I concur with you about the total irrelevance of concepts like orbitals, hybridization etc. in the daily life. I would suggest that concepts like energy, environment, information could very well replace such concepts in a different science curriculum.

In addition suggestions made by yourself in the following threads could also be relevant:

http://www.csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=756
http://www.csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=361
http://www.csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=357

while some concepts may not have a very direct and obvious relevance to daily life, essential physics and many direct implications require often require combining such concepts. for example properties of elements and material follow from considerations of orbitals etc. so if you want instant gratification then perhaps detailed model building is not what you should be getting involved in.

at the same time, it is essential that teachers highlight the significance and relevance of what they are teaching and should not leave an impression of science as being completely divorced from reality.

Jasjeet

While i agree that each and every concept in the labyrinth of the science that is taught now finds some application or the other. But at the same time from my 40 years of experience in science, i find it really difficult to point a relevant phenomenon from daily life that would require the concept of orbitals. I would be indeed grateful to any one who can point one for me

I read it some where that each one of us is related to other, that is the reason for our genetic similarity, but most often we rely on our close kins, they are deemed to be more important. Similarly, while every concept does indeed find application for explaining some phenomenon, the set of concepts and phenomena that is useful to most students and teachers, need not be the same that has been passed down to us from text books we used many many years ago. We all have a limited lifespan and even less time for devotion to learning science. We therefore need to filter out some concepts we have become comfortable for teaching science and add some newer concepts that are much more relevant today.

Yes, it is indeed a challenge for the science teaching community to accept such a change, because it would involve some hard work to unl;earn and get comfortable with the newer concepts, but if we have to prepare a generation that would be fit for the challenges tomorrow, our generation would need to pick the gauntlet.

I would have thought that the periodic table is something that follows from the theory of orbitals. In turn, it explains pretty much everything we know about different elements react. The idea of valence follows from the theory of orbitals and so does Hydrogen bond: existence of water is difficult to understand without these concepts.

Or are you talking about something else?

Thanks Jasjeet for reminding me the use of orbitals in inorganic chemistry. Let me also reiterate my question!



i do not think that either the Periodic table, or the knowledge about how different elements react or idea of valence are so relevant. I would go that far to concede that it is useful to know how many elements exist in nature that have different chemical and physical properties; how various elements and their compounds are useful for us in our daily life and the similarities that exist between some of them. But, i do not think that the knowledge of Hydrogen bond and the existence of water cannot be understood without invoking the concept of orbitals.

There are far more subjects other then these that relate to energy and environment that can be tackled in the time we use to get the students struggle with concepts of orbitals.

My theses from the begining of this thread, is a rethink on the set of concepts and phenomena that are taught in a science course, to make them more relevant and interesting to that section of the student community that is neither ready nor prepared to devote their energy for such totally abstract concepts!

I really cannot understand the last two posts. A science student is familiarized with the concept of orbitals and periodic tables as per the current cbse syllabus:

So it is not that if these topics are omitted from the curriculum of a clloge science student, s/he will be deprived of the knowledge of these concepts, as much as s/he can absorb.

I therefore do feel that these concepts can be reasonably omitted from the curriculum of B. Sc (prog) courses at the DU. Which is as follows:

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre Without the orbital picture the fact that all noble elements are gases and that they do not react with other elements would remain a profound mystery. In fact, chemistry would be reduced to unrelated facts that have to be crammed since they would appear to have no order. Periodic table is the only devise that allows a systematic exploration of the chemistry of inorganic matter. Of course, organic matter requires far more to understand.

Even if we concede that you have a valid point there, I fail to understand it since you do not state what you mean by the word 'relevance' from the point of view of what the students expect from a course (your point of view seems more like what you wish for them to learn). Your model where you wished for it to be made relevant in the sense of better job opportunities was a good one. Could you point to a specific profession that would be benefited by this approach? In my opinion a student who is not ready for abstraction has hardly any business in science. To a mind that is able to deal only with specificity even the concept of energy would appear quite abstract. Without invoking bond formation how are you going to make this student understand why we need food to live? After all, without understanding the process of bond formation the notion of chemical energy would remain alien to this person. Of course you could just tell them that there is something called chemical energy, but then you could tell them any other fact in the same manner -- by stating it rather than explaining it.

Well I can understand why you find my ideas bizarre! In fact any new idea that demands a change in the established structure is most often termed so

I think you have not read my posts carefully enough. I am not suggesting that the curriculum of all undergraduate science courses need to be re-framed, rather i am only suggesting that to begin with, one could reframe the curriculum of the so called B.Sc.(Gen) courses, It is a widely known fact that a very large majority of the students who enter this course, do not later pursue science after graduation, they get admission in these courses just to get an year or two to reappear for the IIT/engineering college/ medical entrance test, and most of them do not succeed even then. They then end up totally frustrated lot, who have little career option for further studies, as i have indicated inanother thread in the career talk subforum

BTW, I do not understand why it is essential for each and every science graduate to know the fact that all noble elements are gases and that they do not react with other elements would remain a profound mystery, when the same facts are taught at the senior secondary level science and they have to engage the students and teachers even at the undergraduate level. It is much more important that a student learns much more then at present about many other topics that now find little space in the current curriculum.

Further, why do you think that the present structure so sacrosanct that it is a blasphemy to suggest a revision and reconsideration so that it becomes more interesting and comprehensible to the present day students? We have inherited a large part of this curriculum from our colonial masters, who presumably had different considerations at that time. Why shouldn't we spend some energy and time debating what could be more profitably included today keeping in consideration the requirements of Indian society today and the current interests of students.

That most B.Sc (prog) students care too hoots about the current curriculum, or science is also reflected in the number of such students who cared to register on Vimarsh and post any question other then those related to career options available for them

On further thought, your concern about the omission of the concept of orbitals reminds me of priesthood. We all know that the religious scriptures are invariably in an ancient language, like Sanskrit, farsi or Latin. The reason that they continue to be so even in the modern times is to avoid popular knowledge about them. Only a few persons, who belong to the priesthood, know the shlokas so that they can impress the general populace as well as dominate them in a way.

Similarly, i think, concepts like orbitals keep many students confused, because they are not that easily comprehended. A confused population of young science students in developing countries helps the developed world to dominate scientists in these less privileged countries, because it is in there interest and power to keep these students confused so that they can never be a threat for them.

Interesting thread indeed!

Yesterday, i attended a Workshop on the Bologna Reform that was held in the Conference Centre of DU. It was equally interesting, the speakers included Dr. Eva Akkenson, the Pro Vice Chancellor Of the Lund University and Prof. Jan-Olov Holog, of Karolinska Institutet Medical University< Stockholm. They talked about the Bologna reform process that is being implemented In the EU, to facilitate the interuniversity movement of students and teachers. It was organized in DU because DU is a member university of the Erasmus Mundus exchange program.

Today, i was browsing some documents circulated during the workshop and some links provided therein. I hit on a very interesting document which may interest some Vimarsh members who happen to read this thread. It is about teaching to think! Here's a brief quote from the article:



I think it would be indeed nice if sometime that is made available because some content/concepts is removed from the curriculum for science students, could be fruitfully utilized for teaching students the art of thinking. Ofcourse teachers would have to learn it first

This reminds me of a statement by Feynman that he believed that he did not fully understand the Fermi rule, which states that two Fermi particles cannot occupy the same state, because he did not know of a simple explanation for it (the only known explanation is in terms of quantum field theory). Usually scientists try to simplify rather than to obfuscate ideas. A refusal to teach abstract concepts sounds more like the idea of priesthood to me. But the knowledge of science is easily available in the libraries and on the Internet. Nobody is keeping it under the lock. It is as complicated as is necessary. If you know of simpler ways of teaching things then everyone would be happy to hear you. Linear vector space might sounds very abstract to you but nobody knows how to do quantum mechanics without them.



I can't imagine this is a serious comment

No one can deny the usefulness of abstract concepts. They help us to think deeper about a topic that may puzzle our mind. That far, i would not contest your point

But then there are a multitude of abstract concepts, that an individual can learn about fruitfully. The question is how does one choose. The curriculum and the teacher can come to the rescue of a young student who might have just started learning to grapple the labyrinth of the application of concepts, phenomena and scientific explanation.

Here comes the need for a judicious choice for the curriculum, because most often the student ha no choice and really little knowledge for the basis of the choice. One often chooses a particular curriculum when one enters a university on the basis of popular perception of the utility (read career opportunities after successful completion) of the course. The utility of many abstract concepts now in the science curriculum, for an average student, goes not beyond the fact that it helps in cracking some competitive examinations, which if one clears, can lead to a 'successful' career and hence a happier after life.

Now, life; death; god; information love; money; success; happiness; are no less abstract concepts. We have discussed about all of them here. And if one is to go by the number of views both the threads have been popular too. These concepts puzzle the common young mind nowadays. So the question arises, wouldn't it be more profitable if a part of the time science students/teachers invest while being in the university learn more about such abstract concepts in place of some of the conventional concepts of science that form the current science curriculum?

I would still qualify my argument with a statement, that no curriculum can fit the needs and temperament of all students/teachers at a particular time. So, there would always be a number of students that would find abstract concepts in the science curriculum more appealing. Perhaps they would make our future 'scientists'! But I do not think that the university does aspire to produce as many scientists as it admits students in its science courses.

science is unique in the sense ,that one day it might allow us to make friends with beings at planets other than earth:)

I think the situation being discussed is very complex as of why students are disinterested in studying science.But in my opinion, it is similar to the situation when a student promotes to std XI from std X in school.

At this stage most of the students are confused as to what career path they follow or what stream they should choose from between science, commerece or arts. Usually the reasons students have for taking up science are:

1. Science is usually looked up as a tougher field or a field only taken by intelligent smarter students. So these students think that they will be looked up by their friends and peers from a general std X or from commerece or Arts.(Overglorification of Science)

2. There is a tremendous pressure from parents to take up science as they as disillutioned that only enginnering or medicine can fetch good money or good status not only for their kids but for themthelves in the society.

3. The third category belong to the students who are really sincere and highly motivated to study science and have a passion and an ambition to make it big..

It must be noted here that scoring good marks in std X is not very dificult so most of the students find themselves 'suitable' for science or found 'suitable' by their school...


So, std XI is a good mixture of students from all the above categories...(a typical university class).But immediately they are faced with big, fat books, a whole lot of syllabus,many lab sessions and experiments that are totally unimaginable.Since most of the class belongs to first two categories they are immediately discouraged and its a shocker for the third category students too..

Now a greater responsibility comes upon the teachers to handle these students. But i have found that in most instances teachers are even more discouraged than these students and pass on their frustation received probabaly of handling such unresponsive students for many years....

I studied science form a government school and the situation was pathetic..disinterested teachers, pathetic labs, broken or rusted instruments and in some cases broken balckboards..


But I even saw those motivated students(of third category) who were not at all affected by above problems and who were consistent throughout the two years and did hardwork even when there used to be no elctricity in summers. Often they used to share their frustration with me but their passion exceeded far more than their problems and such students became my inspiration for lifetime...

Yes the problem is there, problem in system, problem with teachers, problem with infrastructure, problem with curriculum..

but i think a greater problem lies in filtering of students who are really interested in science both at the end of std X and begnining of college life. Unfortunately at both levels marks are the only criteria which nowadays can be easily scored considering various amendments by CBSE.Yes its true that good students usually score good marks but i have seen that students who for some reasons or the other did not score good marks are highly motivated probabaly more than good students...

Its really very diificult to devise a foolproof plan for selecting only motivated students but certainly marks should not be the only crieteria for the selection.

And yes a there is a big role to be played by teachers too even in the age of internet where you can find most of the resources as students still look upto their teaches. Maybe they can act only as motivators as for a bright and motivated student a little encouragement is enough.

And yes I will not undermine the need for a proper planning of curriculum, a need for a good infrastructure etc etc...

We should remember that those scienctists who brought laurels for our country had only inner passion and motivation by their teachers at their disposal....Thanks

Thanks for the insightful post Mayank.

You correctly point out that a number of students end up in courses without any strong motivation to actually study what is being in the class room, etc. I think the issue that was raised at the start of the thread was whether reformulation of syllabus and/or teaching techniques can kindle some interest from this set.

I used to believe that this can help, but the fraction of students who get involved due to better teaching is not very large. I gave the example of my experience at IISER Mohali, and what I found over there was that in spite of fairly good teaching methods, good labs with exciting experiments, complete freedom to do things in your own way, there were still about 40-50% of students who did not care.

To give you an idea of the freedom these students have, I need only tell you about one student who attends very few classes. He prefers to spend the time in reading and learning, or in spending time in lab doing experiments. He is given full access to labs even at night. While senior faculty members try to tell him that he should attend more classes but the final decision is left to him as he is still doing fine in most courses. And this mind you is at the early undergraduate level.

There are others who are not as independent, but there are many who read up things beyond the syllabus if it interests them and discuss this with teachers. Most teachers I found were very supportive.

This is what led me to ask in an earlier post, why are there 40-50% disinterested students even in this setup? Over and above the good academic environment, there is an additional incentive of a scholarship in this place. Students who fail in more than one course loose this. Even that does not stir these fellows into some action. Why?

Jasjeet

Your last post reminds me of the time I spent at IITK while pursuing for a PH.D. degree. We too wetr given all the freedom to read and engage in discussions, we had lengthy discussions till late night in the quadrangle of our Hall of Residence. Perhaps my present state of mind can be attributed to that freedom. But, not everyone used the freedom the way we did, some did pursue a more mundane and conservative attitude. The question that i often ask myself, am I of some use to the Indian society, though I never became a conventional scientist?

Does our society have any need for people like me? I think the answer is yes! If i succeed in inspiring even a couple of students to emulate me, i believe it will make much more difference then if I were a conventional scientist.

The academic bodies have succeeded in pursuing the Government to open several IISERsin the hope to inspire and motivate young people to become brilliant scientists. But is that what the country needs the most today, and at what cost? As you have said the institutes fail to inspire at least 40% of the students it enrolls after a lot of competetion and this section is not really enthusiastic to put in the efforts that are expected of them.

My simple question is, would be be worthwhile to conduct an experiment whereby the students are educated with a revised curriculum, which is not the same as the present conventional curriculum - an alternate science curriculum? May be the experiment won't succeed, may be it would require several revisions, but won't it be a bold step. Who can pursue the science academies to persuade the Government to do such an experiment? It's not my very original thought, many reputed persons have echoed such sentiments, as can be seen on the thread Whither Indian science education? on Vimarsh itself.


Any takers?

Today morning, while reading an articlle on Entertainment, i was indeed struck by the idea that science education today is in the same boat as entertainment on TV channels Read it for yourself and form your own ipnion;


So, i think if you replace the word, channels by colleges you would have an idea of my thought!

Why can't science education in different colleges be more like Indian Cinema, at least then there would be some more experimentation and innovation in the classroom.

I have read that article in ToI and what he is essentially saying is that it is perplexing that channels are not trying to cater to niche markets. Entertainment is a commodity and it makes sense to serve special groups if you wish to maximize profit. Therefore it is perplexing that all the channels seem to want a piece of the same pie. However, the number of colleges is large because every college serves different niches at the same time in terms of the number of subjects that are on the offer and the number of students who wish to take a course is large. However, I think the argument that Santosh Desai gives is fundamentally flawed. There are several things that he has missed

1) If these channels are doing fine in terms of revenues then they may not wish to take risks with unfamiliar forms of entertainment. Thus, it makes more sense to borrow tried and tested formats from, say, BBC or other channels, such as Who wants to be a millionaire. After all, these channels would go off if they are not viable. BTW, BBC is state sponsered so they do not need to be economically viable at all. That is why their programming is usually much more adventurous. The same would be true of Doordarshan although they may not have too much money. In Britain you have to pay a license fees to have a television set at home (something like 100 GBP per year) and this money is what is used to create BBC programs.

2) I have heard that many channels are run on black money (basically to turn black money into white). If this is the case then they don't need to try to be economically viable.

3) It is possible that they have not saturated the market yet. After all, people who have grown up on Krishi Darshan and Chitrahaar might need some time to get out of dumb entertainment.

However, it is also true that by keeping the programming at this level leads to dumbing down the taste of consumers. To some extent Hindi dubbing of channels such as Discovery and History Channel should provide good competition. But I feel that the homegrown programming cannot compete with the kind of money that these channels can pore into even the native programming. Consider the difference between NDTV documentaries and Discovery channel documentaries, they can't even be compared in terms of research that goes into making documentaries.

So in summary, I don't think that an analogy exists between the entertainment industry and education. Even if it did exist I don't think that Desai's article throws any light on it. It is an obvious argument but it happens to not hold for reasons that he seems to have missed and is thus left perplexed. It would have been better if he dug up on reasons why what he finds perplexing happens to be true. It is always the case that people do things for rational reasons, and thus, if he thinks that they are being irrational then it is he who is missing something.

I am, almost sure that Santosh Desai has no interest in science, as well as science education in India So, there is little likelihood that he in this article wanted to throw any light on science education, which is the topic of this thread. I quoted this section of his article, because while reading it i was reminded of this thread and could imagine some similarities.

There are, according to me, some similarities between the entertainment industry and science industry (which includes universities that engage in science education) in India. Both are purported to be directed to a significant proportion of the society. Large amounts of resources continue to be invested in both (which includes recent investments in IISER and also the money spent for tuitions by the parents if Engineering/medical college aspirants) Both have a social role/responsibility. Thus both are a kind of opiates. Its a different matter that apparently black money does not find its way into science education industry.

People have talked about how entertainment industry must be transformed for greater social good (for example see the article about entertainment authored by the superstar Amitabh Bachchan, that i have quoted in Anthropology subforum of Vimarsh.

What I have been attempting at, through this thread, to attract similar attention towards science education. If science education is becoming less attractive to people, as are most serials on TV channels or most of the mainstream cinema, it is because they find it difficult to steer away from the paradigms of yester-years. If you remember when the colour TV was introduced, the most popular serial was Here's Lucy. Even today an attempt is being made to popularize science, through the channels like Discovery and National Geographic, but they fail to attract as much attention as the Saas Bahu episodes, because people find them irrelevant for their day to day lives.

So there is a burning need to innovate creatively, just as some Film directors have attempted in the so called parallel cinema, to bring science closer to people's heart. Who knows one day scientific thought may then become a hot raze among masses as much as these attempts in cinema are today!

I was indeed delighted to read the following newstory, which ic in essence resontes my ideas posted above






Source: http://timesofindia.hotklix.com/Hotklix/link/News/India/Students-can-opt-subjects-from-Science-Commerce-and-Arts-together

But I really wonder if it would be practical within the Indian Education system