The idea that a student's observation is subjective and based on cultural influences has no part in experimental science except in psychology. Obviously every one has a different point of view that will affect expected outcomes which is exactly why scientific method is based on rules and evidence. Experimental design must conform to certain standards of validity and statistical testing. If we are teaching our children that science is subjective and open to interpretation without supporting evidence then we cannot expect much from our future scientists.

It seems that standards of science teaching will not improve until we get actual scientists involved in curriculum planning. Anyone who uses words such as social-constructivism and scientism should not qualify. If they understand the words precision, validity, observation, reproducibility, hypothesis, probability and error then there is some hope.

BruceRaveRant, it should be FEWER 'strawman mis-representations', not LESS. I am reminded of a quip from a colleague in the education faculty: 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach teachers. Those who can't teach teachers do educational research'. To which one might add 'and develop pedagogical theory'.

Sajo, you've managed to make a straw man out of constructivism yourself. "If we are teaching our children that science is subjective and open to interpretation without supporting evidence then we cannot expect much from our future scientists." The constructivisms employed by state curricular bodies don't do this. Like I've said before, if you want to rebutt another's argument, you can't do it by rebutting an imaginary version.

You evidence a need for more research; "It seems that standards of science teaching will not improve until we get actual scientists involved in curriculum planning." Most science curriculum framework designers ARE scientists.

"Anyone who uses words such as social-constructivism and scientism should not qualify." You can't design curriculum frameworks on the basis of ignorance of epistemology, including ignorance of the ones you oppose. Perhaps you could substantiate this conclusion?

"If they understand the words precision, validity, observation, reproducibility, hypothesis, probability and error then there is some hope." None of this is incompatible or excluded by constructivism, but then this goes back to your straw man argument, so I don't need to rebutt this.

Anomie, I'm reminded of a variant of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) that states that an online discussion is getting old when people start correcting each other's spelling ;-) Both you and I know (or should) that some degree of gramatical and syntactic flexibility are allowable within the discourse. This isn't an academic paper.

Am aware of the quip you mentioned. Not really borne out by observation, but amusing to some extent. I know a reseacher who uses the quip on herself.

"The idea that a student's observation is subjective and based on cultural influences has no part in experimental science except in psychology."

And anthropology ... and linguistics ...

Most of Kevin's articles merely serve to bring down government-funded public education in the eyes of the community, and this is one of them. The idea is that big companies will step in once Kevin's much-vaunted (but increasingly less popular in the USA) voucher system comes into being. Outcomes-based education and cultural awareness are a step in the right direction, and the lowering of Maths / Science standards is separate to this.

'Those who can't teach, teach teachers.' Ouch. Pardon my protest: I am but a lowly PhD student and History Major - but I can spell, and results and feedback show that I am a good teacher. Never mind the standard of maths instruction and debates on 'Intelligent Design'; before one can effectively argue at an academic level, one must be able to write. My first chore in any first tutorial is to teach students when and how to punctuate: inevitably, half or more are confused about the difference between 'its' and 'it's', and most cannot differentiate between 'they're', 'their' and 'there'. There tend to be more education students than history majors at first year level; it scares me that many students got through school with low literacy skills and will go on to demonstrate their lack of skills. I do find occasionally that some of my peers have difficulty with these common errors, but this is rare. I think it critical that the education system firstly locates and re-teaches those teachers who slipped through in the past, and secondly, concentrates on the primary school years, where the presently-despised rote learning methods taught me English grammar and spelling.

Yeah, when typing, I'm a big offender of the "it's" phenomena. When hand writing it doesn't happen (I DO know the difference between "its" and "it's".) If I was marking work (in pen), things would be different. If I was writing an academic paper, I'd proof read it. This isn't either, it's an on-line discussion.

As per comments on rote learning. It isn't scored, just put in ITS proper perspective. Spelling, grammar, periodic tables and other SKILLS are still taught using rote-drill-practice. Understandings however are poorly constructed from rote learning (exclusive rote learners on average perform badly on reading comprehension.)

Ever seen what happens when a rote learner takes a repeat exam (requiring comprehension )two weeks later without cramming (compaired to someone who has studied using PBL, discussion or other "doing" styles of learning)?