For people who don’t know, CBBC and Newsround is directed towards children. Not saying it couldn’t have been written better, of course. But it’s intentionally simplified
Even so, teaching kids there’s no difference between something dissolving and disappearing is blatant misinformation. If they wanted to teach scientific concepts, they should actually teach how they work.
If your target audience is kids, you have to be more careful with your wording because they have limited background knowledge and will likely take everything you say at face value. Otherwise you can create life long misconceptions which they pass along to the next generation because they assume it’s true.
These are the kinds of articles every science teacher hates because when they try to teach real science all the kids will go “nuh uh! I saw it on BBC! How can the dissolved solids be in the water when the news says it just disappears?”
And that’s saying nothing about the implications of teaching kids that we’ll just innovate our ecological problems away. The status quo is fine, and no one needs to change their own behaviours, just wait for the eco friendly products to roll in and consume as normal.
I do agree with you. But your sentiment applies to primary school teachers across the globe too. Children at that level are not typically taught by science teachers who are passionately against these kinds of simplifications. Those people end up teaching older children/teenages/adults who are more able to discern these differences.
My parenting style would be much more scientific than this. Though pushing it further, you could argue that it does disappear, it’s no longer visible. Though I doubt the authors of the article made that distinction
For people who don’t know, CBBC and Newsround is directed towards children. Not saying it couldn’t have been written better, of course. But it’s intentionally simplified
Even so, teaching kids there’s no difference between something dissolving and disappearing is blatant misinformation. If they wanted to teach scientific concepts, they should actually teach how they work.
If your target audience is kids, you have to be more careful with your wording because they have limited background knowledge and will likely take everything you say at face value. Otherwise you can create life long misconceptions which they pass along to the next generation because they assume it’s true.
These are the kinds of articles every science teacher hates because when they try to teach real science all the kids will go “nuh uh! I saw it on BBC! How can the dissolved solids be in the water when the news says it just disappears?”
And that’s saying nothing about the implications of teaching kids that we’ll just innovate our ecological problems away. The status quo is fine, and no one needs to change their own behaviours, just wait for the eco friendly products to roll in and consume as normal.
I do agree with you. But your sentiment applies to primary school teachers across the globe too. Children at that level are not typically taught by science teachers who are passionately against these kinds of simplifications. Those people end up teaching older children/teenages/adults who are more able to discern these differences.
My parenting style would be much more scientific than this. Though pushing it further, you could argue that it does disappear, it’s no longer visible. Though I doubt the authors of the article made that distinction