Getting things like this clarified can be a challenge.
I've a hobby interest in exploring what science education might look like if we could apply much greater expertise. For example, K-1 does descriptive material properties, but it's ad hoc and crufty. Happily, industry has some nicer descriptive ontologies. So what might it look like to adapt those instead? And how might that then be leveraged, to teach other things better?
Now rheological quasi-properties provide a way to quantify dynamic material properties. Like sticky, squishy, slimy, ...-y. Which raises the obvious question: Could we do Ashby charts[1], xkcd-ishly simple and discrete, in K-1? Like, foods sticky vs slimy?
Well, 2D sort-into-piles is a K thing, with axes ordered and categorical. But... having both axis ordered is very rare. Button number-of-holes vs color, sure. But number-of-holes vs number-of-sides, strangely not. So is this a real developmental bottleneck? Or just the commonplace "we teach it, but we don't really use it, so there's little incentive to teach it well"? Good question - I've found it hard to get feedback like that.
I wish there was an HN-like community, with education researchers and master teachers.
I've a hobby interest in exploring what science education might look like if we could apply much greater expertise. For example, K-1 does descriptive material properties, but it's ad hoc and crufty. Happily, industry has some nicer descriptive ontologies. So what might it look like to adapt those instead? And how might that then be leveraged, to teach other things better?
Now rheological quasi-properties provide a way to quantify dynamic material properties. Like sticky, squishy, slimy, ...-y. Which raises the obvious question: Could we do Ashby charts[1], xkcd-ishly simple and discrete, in K-1? Like, foods sticky vs slimy?
Well, 2D sort-into-piles is a K thing, with axes ordered and categorical. But... having both axis ordered is very rare. Button number-of-holes vs color, sure. But number-of-holes vs number-of-sides, strangely not. So is this a real developmental bottleneck? Or just the commonplace "we teach it, but we don't really use it, so there's little incentive to teach it well"? Good question - I've found it hard to get feedback like that.
I wish there was an HN-like community, with education researchers and master teachers.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=ashby+charts