Reply to comment

I am absolutely in love with the idea of science and research as a constant flow of observations and interpretations. I have always seen it and heard of it being taught linearly - the hypothesis is seen as the BEGINNING of the deductive scientific process and cannot be seen simultaneously as the END of an inductive experience. I think that this closely relates to Greene's desire to emphasize the big-question scientific fields rather than the basic facts that are so often focused on in classes. Since the big-question topics can't be taught in the linear, deductive sense to children, they avoid them altogether. Introducing the scientific method as two processes rather than one makes it possible to include more areas of study (and more importantly, more interesting areas of study).

It's interesting that the kids who do well in their middle school science classes are not necessarily the curious ones who go home and try to figure things out on their own. Sometimes these two coincide, but oftentimes you encounter the boy who is obsessed with space and black holes or weapons and guns who simply cannot stand to focus on the water cycle or the parts of the cell. These kids should get some credit for their curiosity, somehow, or at least be shown how their interests could connect with their classwork.

All of the comments that I read above seemed pretty centered on improving education, and I suppose that was the focus of mine as well. When it comes down to it, I think it's most important for kids to have more OPTIONS in their education. Having a choice about what they choose to study could bring out the curiosity that they lose as their educational decisions are made for them.