The sad state of science education in Japan

[Sarevok]

Fear the ignorence !

In one survey of 720 pupils, 27 percent did not know that the Sun sets in the west, while two percent explained the Moon's waxing and waning by choosing the explanation "the Moon has many shapes".

In another sample, out of 348 students asked to circle the correct statement to describe the Earth's orbital relationship to the Sun, 42 percent circled "the Sun goes around the Earth", while 56 percent picked the correct answer.

[Shinova]

42 percent circled "the Sun goes around the Earth", while 56 percent picked the correct answer.

[/quote]




Ooohhhhhhh boy.......

[Shroom Man 777]

And to think Japan is the least Christian of the G8. Could somebody explain why this is so?

[AniThyng]

And to think Japan is the least Christian of the G8. Could somebody explain why this is so?

er, because the dominant religion is buddhism/shinto?
i'm not sure how it's relevent to this...looks like a case of young children mangling what they were thought by rote. it's not like these are middle school kids or something.

one hopes.

[Archaic`]

Nope, these are elementary school kids only. Fairly intelligent ones supposedly though, so you'd expect for them to know their stuff a bit further than what they were taught in school (I mean, seriously now, I would have expected a majority of them to be enrolled in a Yobiko by now).

Frankly however, the Japanese would be pretty embarassed about it already, and I imagine heads have already rolled for allowing the situation to develop so far that the media noticed it, so I wouldn't be surprised if they change the curriculum soon enough to fix things. Here's hoping it just doesn't cause other problems.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Rote learning-surface education. From what I've seen of science education so far as practiced in reality, a lot of it is memorization work with very little thinking thrown in. Underlying concepts and logical processes are not taught, which is of the problem.

TWG

[Futoque]

But their ignorance of basic astronomy is not because they are poor students -- just the opposite, they have learned badly thought-out lessons by rote[.]

"This is a case of students answering as they are taught rather than them just making a mistake," [Agata] said.

I think this is the big problem with a lot of teaching. The teachers taught exactly what was in the curriculum, and the students were expected to parrot it right back. The problem was that the students don't always understand, and the teachers are not trained to make sure that they understand. In this sort of system it is really easy to bluff your way through classes and not really understand the information being taught (I know I did this a few times).

[Wicked Pilot]

This is unfortunate, but I would be interested to see how the kids are doing at science and math on a whole.

[Guardsman Bass]

I couldn't access the link, but it seems like a rote/age related problem. Did they ask the question in an unusual way, or is it possible these were all young kids?

[Korvan]

The article mentions that the kids are taught about the motions of the Sun and moon by the way they appear to an observer on the ground. I assume later they are taught the more complicated version.

When I entered junior high, I had a lot of conceptional difficulty with both significant figures and chemical equilibrium. My entire elementary education had gotten me to think in terms of absolutes. I trusted all measurements to be exact, and all reactions to continue to absolute completion.

Eventually I came around and it was almost like a religious conversion. I thought I now had this science thing nailed. Then they told me about special relativity...

[Joe]

This is not particularly surprising to anyone who has played the Metal Gear Solid games.

[PainRack]

The article mentions that the kids are taught about the motions of the Sun and moon by the way they appear to an observer on the ground. I assume later they are taught the more complicated version.

When I entered junior high, I had a lot of conceptional difficulty with both significant figures and chemical equilibrium. My entire elementary education had gotten me to think in terms of absolutes. I trusted all measurements to be exact, and all reactions to continue to absolute completion.

Eventually I came around and it was almost like a religious conversion. I thought I now had this science thing nailed. Then they told me about special relativity...

How true. Every time I moved up a rung on the ladder of education, it seems as if everything they taught us previously was wrong........

[Thinkmarble]

Eventually I came around and it was almost like a religious conversion. I thought I now had this science thing nailed. Then they told me about special relativity...

How true. Every time I moved up a rung on the ladder of education, it seems as if everything they taught us previously was wrong........[/quote]

Every year you hear: And this is how it really is.

Personally I think that this is one of the most important lessons you can take away from science education.

[Guardsman Bass]

The article mentions that the kids are taught about the motions of the Sun and moon by the way they appear to an observer on the ground. I assume later they are taught the more complicated version.

When I entered junior high, I had a lot of conceptional difficulty with both significant figures and chemical equilibrium. My entire elementary education had gotten me to think in terms of absolutes. I trusted all measurements to be exact, and all reactions to continue to absolute completion.

Eventually I came around and it was almost like a religious conversion. I thought I now had this science thing nailed. Then they told me about special relativity...

Same thing- I don't even remember THINKING about the Sun going around the Earth, or the truth of the opposite, and so forth. I wasn't taught geocentric theory, but I wasn't taught against it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

In one survey of 720 pupils, 27 percent did not know that the Sun sets in the west

How the fuck can they possibly screw this up. All they had to do in rote-learning is tell them the direction in which the sun comes up in the morning is East and the direction in which the sun goes down in the evening is West. What's so hard about this to program, even by rote?

[Exonerate]

Wow, that's really surprising... I thought that the East Asian countries traditionally were fairly strong in math and science.

Anyways, I really doubt if religion plays a part in it... People in Japan aren't very religious, just superstitious. More likely, their educational system just isn't working, or kids like messing up poll results

[TheDarkOne]

How true. Every time I moved up a rung on the ladder of education, it seems as if everything they taught us previously was wrong........

...more like everything previous was a special case. And of course, as everyone knows, the world is entirely made up of special cases.

[Archaic`]

Wow, that's really surprising... I thought that the East Asian countries traditionally were fairly strong in math and science.

Anyways, I really doubt if religion plays a part in it... People in Japan aren't very religious, just superstitious. More likely, their educational system just isn't working, or kids like messing up poll results

Rote Learning does screw up a lot of the Japanese school system, and it's a big complaint of many businesses in the past with school and university graduates that they have to retrain them so they actually understand the whys and wherefores rather than just the lists of facts, equations and figures they studied like mad for the middle school, high school and university entrance exams. However, a lot of these kids do develop understanding of their own for the whys once they hit their teens. This survey's only looking at the youngest of kids, who haven't really been exposed to the more competitive study environment of the middle and high schools.

One advantage of the Japanese system though is that it's a national curriculum. While there's a few schools that don't follow it (All of those being schools with the purpose of testing proposed changes to the curriculum to begin with), the vast majority of schools teach the exact same things in the exact same manner, right down to the textbooks (Government approved list for each subject, and the lists aren't all that long. You could visit 20 schools on the same day, and there's a good chance all of them could be studying from the exact same book, on the exact same page, and have almost the exact same homework assigned for them that evening.).

In any case, I pulled up a few articles for some people who might be interested in how things are run over here. A bit out of date, but should still be current enough.
http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/digest9.html
http://www.verinet.com/~salyavin/maiko.html

[Trogdor]

Eventually I came around and it was almost like a religious conversion. I thought I now had this science thing nailed. Then they told me about special relativity...

How true. Every time I moved up a rung on the ladder of education, it seems as if everything they taught us previously was wrong........

Every year you hear: And this is how it really is.

Personally I think that this is one of the most important lessons you can take away from science education.[/quote]

Hell, it's not just science. One of the first things my intro to journalism professor told us was to forget about the stuff we'd learned about essay writting in high school.

[The_Nice_Guy]

One advantage of the Japanese system though is that it's a national curriculum. While there's a few schools that don't follow it (All of those being schools with the purpose of testing proposed changes to the curriculum to begin with), the vast majority of schools teach the exact same things in the exact same manner, right down to the textbooks (Government approved list for each subject, and the lists aren't all that long. You could visit 20 schools on the same day, and there's a good chance all of them could be studying from the exact same book, on the exact same page, and have almost the exact same homework assigned for them that evening.).

That's not an advantage. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all education program for students with differing aptitude and interests. In fact, that's probably one of the reasons why students need to be retrained when they graduate.

TWG

[Archaic`]

One advantage of the Japanese system though is that it's a national curriculum. While there's a few schools that don't follow it (All of those being schools with the purpose of testing proposed changes to the curriculum to begin with), the vast majority of schools teach the exact same things in the exact same manner, right down to the textbooks (Government approved list for each subject, and the lists aren't all that long. You could visit 20 schools on the same day, and there's a good chance all of them could be studying from the exact same book, on the exact same page, and have almost the exact same homework assigned for them that evening.).

That's not an advantage. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all education program for students with differing aptitude and interests. In fact, that's probably one of the reasons why students need to be retrained when they graduate.

TWG

So you're saying a system like the US where each state, or even each school district for that matter, could teach dramatically different things to each student in the same subject is a good thing?

There's nothing stopping Japanese schools from going beyond the curriculum, just from not teaching certain parts of it. They must teach everything in it, from similar if not the same materials, and probably in a certain perscribed order as well, however it is up to each teacher exactly how they teach that cirriculum, as it is up to each school exactly how far they want to go up and beyond it (Which of course the more prestigious schools tend to do). You don't just go to whichever school is closest to you over here, you go to which one teaches what you want, the way you want, and is at your (according to the entrance exams anyway) academic level.

It's just a sad fact though that in your average school, the majority of teachers believe in pure ROTE learning, if only because that's how they were taught when they were in school. Higher class schools, or those lucky enough to have native speaking foreign language teachers (And I emphasise native speaking, since you can get barely tri-lingual Indians, Chinese and Europeans teaching English over here too), tend to have somewhat different methods, depending on the schol.

[The_Nice_Guy]

So you're saying a system like the US where each state, or even each school district for that matter, could teach dramatically different things to each student in the same subject is a good thing?

I didn't say that either. What educators now believe is that while the end goal/s remain the same, any number of possible paths can be taken to achieve that end goal, as long as that goal is attained. The japanese system seems to be one where it's 'my way or no way'. Students with different learning faculties and preferences would be highly disadvantaged.

There's nothing stopping Japanese schools from going beyond the curriculum, just from not teaching certain parts of it. They must teach everything in it, from similar if not the same materials, and probably in a certain perscribed order as well,

Those are the problems. Some classes may perform better if a different order(scheme of work) is used. Materials can and should be novel, created by teachers to tailor to their students' needs to enhance learning, especially by catering to the interests of the students(the motivational factor). And so on. This is particularly applicable for languages, and to the sciences to a lesser extent.

however it is up to each teacher exactly how they teach that cirriculum, as it is up to each school exactly how far they want to go up and beyond it (Which of course the more prestigious schools tend to do).

Teacher centered activities? Student centered activities? What sort of activities? Didactic/lecturer style delivery? Discovery method? Problem solving? What? From what you have said so far, as well as from the links provided, it seems there's only two styles in use: Lecture and question/answer modes. No group work at all, and the japanese probably still believe a quiet class is always the most conducive for learning.

From my meager experience so far, that's not true.

You don't just go to whichever school is closest to you over here, you go to which one teaches what you want, the way you want, and is at your (according to the entrance exams anyway) academic level.

No different from Singapore. Oh yes, you thought I was from the US? Oops.

It's just a sad fact though that in your average school, the majority of teachers believe in pure ROTE learning, if only because that's how they were taught when they were in school.

Undoubtedly true. My own english education tutor, in charge of teaching my group new methods of language teaching, once remarked over lunch that he had a group of China chinese over to learn the Singaporean style. Getting them to loosen up and allow the students to learn language by group work instead of dutifully parroting the teacher was, he said, next to impossible.

In many ways, it was easier for my generation. I did not remember any textbooks at all for english learning during my secondary(high school) and junior college education. Learning the language was through actual constant application. Needless to say, it was highly effective.

Science is slightly different, as some level of memorization is unavoidable. But the key point is that after the isolated information has been stored in the memory, so to speak, the student must be pressed to categorise that data in his head into natural groups with common features and critical differences between each group. An example of this would be, say... acids and bases. Or group I and group II elements.

After they have managed to form that natural grouping(schemata) in their minds, then it is possible to continue pressing them further to higher levels of thinking. Application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. By the time they can do analysis, it doesn't matter if they can't remember the exact facts because they'll be able to reproduce them from basic principles.

The downside? Lots and lots of time is required. Which isn't always available. Also, the teacher must be qualified enough and confident enough. Easier said than done. As usual.

Ouch.

Higher class schools, or those lucky enough to have native speaking foreign language teachers (And I emphasise native speaking, since you can get barely tri-lingual Indians, Chinese and Europeans teaching English over here too), tend to have somewhat different methods, depending on the schol.

Native speaking foreign language teachers are NOT, I repeat, NOT always the best teachers for english, because just being able to speak and write the language competently is not enough! Not only must they possess a basic knowledge of grammar, but a knowledge of functional linguistics(that is, using english for communication in real life) pertaining to english second language acquisition is almost mandatory.

Steps towards teaching effective english? Avoid using japanese in the english class, especially for the teacher who is the model the students would emulate. Use of simple but grammatical sentence structures is perfectly fine. If the students say something wrongly, correct them by repeating the statement back to them in the correct form, instead of an outright correction.

TWG

[Archaic`]

I didn't say that either. What educators now believe is that while the end goal/s remain the same, any number of possible paths can be taken to achieve that end goal, as long as that goal is attained. The japanese system seems to be one where it's 'my way or no way'. Students with different learning faculties and preferences would be highly disadvantaged.

Within each school, that may be the case. However, to avoid that, a student would go to the school which suit their learning needs, as I said. It is not uncommon for students living next to a high school to instead travel via subway to another school on the other side of town every day (Average cost of return trip, $5US a day), simply for that sort of reason.

Those are the problems. Some classes may perform better if a different order(scheme of work) is used. Materials can and should be novel, created by teachers to tailor to their students' needs to enhance learning, especially by catering to the interests of the students(the motivational factor). And so on. This is particularly applicable for languages, and to the sciences to a lesser extent.

Which is again why students who learn better in those environments tend to be the ones who enrol in the schools which use those environments. When I said the schools all used the same curriculum, I didn't mean everyone's a bloody ROTE learning clone. What's the same all around is the information the classes are based around, to a certain minimum level.

Teacher centered activities? Student centered activities? What sort of activities? Didactic/lecturer style delivery? Discovery method? Problem solving? What? From what you have said so far, as well as from the links provided, it seems there's only two styles in use: Lecture and question/answer modes. No group work at all, and the japanese probably still believe a quiet class is always the most conducive for learning.

From my meager experience so far, that's not true.

As I did say, those are a bit old. There have since been some reforms, and I'll look for some more up to date articles later. However, I will admit that these problems do exist, and this is more due problems with teacher training then it is with the curriculum. Things have slowly been changing over the past few years as new young teachers come into the system with new fresh ideas of how to teach.

No different from Singapore. Oh yes, you thought I was from the US? Oops.

Yes, but I don't think even in Singapore that you would have situations like my example above, would you?

Undoubtedly true. My own english education tutor, in charge of teaching my group new methods of language teaching, once remarked over lunch that he had a group of China chinese over to learn the Singaporean style. Getting them to loosen up and allow the students to learn language by group work instead of dutifully parroting the teacher was, he said, next to impossible.

And let me guess, they adopted the same "Our methods worked for us when we were kids, why shouldn't they work for these kids now?" I've got when I've pointed out similar problems over here, right?
I guess the "If it's not broke, don't fix it" principle seems to apply everywhere. Some people just don't seem to understand that just because it can work doesn't mean there's not a better solution.

Native speaking foreign language teachers are NOT, I repeat, NOT always the best teachers for english, because just being able to speak and write the language competently is not enough! Not only must they possess a basic knowledge of grammar, but a knowledge of functional linguistics(that is, using english for communication in real life) pertaining to english second language acquisition is almost mandatory.

Steps towards teaching effective english? Avoid using japanese in the english class, especially for the teacher who is the model the students would emulate. Use of simple but grammatical sentence structures is perfectly fine. If the students say something wrongly, correct them by repeating the statement back to them in the correct form, instead of an outright correction.

Agreed that they're not always going to be the best teachers, but you have a better chance of them being good if they've got proper training, if only because they're not as likely to have the same hang-ups with their students as their teachers did when they were learning English themselves (For example, a common problem over here with non-native language teachers is an over-emphasis on grammer and proununciation, to the point where students are berated constantly for even the most minor of errors).

Personally, there's two things about the Japanese system of English teaching which I feel could use a lot of improvement. Firstly, the one area where ROTE memorization could be of real use perhaps, Vocab, isn't even taught in class. Secondly, when one has a rare chance for communication, too much importance is placed upon pronounciation. English speakers are *used* to all sorts of weird English accents. Between Great Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, you've already got maybe 7-8 major recognisable accents, all of which pronounce many words slightly differently. No one's going to really give a damn if you pronounce "Thank You" as "Sanku Yuu", because we understand your meaning. There's plenty of time to teach the students "proper" pronounication once they actually have an understanding of what it is they're saying.

[Zor]

Only one man can stop this wave of Ignorance...

Bill Nye the Science Guy (seriously, that guy is a great Educational asset, I could not get enough of him when i was young)

[Archaic`]

That kind of role is filled over here by a weekend morning educational anime. IIRC, it's called something like "Sou nan da".