Complete with bright colors, games, and kid friendly fonts, I give you the EPA's site on climate change directed at kids:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html
I find this site particularly interesting for a lot of reasons. First of all, you know it has to be easy to read and won't find an excess of "scientific lingo" that only a small percentage of the population can comprehend.
What is really interesting to me is the way that the information is presented in comparison to the "typical" global warming websites. The website seems to take advantage of the idea that all children need to hear in order to believe "facts" is that the information came from scientists. Just the word scientists is enough to establish authority and legitimize the information that is presented. No need to cite studies or provide evidence–the only links that are provided lead to "fun sites for more games and information about Climate Change". And of course, politics are completely left out (kids just repeat what they hear their parents say about politics anyway). This is definitely the most upbeat view of global warming that I've seen. This site isn't trying to play on the fear of children or make the "other side" of the debate look bad. It's just trying to tell kids that We Can Make a Difference! (and maybe even have fun while doing it)
This website also has a link for teachers, which makes me wonder if this is a topic which is frequently discussed in schools and to what extent. Do they have "skeptic" sites for kids? Is this subject banned in schools in Texas? Do kids care about global warming?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I got the impression that even the not explicitly "for kids" section of the EPA site was kind of for... well, younger people to make school projects out of or something, maybe high school level. Its interesting that one of the ways that facts are made and legitimized is that they are educationally institutionalized (New York versus Texas facts in education).
ReplyDeleteA 'scientist' or even just a figure of authority like the government is still cast as a trustworthy source for the most part to students, so they'd make their project, recite / regurgitate the information from the website for a grade, all the while spreading the views to their classmates, parents. The spread of information from 'trustworthy source' or 'academic source' to grade school kids to... who knows.
I wonder how many of these views are really stabilized in the high school or grade school years and then retained for a life time..
I would suspect that the topic is frequently discussed in schools but I also heard that science teachers have a hard time tackling it because it is a sufficiently complicated and integrated affair, I'd be interested in seeing if there is any science curriculum in practice that address GW in high schools.
I keep reading "GW" in people's posts as George W.--which oddly works to some extent.
ReplyDeleteEsther, I'm thinking about what you said about how this carries forward into the kids' adult lives. I've been noticing things in people's facebook posts recently about "Scientists say this lotion is bad for you" etc. And, though I think in many cases the info. is reasonable, the way the word "scientist" is used is exactly as you are saying in this post/comment. Just because Scientists say it, it is to be believed.
Since we have no single religious or moral authority in our culture, its like the Scientists are our modern prophets and sages, deciphering the universe for us--and maybe a lot of us treat them as such, and don't question whether they may have motives...