Yesterday, I reported on recent findings from the Pew Internet & American Life Project about where people get their science information, and I was thrilled by the conversation that this blog entry provoked, even on a Black Friday, after Thanksgiving. To be fair, not all respondents live in the United States and observe our Thanksgiving or our shopping psychoses. But I did feel that the fact that so many adults in the U.S. are going to the Internet for news and information about science, significantly applies to what and how we are teaching in our classrooms.
Cherrie, in New Zealand, said,
The Internet itself isn’t the issue is it? It’s where you get the information and what skills you have to interpret it. So you know, it’sbetter to grab it from multiple sources and the more skeptical a piece of information is, the more sources you probably should go to for confirmation of “factâ€.
Judy O’Connell said,
What the PEW report presents is superficial, obvious confirmation of what we already know about kids use of the Internet. Our responsibility as educators is to show them how to be effective searchers for information, analysts of idea, and where to ‘keep digging’ effectively to help them in their formulations..
And then there’s Corturnix, who says,
..what is the role of science blogs in all this? After all, if the latest science news has something to do with circadian clocks or sleep, people expect me to explain the new study and feel free to ask further questions in the comments on my blog, so it is a conversation. While it is a dialogue between an expert and a lay-person, it is also a friendlydialogue with mutual respect, not a top-down lecture.
Gary Stager cut closer to my own thinking when he said,
Scientific knowledge is a consequence of experience – of doing science, not merely reading about it.
It is about so much more than science, the Internet, CNN, and even the basic skills. After reading these comments, my thoughts go more to how the nature of science changes as a body of study and as an ongoing issue of critical interest for adults — as our information environment becomes far more participatory. What we are learning is that science, and the social studies, and mathematics, and even what we know about health — is also participatory.
Scientists, historians, health professionals, and virtually all disciplines practice their crafts in conversation, constantly expressing, challenging, and changing what they believe and know about their world. It is teachers and students who act as if science is a settled collection of facts. It’s what is so terribly wrong with much of the “testing” that happens today. It has so much faith in the value of facts, while there is so little that is certain. It’s part of living in such an information driven, technology-rich time. We are learning so much, and that constant learning forces us to constantly question what we already knew.
So, what are we talking about here, with regard to science, the Internet, and basic literacy skills? What is the question we should be asking ourselves? How do we Stay Ahead of the Curve, the theme of next week’s NC Educational Technology Conference. I think that the question is is:
Should we be teaching what scientists know (or believe),
or
Should we be teaching what scientists do?
And if we are to teach students to be scientists (observers, researchers, experimenters — master questioners), then can we test it? Well, certainly not in a way that can show up in a table in the state newspapers. But, if we are coming to rely on the Internet more for our information and multimedia for expression, then might it become more possible for us to demonstrate practice, rather than just demonstrate our mastery of facts?
What do you think?
technorati tags:warlick, conference, ncetc, ncetc06, flatclassrooms, science, literacy
Blogged with Flock
The last question is what is the major issue facing education and the educational process today.
“might it become more possible for us to demonstrate practice, rather than just demonstrate our mastery of facts?”
This gets into the issues brought forth by Daggett and others, what is a better indicator of content mastery? Application or Knowlege of facts.
The US Educational system has been designed to be one size fits all, aligned in rows and completely linear in function. The problem is that humans are not natively ‘linear’ in thinking, which is a point you and others have been making for some time.
The problem is that the system is definitely ‘broken,’ yet no one wants to deal with the solution because it involves investment and hard work. It is much easier (and cheaper) giving standardized tests to students to figure out how many facts they have temporarily cached in their brains, than it is to place them in a situation where they have to apply their learning in a real world situation. The second part of this issue is that there aren’t enough leaders in education trained in how to properly assess what students have done and if they have applied their skill appropriately.
This was one of the reasons I went and got my Administrative Services credential this summer. The fix has to start someplace, it might as well start with me.
PS: Nice shot of the back of my head in Monterey! LOL! It’s easy to find… the big bald one! Nice to see you there!
KB
http://www.dhmo.org
is a great example of a site worth showing to students (and teachers) to illustrate the point you are making about literacy. When I was first shown this site I was completely drawn in to the horrors of dhmo. If you present this in the right way it has a powerful effect on building student understanding about the importance of literacy skills like cross referencing, verification, authority of source etc.
I think the value of the science blogs is exactly in not presenting scientific information as graven-in-stone facts. Much of what goes on science blogs is questioning the methods, data and conclusions of the papers, as well as veracity of press-releases and media articles. Often the newest paper is placed in a broader scientific, historical and/or philosophical context. The way science is done, including the effects of departmental politics, publishing traditions, etc. is often highlighted in such critiques.
In a recent Russian paper on mathematical education, I have encountered a freshly-coined term which can be translated into English as problemacity. It is the level of saturation of teaching material with accessible, interesting, thought-provoking, developmental problems. The core failures of science education in Britain can be succintly summarised as its low problemacity.
David,
I do not know if you remember me, but I sat across the table from you at the MidLink gathering in Raleigh several weeks ago. Caroline McCullen, I , and others had an interesting conversation about the importance of “learning how to learn.”
At any rate, I have found your blog posts interesting over the past couple days. As a molecular geneticist with a Ph.D. who now teaches science to middle school and upper school students, I can not help but add my thoughts.
“Should we be teaching what scientists know (or believe),
or
Should we be teaching what scientists do?”
We do need to teach children what scientists know (or believe) through all means possible with the Internet as a primary source of current and up-to-date information (essential in science as it changes at the blink of an eye). Students need to know what scientists think and believe such that they can critically analyze this information, and if possible, through experimental investigation, decide for themselves if they agree, disagree, or are confused 🙂 Moreover, students have to be taught what scientists do by experiencing the scientific process in their own context. Just as in all disciplines, learning in science can not be boiled down into one mode- it is far too complex for that, and we do a disservice to students by not letting them experience the complexity.
I am always baffled by the comments from my students such as “the experiment did not work.” This just lets me know that I am doing my job as they are experiencing “real science”. When they do get an experiment to “work”, they get that “ahah” moment that has driven so many of the great scientists to continue their experimentation in spite of the “failed” experiments and ambiguity. Real science is taught by doing science with all of its wonderful complexity, and this includes scouring through Internet sources to search for reputable scientific information that can be analyzed, synthesized, and tested. – Joselyn
Also, I guess going through that process helps you (as a student, learner, human being) understand the nature of information and what it means to “know” something and what it means to “do something” with that “knowledge”.
It’s all in inverted commas because hey, what do we know?
I’ll attempt to articulate my thoughts properly – I often have trouble!
I like to think of myself as a scientist become teacher rather than a teacher of science. This greatly influences the methodologies I use in class.
To relate to the question posed:
“Should we be teaching what scientists know (or believe),
or
Should we be teaching what scientists do?â€
its most likely, and eventually, a balance of both. Where the fulcrum lies depends on the purpose of the course as determined by the school board/teachers/students/community at large does it not?
When I am confronted with the notion of a ‘knowledge based society’ I cannot help but find myself thinking – then what? In recent years, I find TOO many students acting of is ‘knowledge’ makes them ‘intelligent’. Modern media tends to substantiate this cultural ‘meme’. Due to the incredible availability of ‘knowledge’ and its portrayal via the media, I feel I need to stress the analytical, comprehension side of the ‘teeter-totter’.
Hence at intermediate grade levels, methodologically, I tend to stress inquiry based experimentation. I stress that the ‘right’ answer is the one their evidence supports. I stress practice over ‘knowledge’. Of course the knowledge exists but my focal point lies skewed.
I believe I have some justification in the fact that at senior levels [at least at my school for my AP biology course] knowledge predominates. [Not that I like it!]
Ultimately I have NO idea what the best [I believe a moving target] is ‘best’.
James L.
P.S. An article written by Bruce Alberts [at the time President for the National Academy of Sciences] argued for practice over ‘knowledge’. He thought the onus was upon higher education institutions to demand less ‘knowledge’ and more ‘practice’ to enable the high school level institutions to stress the latter as well. He felt the ‘knowledge’ pressure trickled down and was unfair to the ‘nature of science’. I tend to agree but I’m not sure I [or he] is correct.