NASA Launches Educational Website

Rob writes to tell us Computer Business Review magazine is reporting that NASA has launched a new educational site targeting children in kindergarten through fourth grade. From the article: "The website aims to appeal to both parents and educators wishing to help develop children's knowledge in subjects such as science, technology and mathematics. [...] 'Our goal with the Kids' Club is to provide a medium that encourages children's interest in exploring the subjects important to developing early skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics,' said Angela Phillips Diaz, NASA's acting assistant administrator for education."

Does this work?

[Wellington Grey]

Interactive games on the site teach children about exploring space, building and launching rockets, keeping airplanes on schedule and how a comet travels through the solar system.

Not that I don't appreciate NASA attempt, but does anyone know of any studies showing the effectiveness of computer games on learning? Both my experiences as a student and now as a science teacher tell me they are a worst of both worlds solution. Too much reading/obvious attempts to educate to make a fun game, far too shallow content to make a good lesson.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Games, not necessarily scientific education

[Anonymous Coward]

Upon looking through the website and I must say I'm disappointed.

It aims to teach space science and technology through playing several interactive games and quizes. For example, at the highest level (5th), you are asked to "guide a comet" by getting nine trivia questions about the Solar system. Ok, it's probably good to know that it takes 365days for Earth to orbit around the Sun. But would that be truly thought provoking? (it might teach kids a method of elimination by logic, I admit).

I just wonder what these people think as "scientific" education here. Knowing some stupid trivia about planets so important to become a scientist or an astronaut?

Teaching science requires more than trivia or memorization games. The key is to make students think with logics. Maybe logic is too much for K-5, well, ok, then let them discover something by playing instead. Like gravity! The kids don't need to know the law of gravity. Just create a java applet that let you play with the mass of the Sun and let the kids adjust its mass to see what sort of effect the planets would see. Or, do the orbiting rocket. Let them "see" what happens when a rocket vehicle tries to catch up on another rocket ahead of it. By "catching up" the rocket behind the second one ignites its booster to "move faster". Let the kids see what would happens to the rocket when it's gone faster. It'll show them the intricacy of astrodynamics!

The main problem on these NASA's EP/O is that the director / designers of the site often do not know what "science" is. I don't mean to single out Angela Diaz (wife of Al Diaz, who got canned from Goddard/NASA, I believe), but she's been known as manager, not exactly a teacher. Give real teachers the budget and make a better site than this, I would dare say!

[I apologize for my rant. I'm just tired of these craps NASA produces these days.]

Re:Pushing children toward private ventures

[David Hume]

It seems to be that the best thing NASA could be doing now is trying to raise a generation that has the drive and vision to make private space ventures work.

Very idealistic. However, few organizations have a purpose of putting themselves out of business.

I think that for the time being it is the only force for robotic exploration of the universe. Private firms will be profit-driven, which for the time being means transportation from point to point on the globe, mining, and near-space tourism. Only an agency like NASA, not concerned with generating huge amounts of revenue and appeasing shareholders, would currently dare to send a probe to Pluto, for example.

Why only for "the time being?" Won't the reasons you give for NASA doing space exploration (as opposed to tourism, business, "transportation from point to point") always going to remain true? That is, that private firms "will be profit-driven," "concerned with generating huge amounts of revenue and appeasing shareholders?" These things are going to change over time?

There is still room for encouraging children towards NASA's endeavours.

Didn't you just say that NASA should try "to raise a generation that has the drive and vision to make private space ventures work?"

Two Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that Math Blaster and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego taught me a lot when I was younger. Even if it didn't actually teach me that much (I don't disagree with you that educational games are somewhat shallow) it did show me that learning can be fun. Even now computer games are helping me, I'm learning Spanish by playing the Spanish version of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego. So while games are no replacement for formal education they certainly help the process.

But remember...

[Simon Garlick]

Whatever you do, don't mention climate change or poof! there goes your funding.

Re:NASA?

[tverbeek]

I don't see "10. Make sure American kids aren't dumbasses when the education system drops the ball" on the list.

That's because it's 0, a prerequisite to make 1-9 possible in the long run.

Re:Games, not necessarily scientific education

[Cthefuture]

Ha!

Obviously someone who didn't go through the American education system. The whole system is like that and I hated school because of it. 13 years of boring busy work. I distinctly remember my first experience with school (preschool) and how incredibly moronic I thought it was for us to sit around and cut pictures out of a magazine that related to some topic. The whole time I was thinking "What, do they think we are stupid?" I was 5 or 6 years old at the time and it was a harbinger of things to come...

NASA, stop focusing only on elementary school kids

[Octorian]

That's right... It seems like NASA is full of education initiatives that cater to younger children. Children at that age tend to be easily interested in all sorts of new and exciting things, and don't need NASA's help. The problem is that they'll likely lose any and all interest once they get to an age where they can actually steer their future.

I think NASA should focus much more on grades 9-12, where the goal actually is to prepare oneself for college and ultimately a future career. This is the critical time when we're loosing interest.

Re:Games, not necessarily scientific education

[Daniel Dvorkin]

A good way to determine how best to ignite an interest in science would be to ask actual scientists what it was that initially got them interested in figuring out the Why and How of things. I'll bet that most of them could give a pretty detailed accounting of that, and I'll bet you further that few, if any, of them were smitten while watching watered-down educational cartoons.

Honestly? Most would probably say either, "I don't know, I've just always been fascinated by ___," or, "Well, one day I kind of lucked into ___."

This is going to sound kind of brutal, but the truth is, most kids probably aren't going to get interested in science, and there's nothing we can do to change that. They will, if we're lucky, get interested enough in the results of science -- everything from pretty Hubble pictures to new medical treatments -- to continue supporting the people who do the actual work. But science is hard, and it involves lots of that icky math stuff, and the people who do it are, you know, nerds. Good luck with getting any more than a very small minority of kids to put in the time and effort, and make the social sacrifices required, to become real working scientists. Ever. Meanwhile, the quiet, smart ones will keep on studying, keep on working, and eventually turn themselves into the adults whose labor will change the world.

An effort, but is it useful?

[ErichTheRed]

It's admirable to try to get students interested in science, but I don't think that's going to happen until a major change of some kind occurs. Not that it was ever "cool" to be a smart kid, but it seems like intelligence is more actively discouraged with kids these days. Here's the problems I see with science's image today:

1. Older kids aren't stupid. They see their techie parents losing jobs and having their salaries cut because people half a world away work for a lot less and have a better work ethic in most cases. Given those facts, would you work your butt off in school and grad school for years on end to end up with a low-paying job, if you could find one?

2. Kids also see that getting an MBA or a law degree is an instant ticket to success with much less hard work. Against that, science doesn't have a chance with anyone but the most hardcore types.

3. For whatever reason, schools don't seem to be attracting the world's best teachers. I had some really excellent math and science teachers in my school career who got me interested in the material. Unless you have a really good teacher in an intro. science class, you'll never enjoy the subject.

4. I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people now, but the trend towards religious fundamentalism in the US really hurts science as well. Religion and science don't mix. When enough of the religious crazies get into powerful positions, projects don't get funded. Examples of the problem are the whole evolution debate, stem cell research, etc. Until we get a moderate base of elected officials in office again, this will continue.

I don't know what it will take to fix the problem, but anything that can be done is better than nothing!