This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Doodling May Draw Students into Science

Doodling May Draw Students into Science - Comments

Cachemoi's Avatar Comment 1 by Cachemoi

A refreshing view on how to teach science and it is very interesting, but I doubt that it would ever be implemented.

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:29:39 UTC | #865645

helena!'s Avatar Comment 2 by helena!

Doodles can be like fractals I find.

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:48:32 UTC | #865650

Ryou Concord's Avatar Comment 3 by Ryou Concord

I draw a lot in my spare time and I find in most of my college science courses, drawing out, say, a skeleton helps me remember each part because now not only do I have a name and a function, but a 3D shape to remember when I draw it.

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:13:55 UTC | #865657

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

Why not? Combing art and science will at least get the artistically inclined scientifically literate and the scientifically inclined drawing as well as needed. Darwin was an excellent illustrator of the natural world.

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:26:12 UTC | #865661

njwong's Avatar Comment 5 by njwong

I think this is true even for adult students - and not just for youths. Personally, I prefer learning from books where the texts are aided with the help of charts, pictures and illustrations. I always remember topics better if there is some kind of visualisation aid. If I were to draw them out, I am sure that will help tremendously to reinforce the taught concept in my memory.

I like the videos of the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) where they use animations to bring a new dimension to speeches and talks. Sometimes, a picture is really worth a thousand words. The following RSA animation is about Changing Education Paradigms:

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:36:53 UTC | #865664

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 6 by Agrajag

Aquilacane will be happy to hear this news!

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:54:04 UTC | #865684

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 7 by QuestioningKat

I still have my illustrated diagrams from my 9th grade "chick lab." As an artist, I find that art goes with science like music goes with math. Many artists and designers are interested in science. Perhaps observing and analyzing the world is in common with both. Frankly, if I find that a surgeon cannot draw or has poor spatial reasoning, I think that's an excellent reason to find another doctor.

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:28:05 UTC | #865689

nancynancy's Avatar Comment 8 by nancynancy

A few years ago, I took several college level chemistry and biology courses and whenever the instructor drew a diagram on the blackboard, I drew it until it was committed to memory and found that an extremely helpful way to learn. Also, my hobby is sewing, and I design almost my all my clothing patterns myself. Trying to create three dimensional shapes in two dimensions always gives my brain a very taxing workout.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:20:25 UTC | #865718

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 9 by QuestioningKat

I find that when I create a full sized dimensional mock up of something and then take it apart, I can easily create a two dimensional pattern. The challenge is to be willing to keep adapting the dimensional mock up to get it just right before disassembling it.

Sewing is a phenomenal skill that is highly underrated. You must like watching Project Runway.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:18:15 UTC | #865762

weavehole's Avatar Comment 10 by weavehole

Comment 2 by helena!

Doodles can be like fractals I find.

There's a bunch of these fun doodly maths videos.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:54:20 UTC | #865770

PERSON's Avatar Comment 11 by PERSON

Comment 10 by weavehole

Nice. Though that one happens to be a copy by a spammer. The user's real channel is here, and here's the original video.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:54:21 UTC | #865780

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 12 by justinesaracen

Sounds like much ado about nothing. Teachers and textbooks DO use diagrams and illustrations to make a scientific point, and everyone KNOWS visual aids make it easier to learn abstract concepts. I don't see why this requires a 'study'. It seems to me someone needed a publication and so created a straw man (teaching science without diagrams) and then poof! revealed that diagrams were important.


Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:04:27 UTC | #865788

i_am_user's Avatar Comment 13 by i_am_user

This is going to be in Science?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:38:31 UTC | #865835

peanutsplatters's Avatar Comment 14 by peanutsplatters

Waurn Pond? How's one pronounce that?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:42:09 UTC | #865837

helena!'s Avatar Comment 15 by helena!

There's a bunch of these fun doodly maths videos.

Thanks weavehole! I will check these out as soon as I get a chance!

[Removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:30:09 UTC | #865892

helena!'s Avatar Comment 16 by helena!

What? I was just stating a fact.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:44:06 UTC | #865918

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 17 by Steven Mading

The article seems to conflate two different points:

1 - Visual/spatial learning is just as important to science as language/math learning.

2 - Science shouldn't be taught by having students take the passive role of rote memorization. They shuld be actively doing things as that makes them remember better.

These both seem true to me, but the article seems to act like they're the same identical point, and I don't get that. You can have diagrams and pictures in science learning even when the students aren't the ones making them. (just open any science textbook and see). And you can have students actively creating works that are not drawings. These seem to me to be two totally unrelated variables that should be tested independantly. If you compare a group that is learning in a fashion that is both passive and linguistic-mathematical versus a group that is learning in a fashion that is both active and visual-spatial, then you are trying to compare groups that differ by two different variables at once, which is not good practice.

So the article doesn't seem to differentiate how much improvement was due specifically to the active act of drawing versus how much was simply due generically to being active at all. (i.e. would another active method that was not drawing, such as essay writing, been as effective?)

I happen to think it is likely that both variables are helpful, but I'd like to see by how much each one matters individually.

I know that I would never understand a science textbook that lacked diagrams. I need the visual aspect in order to learn. But if just read a book to learn without doing anything active, even if that book is mostly visual with diagrams, I'm still not breaking out of the passive paridigm when I do that.

On a somewhat related note, I do think that teaching the basics of perspective drawing is essentially a math skill more than an art skill and really should be taught that way. There are mathematical reasons why this particular arrangement of lines looks like a chair while that particular arrangement of lines doesn't. You can actually do trigonometry that correctly calculates where lines should go on the page if you're trying to make a correct 2D projection of a 3D world. (if you couldn't, you wouldn't be able to have 3-D viewpoint video games. Computer software makes for a really terrible artist, but a really good arithmetic solver.)

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:53:31 UTC | #865966

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 18 by QuestioningKat

Comment 17 by Steven Mading :

On a somewhat related note, I do think that teaching the basics of perspective drawing is essentially a math skill more than an art skill and really should be taught that way. There are mathematical reasons why this particular arrangement of lines looks like a chair while that particular arrangement of lines doesn't.

There is a lot of math in art and design. Perspective should be taught in the art room and by the math teacher or any other teacher who teaches a subject that involves some sort of perspective. We do not know what type of future or career a student will follow, so they need to be exposed to perspective in many different classrooms. I recall a friend having a difficult time in her early years of college because her engineering classes required the ability to visualize and draw an object from a different viewpoint. Easy, I thought, but she eventually dropped out of the program. She had no interest in art and evidently was not exposed to this type of thinking during her entire education.

As a former art teacher, I was great at teaching perspective. It was one of my favorite topics. Most art teachers do an inadequate job of teaching perspective because they themselves lack some spacial reasoning or technical skills. If the art teacher isn't always strong in this area, this is another reason it should be taught in a variety of subjects.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:57:50 UTC | #866094

weavehole's Avatar Comment 19 by weavehole

Comment 11 by PERSON

Ech, well spotted!

Comment 15 by helena!

Ooh, intriguing missing sentence. I should check back more often.

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:34:19 UTC | #866319