Anderson said, because students’ beliefs of the carbon cycle are deeply engrained (such as the misconception that plants get most of their nutrients from the soil). Instructors should help students understand that the use of such “everyday, informal reasoning” runs counter to true scientific literacy, he said.
The implications are great for a generation of citizens who will grapple with complicated environmental issues such as clean energy and carbon sequestration more than any generation in history, Anderson said.
“One of the things I’m interested in,” he said, “is students’ understanding of environmental problems. And probably the most important environmental problem is global climate change. And that’s attributable to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And understanding where that carbon dioxide is coming from and what you can do about it fundamentally involves understanding the scientific carbon cycle.”
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.
The full study is here (PDF) and is well worth the read.
h/t to Indur Goklany
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m displeased at the comments about liberal arts education. A true LA education includes science, which, if well taught, will encompass the concepts referred to in the article and many more. But it may also include such courses as music theory, which is just as difficult (at least for the non-musician) as science is for non-scientists. In the liberal arts I do NOT include such featherweight noxiosities as ethnic studies, women’s studies, New Age studies, and such drivel. When seeking culprits for the current state of education, be sure to include grade inflation, self-esteem (as opposed to self-respect), political correctness, and fear of offending students by awarding real earned grades. As for Shakespeare: Read it–you likely need it!
Via the tried and true method of requiring extremely-specific wording and declaring anything else blatantly wrong, this man has declared everyone else is too stupid to be reasoned with. He would fit in very well with most of my professors in school.
However, he messes up several key facts that are quite important.
1: CO2 is not a nutrient. It provides no energy to the plant.
2: The energy source of a plant (and therefore primary “nutrient”) is sunlight
3: Plants DO get nutrients from the soil including… well, everything that isn’t carbon.
4: Plants cannot be said to come out of the air any more than animals dissapear into the air or flush down the toilet. While I generally allow good leeway in artistic license on catch-phrases, I am not going to give him room here. Claims of inaccuracy should be supported by accurate statements.
5: Finally, it is quite reasonable to say that fat “burns off”. While it isn’t combustion, the end result is oxidation into CO2. The use of the phrase “burn” in non-technical circles is normal for complete-oxidizing reactions.