I refer to the interviews of the President of Student Union of the University of Mauritius where she openly expressed her dissatisfaction with science education and Nobel Laureate Prof Hoffman as well as the editorials published in Le Mauricien on 7th and 8th August 2008.
It would be an understatement that I had mixed feelings while reading these. Some difficult and disturbing questions arise. Why is school science considered boring and a waste of time? This question acquires more importance when we consider who are making these statements. These are not students who dropped out of a science course for any number of reasons ranging from their difficulty to make sense of it or to the pull factor of other courses that promise a lucrative future with huge salaries but those who form part of the top set that has successfully completed the "A" level science.
Similar views emerged during my study conducted in 2006-2007 that aimed at identifying the challenges for chemistry education for a presentation at the 20th International Conference on Chemistry Education (ICCE). The Conference was organised by the University of Mauritius from 4th to 8th August. Prof Hoffman was the main speaker and challenge for presenters. His apt, difficult and thought provoking questions enriched the deliberations and showed how well informed he is of various disciplines.
To identify students' perspectives on school chemistry and science I collected data from 101 UoM students and 108 Year 1 SSR Medical College students and spoke to 55 of them for a deeper insight. They were asked to reflect on their secondary school experiences. I also examined the Forms I to III chemistry textbooks to see what they prescribed.
Two inter-related and important aspects of secondary school science emerged from this research.
The first one is related to the weak links between the classroom science and everyday science. It is important to point out here that there are numerous examples from everyday life in school textbooks and that all students recognise the importance of chemistry in everyday life. Nevertheless, these examples are at the "mention" level and can draw students to the subject but are not strong enough to sustain their cognitive engagement. They offer little that can help understand the underpinning science, discern its process and also evaluate the environmental, social and ethical implications. And the second finding relates to the exclusive focus on lower order cognitive skills and knowledge inside the classroom. There is excessive emphasis on memorization even at some extracurricular activities that are organised to encourage science learning. For example, at a recent quiz, students were asked to give full name of the inventor of Bunsen burner. A sound alternative would have been to ask them to imagine how he arrived at the current model or how the burner works.
Clearly, the depth that is required to understand the underpinning principles, apply, explore and enjoy science is inadequate. There are many valid reasons such as inadequate facilities to illustrate the underpinning science and time to allow it to sink it and many not so valid excuses such as the absence of a management structure to find out what is happening inside a classroom and what support teachers require. Strangely, the latter is supported by the narrow interpretation of the "paradigm" that the child is at the centre of education and which unfortunately shifts the responsibility for his performance from the practices that may have contributed to his own inherent ability.
Nevertheless, one important reason why students have a narrow view of school science relates to the difference between science and science education that we often overlook with the belief that the two are one and the same thing and subsequently expect school science to produce scientifically literate citizenry and specialists who would be able to respond to societal needs. This is not automatic, at least not for all students.
Science operates in an open system and involves exploring and working with multiple unrelated divergent ideas operating at one and the same time to understand the unknown. It proceeds, as argued by Paul Feyerabend in his Against Method, through " epistemological anarchism ".
Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes… The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious.
School science, on the other hand is mostly about communicating the established body of knowledge or in other words, a convergent view of science. I would like to cite Thomas Kuhn's views on "normal science education":
The objective of a textbook is to provide the reader, in the most economical and easily assimilable form, with a statement of what the contemporary community believes it knows and of the principal uses to which that knowledge is put. Information about how that knowledge was acquired (discovery) and about why it was accepted by the profession (confirmation) would at best be excess baggage. (p. 186)
His observations on practices of science education are still valid at least in Mauritius where the access to secondary and tertiary education is controlled by a system of external examinations.
In such a system, it is much safer and "fairer" to communicate the convergent view and not waste much time on the 'excess baggage', irrespective of its educational significance. Let the examinees learn the expected and reproduce it. For obvious reasons, teachers would consider twice before encouraging students to think for themselves. One cannot take risks. The stakes are too high.
There is also a fear that left to explore by themselves, students may construct cognitive structures on their experience, folklore, fiction and knowledge base that may differ from the established knowledge. With large classes and little time and expertise for formative assessment, teachers may remain unaware of these "alternative frameworks" which may impede future learning.
While there is no doubt that going beyond the limits set to present the subject matter introduces an authentic context, enhances cognition, interest and motivation and introduces students to the nature and methods of science. Teachers also come to know of the need to clarify issues and information and identify inconsistencies in students' learning that they had not previously thought of. Instead we often leave unanswered questions for later when there would be more time and students more mature - " you will learn it later " or worse still, " you will not understand at this stage ".
To Conclude
The importance of helping students adopt a "helicopter view" of school science and its interactions with nature and society to operate at higher conceptual levels crucial for a responsible and scientifically literate citizenry and to enjoy it cannot be overemphasised. This requires moving away from presenting it as a "rhetoric of conclusions" for examination success and because of many logistical constraints as is the case today to exploring it as a scientific enquiry. The choice is ours.
This article was published in the Forum of Le Mauricien of Thursday 18 September 2008and I have reproduced it here because similar issues were raised in one of my classes.
It would be an understatement that I had mixed feelings while reading these. Some difficult and disturbing questions arise. Why is school science considered boring and a waste of time? This question acquires more importance when we consider who are making these statements. These are not students who dropped out of a science course for any number of reasons ranging from their difficulty to make sense of it or to the pull factor of other courses that promise a lucrative future with huge salaries but those who form part of the top set that has successfully completed the "A" level science.
Similar views emerged during my study conducted in 2006-2007 that aimed at identifying the challenges for chemistry education for a presentation at the 20th International Conference on Chemistry Education (ICCE). The Conference was organised by the University of Mauritius from 4th to 8th August. Prof Hoffman was the main speaker and challenge for presenters. His apt, difficult and thought provoking questions enriched the deliberations and showed how well informed he is of various disciplines.
To identify students' perspectives on school chemistry and science I collected data from 101 UoM students and 108 Year 1 SSR Medical College students and spoke to 55 of them for a deeper insight. They were asked to reflect on their secondary school experiences. I also examined the Forms I to III chemistry textbooks to see what they prescribed.
Two inter-related and important aspects of secondary school science emerged from this research.
The first one is related to the weak links between the classroom science and everyday science. It is important to point out here that there are numerous examples from everyday life in school textbooks and that all students recognise the importance of chemistry in everyday life. Nevertheless, these examples are at the "mention" level and can draw students to the subject but are not strong enough to sustain their cognitive engagement. They offer little that can help understand the underpinning science, discern its process and also evaluate the environmental, social and ethical implications. And the second finding relates to the exclusive focus on lower order cognitive skills and knowledge inside the classroom. There is excessive emphasis on memorization even at some extracurricular activities that are organised to encourage science learning. For example, at a recent quiz, students were asked to give full name of the inventor of Bunsen burner. A sound alternative would have been to ask them to imagine how he arrived at the current model or how the burner works.
Clearly, the depth that is required to understand the underpinning principles, apply, explore and enjoy science is inadequate. There are many valid reasons such as inadequate facilities to illustrate the underpinning science and time to allow it to sink it and many not so valid excuses such as the absence of a management structure to find out what is happening inside a classroom and what support teachers require. Strangely, the latter is supported by the narrow interpretation of the "paradigm" that the child is at the centre of education and which unfortunately shifts the responsibility for his performance from the practices that may have contributed to his own inherent ability.
Nevertheless, one important reason why students have a narrow view of school science relates to the difference between science and science education that we often overlook with the belief that the two are one and the same thing and subsequently expect school science to produce scientifically literate citizenry and specialists who would be able to respond to societal needs. This is not automatic, at least not for all students.
Science operates in an open system and involves exploring and working with multiple unrelated divergent ideas operating at one and the same time to understand the unknown. It proceeds, as argued by Paul Feyerabend in his Against Method, through " epistemological anarchism ".
Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes… The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious.
School science, on the other hand is mostly about communicating the established body of knowledge or in other words, a convergent view of science. I would like to cite Thomas Kuhn's views on "normal science education":
The objective of a textbook is to provide the reader, in the most economical and easily assimilable form, with a statement of what the contemporary community believes it knows and of the principal uses to which that knowledge is put. Information about how that knowledge was acquired (discovery) and about why it was accepted by the profession (confirmation) would at best be excess baggage. (p. 186)
His observations on practices of science education are still valid at least in Mauritius where the access to secondary and tertiary education is controlled by a system of external examinations.
In such a system, it is much safer and "fairer" to communicate the convergent view and not waste much time on the 'excess baggage', irrespective of its educational significance. Let the examinees learn the expected and reproduce it. For obvious reasons, teachers would consider twice before encouraging students to think for themselves. One cannot take risks. The stakes are too high.
There is also a fear that left to explore by themselves, students may construct cognitive structures on their experience, folklore, fiction and knowledge base that may differ from the established knowledge. With large classes and little time and expertise for formative assessment, teachers may remain unaware of these "alternative frameworks" which may impede future learning.
While there is no doubt that going beyond the limits set to present the subject matter introduces an authentic context, enhances cognition, interest and motivation and introduces students to the nature and methods of science. Teachers also come to know of the need to clarify issues and information and identify inconsistencies in students' learning that they had not previously thought of. Instead we often leave unanswered questions for later when there would be more time and students more mature - " you will learn it later " or worse still, " you will not understand at this stage ".
To Conclude
The importance of helping students adopt a "helicopter view" of school science and its interactions with nature and society to operate at higher conceptual levels crucial for a responsible and scientifically literate citizenry and to enjoy it cannot be overemphasised. This requires moving away from presenting it as a "rhetoric of conclusions" for examination success and because of many logistical constraints as is the case today to exploring it as a scientific enquiry. The choice is ours.
This article was published in the Forum of Le Mauricien of Thursday 18 September 2008and I have reproduced it here because similar issues were raised in one of my classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment