Explaining the Reasoning-Fact Gap

Abstract

The Education Forum by L. Bao et al. (“Learning and scientific reasoning,” 30 January, p. [586][1]) raises the question, why doesn't knowledge of scientific facts (in physics specifically) seem to correlate with skill in reasoning? I suspect that one factor is that American curricula generally emphasize a broad range of technical and nontechnical subjects, only one year of which is devoted to physics. Reasoning skills learned from these other subjects likely compensate for the dearth of physics, relative to that in Chinese schools. A second factor is probably the way in which science is taught. Science education in the United States is not focused on national college entrance exams (neither the SAT nor the ACT test factual science knowledge). Requirements and exams vary from state to state, but guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences emphasize reasoning over facts ([1][2]). Overall, educators have greater leeway to focus on reasoning and other less testable skills. Teaching American students more scientific knowledge is a laudable goal, but we should be careful about what gets sacrificed in the process. It is worth considering how much value most people will derive from advanced specific knowledge (Gauss's Law, for example) compared to broader background in a variety of subjects. Science education in the United States is woefully inadequate in many respects ([2][3]), and the number of failing schools is embarrassing. We must correct these failures but also remember what we've done right. The broad education characteristic of both K-12 and higher education in the United States has done an excellent job fostering creativity and innovation, measured by publications, patents, and growth in the science and technology work force ([2][3], [3][4]). We should work to improve scientific education by building on that success. 1. 1.[↵][5] 1. National Research Council , National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996). 2. 2.[↵][6] 1. National Science Board , Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2008) (chs. 3, 5, 7. 3. 3.[↵][7] 1. World Intellectual Property Organization , World Patent Report—A Statistical Review (2008) [www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/patents/931/wipo\_pub\_931_2008.pdf][8]. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1167740 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [7]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [8]: http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/patents/931/wipo_pub_931_2008.pdf