This was published as a series of two articles in Le Mauricien of 5th and 6th February 2007.
1. What are the challenges?
Often our limited knowledge of science comes in our way of making effective, safe and responsible use of everyday science and technology. This could range from simple understanding of how to ward off Chikungunya mosquitoes to food nutrients and supplements that our body requires to taking informed positions on scientific matters.
We all know that natural resources cannot last forever. How do we protect and conserve them? Our garbage has also considerably increased over the years. How do we recycle and reuse it? How do we make symbiotic use of our waste products? Bagasse is one local example. What are the other energy alternatives? How much solar energy do we use? What are the financial implications? Undoubtedly, we need many more sustainable and cost-effective solutions.
New and improved gadgets and practices are constantly produced to improve our health, environment, productivity and comfort. However, it is no longer sufficient to be satisfied with the immediate gains in terms of usefulness of the products and practices. For example, the use of genetically modified foods or stem cell research appears acceptable when we consider the benefits in terms of either the increase in crop yield or the potential healing of patients. More recently, the possibility of uterus transplant gives new hopes to childless women. What are the risks of health and psychological traumas that the recipient body might go through if the body rejects the donor uterus, say after 6, 7 or 8 months of great expectations? There are many such ethical concerns that cannot be disregarded.
Our responsibility as citizens goes far beyond the effective and safe usage of these products and practices to examining the social, environmental, ethical and moral consequences especially if we do not want the future generations to pay the price of our actions and greed. Where do we draw the line? The ability to weigh the pros and cons and take positions has become crucial.
How do we become responsible consumers of science and technology?
By gathering scientific knowledge?
Well, with such rapid expansions in research, products, practices and procedures, science for life or scientific literacy can no longer be synonymous with the mere knowledge of science. Besides, it is not feasible to acquire knowledge of all science that is around us. Science and technology are becoming too specialised for us to keep pace with the latest developments. A decade ago we could open an appliance and tinker with it to make it work. Not any longer. Now we need experts.
Moreover, most of us who studied science at school 10, 20 or 30 years ago would confess that we use very little of the scientific knowledge that we learned. It was a distant science taught in an academic manner that we could not relate to. We excelled in examinations and forgot all about it afterwards. This prompts our unabashed reply, ‘oh, we learnt a different science’ when our children, grand children, nieces and nephews ask us to solve science problems. The case of those involved in science linked careers is obviously different.
The challenge is therefore to go beyond the routine gathering of the established body of scientific knowledge to develop abilities to understand and appreciate the dynamic science, its nature, its methods, ethics, values and communication. The last one is equally important if we don’t want to get muddled in scientific jargon and thereby fail to recognise its usefulness and shortcomings.
We have reached that point of sophistication in our practices and usage of science where it cannot be the privilege of the select few to understand its ways and means. The ignorance of what science is and how it proceeds is no longer bliss. Neither can we afford to fake evidence and results or be irresponsible in its usage. The stakes are too high to overlook.
2. How can science education meet the challenge?
Science for life has complex implications for science education because science and science education are not synonymous. However, differences between the two are not obvious. The commonalties that exist between the two further blur and confound the differences.
According to Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), "Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organised body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."
In practice, science education almost everywhere and at almost all levels (excluding the degrees by research) is about communicating the approved and the established body of scientific knowledge with practical work as an integral part. Practical work aims at illustrating the abstract concepts and developing laboratory skills considered essential in the study of science. However, to what extent practical work achieves its objectives in reality, is another question.
And with the above as objectives of science education, the practices seldom vary. The content, method and very often examples, exercises, examination questions remain similar. The depth, at which science topics or examination questions are treated, obviously changes with the level.
In other words, science education aims at transmitting a very convergent view of science that has the approval of the scientific community. Kuhn pointed this out in 1963, “Scientific education remains a relatively dogmatic initiation into a pre-established problem-solving tradition that the student is neither invited nor equipped to evaluate.” (p.351) His observations on practices of science education are still valid at least in countries with limited opportunities for further education.
Moreover, communicating a convergent view of science appears to be much safer and fairer. Otherwise one can imagine the confused view of science young minds are likely to acquire. Left to experiment and discover science, students may construct and reconstruct cognitive structures on their experience, folklore, fiction and knowledge base that may differ from the established knowledge.
Besides, communicating a convergent view of science reduces subjectivity in examinations and enhances fairness and equity. Examinees learn and reproduce expected answers and examiners mark according to the established criteria.
However, the extent to which all students understand the prescribed knowledge remains another question. Thus emerges the need to review prevailing practices to find out what is being achieved and what is not being achieved and why. There cannot be any compromise in the knowledge, procedures and tools that students acquire.
Notwithstanding, with our over emphasis on the correct acquisition of correct knowledge we often fail to nurture divergent thinking skills, which are crucial for problem-solving. Science in fact flourishes on divergent views. Often, it progresses by the unrelated, previously unthought and unimagined and out of the box solutions, which relies on abilities that formal science education rarely encourages and nurtures.
Also with the emphasis on communicating knowledge, science education seldom communicates how this knowledge has come about or why it is accepted. To complicate matters information on ideas that were rejected and the grounds for rejection is rarely available. What are the acceptability tests and how rigorous are the procedures to meet these?
The formal science education system makes little provisions for such diversions. There is hardly any time for concepts, which failed the acceptability test. Little time is spent on the history of science. Syllabuses have to be completed and examinations have to be taken.
Nevertheless an understanding of these procedures can help students appreciate how science progresses, its nature, methods, values and ethics while equipping them to understand and evaluate future developments. They will be in a better position to weigh not only the social and ethical consequences but also the future responsibilities, which go beyond the mere utilitarian concerns. This shift in pedagogy is all the more necessary if we require users to demonstrate a good understanding of the contemporary science and its ways and to adapt to its changing demands.
Thus, the challenges that the formal system of science education faces are twofold and there is a need to strike a balance between the two extreme objectives. On one hand, it faces the challenge of transmitting the established body of knowledge as approved by the scientific community to all and not just the select few.
On the other hand, it has the responsibility of educating individuals in science, its nature and its methods so that they are in a position to use, evaluate and adapt to fast growing science and technology so as to live a better life.
Often our limited knowledge of science comes in our way of making effective, safe and responsible use of everyday science and technology. This could range from simple understanding of how to ward off Chikungunya mosquitoes to food nutrients and supplements that our body requires to taking informed positions on scientific matters.
We all know that natural resources cannot last forever. How do we protect and conserve them? Our garbage has also considerably increased over the years. How do we recycle and reuse it? How do we make symbiotic use of our waste products? Bagasse is one local example. What are the other energy alternatives? How much solar energy do we use? What are the financial implications? Undoubtedly, we need many more sustainable and cost-effective solutions.
New and improved gadgets and practices are constantly produced to improve our health, environment, productivity and comfort. However, it is no longer sufficient to be satisfied with the immediate gains in terms of usefulness of the products and practices. For example, the use of genetically modified foods or stem cell research appears acceptable when we consider the benefits in terms of either the increase in crop yield or the potential healing of patients. More recently, the possibility of uterus transplant gives new hopes to childless women. What are the risks of health and psychological traumas that the recipient body might go through if the body rejects the donor uterus, say after 6, 7 or 8 months of great expectations? There are many such ethical concerns that cannot be disregarded.
Our responsibility as citizens goes far beyond the effective and safe usage of these products and practices to examining the social, environmental, ethical and moral consequences especially if we do not want the future generations to pay the price of our actions and greed. Where do we draw the line? The ability to weigh the pros and cons and take positions has become crucial.
How do we become responsible consumers of science and technology?
By gathering scientific knowledge?
Well, with such rapid expansions in research, products, practices and procedures, science for life or scientific literacy can no longer be synonymous with the mere knowledge of science. Besides, it is not feasible to acquire knowledge of all science that is around us. Science and technology are becoming too specialised for us to keep pace with the latest developments. A decade ago we could open an appliance and tinker with it to make it work. Not any longer. Now we need experts.
Moreover, most of us who studied science at school 10, 20 or 30 years ago would confess that we use very little of the scientific knowledge that we learned. It was a distant science taught in an academic manner that we could not relate to. We excelled in examinations and forgot all about it afterwards. This prompts our unabashed reply, ‘oh, we learnt a different science’ when our children, grand children, nieces and nephews ask us to solve science problems. The case of those involved in science linked careers is obviously different.
The challenge is therefore to go beyond the routine gathering of the established body of scientific knowledge to develop abilities to understand and appreciate the dynamic science, its nature, its methods, ethics, values and communication. The last one is equally important if we don’t want to get muddled in scientific jargon and thereby fail to recognise its usefulness and shortcomings.
We have reached that point of sophistication in our practices and usage of science where it cannot be the privilege of the select few to understand its ways and means. The ignorance of what science is and how it proceeds is no longer bliss. Neither can we afford to fake evidence and results or be irresponsible in its usage. The stakes are too high to overlook.
2. How can science education meet the challenge?
Science for life has complex implications for science education because science and science education are not synonymous. However, differences between the two are not obvious. The commonalties that exist between the two further blur and confound the differences.
According to Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), "Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organised body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."
In practice, science education almost everywhere and at almost all levels (excluding the degrees by research) is about communicating the approved and the established body of scientific knowledge with practical work as an integral part. Practical work aims at illustrating the abstract concepts and developing laboratory skills considered essential in the study of science. However, to what extent practical work achieves its objectives in reality, is another question.
And with the above as objectives of science education, the practices seldom vary. The content, method and very often examples, exercises, examination questions remain similar. The depth, at which science topics or examination questions are treated, obviously changes with the level.
In other words, science education aims at transmitting a very convergent view of science that has the approval of the scientific community. Kuhn pointed this out in 1963, “Scientific education remains a relatively dogmatic initiation into a pre-established problem-solving tradition that the student is neither invited nor equipped to evaluate.” (p.351) His observations on practices of science education are still valid at least in countries with limited opportunities for further education.
Moreover, communicating a convergent view of science appears to be much safer and fairer. Otherwise one can imagine the confused view of science young minds are likely to acquire. Left to experiment and discover science, students may construct and reconstruct cognitive structures on their experience, folklore, fiction and knowledge base that may differ from the established knowledge.
Besides, communicating a convergent view of science reduces subjectivity in examinations and enhances fairness and equity. Examinees learn and reproduce expected answers and examiners mark according to the established criteria.
However, the extent to which all students understand the prescribed knowledge remains another question. Thus emerges the need to review prevailing practices to find out what is being achieved and what is not being achieved and why. There cannot be any compromise in the knowledge, procedures and tools that students acquire.
Notwithstanding, with our over emphasis on the correct acquisition of correct knowledge we often fail to nurture divergent thinking skills, which are crucial for problem-solving. Science in fact flourishes on divergent views. Often, it progresses by the unrelated, previously unthought and unimagined and out of the box solutions, which relies on abilities that formal science education rarely encourages and nurtures.
Also with the emphasis on communicating knowledge, science education seldom communicates how this knowledge has come about or why it is accepted. To complicate matters information on ideas that were rejected and the grounds for rejection is rarely available. What are the acceptability tests and how rigorous are the procedures to meet these?
The formal science education system makes little provisions for such diversions. There is hardly any time for concepts, which failed the acceptability test. Little time is spent on the history of science. Syllabuses have to be completed and examinations have to be taken.
Nevertheless an understanding of these procedures can help students appreciate how science progresses, its nature, methods, values and ethics while equipping them to understand and evaluate future developments. They will be in a better position to weigh not only the social and ethical consequences but also the future responsibilities, which go beyond the mere utilitarian concerns. This shift in pedagogy is all the more necessary if we require users to demonstrate a good understanding of the contemporary science and its ways and to adapt to its changing demands.
Thus, the challenges that the formal system of science education faces are twofold and there is a need to strike a balance between the two extreme objectives. On one hand, it faces the challenge of transmitting the established body of knowledge as approved by the scientific community to all and not just the select few.
On the other hand, it has the responsibility of educating individuals in science, its nature and its methods so that they are in a position to use, evaluate and adapt to fast growing science and technology so as to live a better life.
No comments:
Post a Comment