arvind kumar understanding nature of science is, now
Post on 09-Jan-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
33# REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
Arvind Kumar
Understandingnatureofscienceis,now,widelyperceivedtobeavitallearningoutcomeofscienceeducation.Inthisarticle,webrieflydiscusstherationaleforintroducing‘natureofscience’inschoolsciencecurricula,itsevolvingperspectives,andtheapproacheswemayadopttoenablethelearningofthistopic.
Introduction
hatisscience?ItisnotuncommonforW textbooksofsciencetobeginwiththisquestionintheintroductorychapter,
devoteafewparagraphstoit,andthengetonquicklywithwhatisregardedasthemainstuffofscience:itsempiricalfacts,laws,theories,etc.Typically,thebookswouldsay:scienceinvolvesmakingsystematicunbiasedobservationsofnature,doingcarefulexperiments,anddrawinglogicalinferencesfromthem.Inthisway,wearriveatthelawsofnature.Wesuggesthypothesestounderstandtheempiricallaws,whichthenleadustobuildelaboratetheoriestoexplaintheknownphysicalphenomena.Theoriesalsopredictnewphenomena.Ifthepredictionsareverified,thetheoryisconfirmed.Sciencebowstonoauthority;itisobjectiveknowledgeobtainedfromobservationsandexperiments.
Thereismuchthatmakessenseinthisdescriptionofnatureofscience,simplisticthoughitwillseemaswediscussitfurther.Butfirst,wemustaskwhyitisnecessaryatalltoteachnatureofsciencewhenthereissolittletimetofinishthe‘moreimportant’partsofthesubject.
Whyteach‘NatureofScience’(NOS)
Torespondtothisquestion,wemustpausetoreflectonwhatisthepurposeofteachingscienceinschool.ScienceisacompulsorysubjectintheIndianschoolcurriculumtilltheendofsecondaryschool.Amajorityofstudentswillceasetogoforfurtherformaleducation;ofthosewhodopursuehigherstagesofeducation,manywouldgotocommerce,artsandotherstreams.Therefore,onlyasmallfractionofstudentsfinishingClassXwillchoosetocontinueinthesciencestream,andastillsmallerfractionofthisnumberwillgoontobecomescientistsorotherprofessionalswhodirectlyneedscienceanditsapplicationsintheircareers.Thusmostpeopleareunlikelytoneedanyscientificcontentknowledge(ofthekindlearntatschool)intheirprofessions.
Why,then,havewemadescienceeducationcompulsoryattheschoollevel?Clearly,thiswouldmakesenseonlyifthemainpurposeofschoolscienceeducationwassomewhatbroadandnotlimitedtospecificsciencecontentonly.Thegoalsofschoolscienceeducationhavebeendebatedendlessly,oftenwithdifferingideologicalstances;butfewwoulddisagreethataprincipalgoalisto
NATURE OF SCIENCE
3534 REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
inductivegeneralizationfromunbiasedobservationsofnature,andcontrolledexperiments.Baconforesawtheimmensepowerofthisnewmethodinnotonlypredicting,butalsocontrollingphenomena.
Inthebeginningofthe20thcentury,aninfluentialgroupofphilosophersofscienceundertooktoformulateamorerigorousversionofthescientificmethod.Briefly,theyregardedastatementoranassertionmeaningfulonlyifitwaseitherlogicallyself-evident,orcouldbeputinaverifiableform;sciencemustonlyhavesuchmeaningfulstatements.Forconvenience,wemayusetheoreticaltermslike‘atom’,‘gene’,‘valency’,butultimately,allscientificassertionsmustbereducibletoobservationstatements.Bythisstrictcriterion,poetryismeaningless,ifharmless,whileametaphysicalassertionisbothmeaninglessandharmful,sinceitpurportstobetrue!Theproponentsofthisphilosophy,calledlogicalpositivism(andinitslater,moremoderate,version,calledlogicalempiricism),couldnotrealisetheirambitionoftranslatingallofscienceintheseterms.
Inthesamespiritofanalysingthescientificmethod,butdistinctfromlogicalpositivisminmanyways,wasthephilosophyofKarlPopper.Popperwasdrivenbyadesiretodifferentiatebetweenscienceand,whatheregardedas,pseudoscience.Heisfamousforhisfalsificationcriterion:atheoryisnotscientificifthereisnowaytorefuteit.Goodscientifictheoriesgiveunambiguouspredictionsthatarefalsifiable.Ifthepredictionisverified,youhavenotconfirmedthetheory;youhavesimplynotshownittobefalseyet.Thisispreciselywherepseudo-sciencesdiffer—theydonotgiveclear-cuttestablepredictions,andcanaccommodateanyobservation.Popperadvocatedthatscienceshould‘stickitsneckout’,giveboldnewpredictions,andsuggestcriticalexperimentsthathavethepotentialtofalsifyatheory.PopperwasinspiredbyEinstein’swork,andhisideasusuallyresonatewithscientists;heisoftencalledthescientists’philosopher.
Inanincisivecriticismofthesedominantideas,aroundthe1950s,Quinearguedthatascientifictheoryisacomplexwebofinterconnectedassumptionsandclaimsthatrelatetoexperienceasawhole.Consequently,itisnotpossibletotestorfalsifyeachstatementofthetheoryinisolation.Hecalledforaholistictheoryofmeaningandtesting.
Byepistemicbeliefswemeanourideasonhowscientificknowledgeisgeneratedandjustified;byontologicalbeliefswemeanbroadlyourideasonthebasiccategoriesofobjectsthatexistinnature.Forexample,classicalphysicsregardsparticlesandelectromagneticwavesastwodistinctontologicalcategories,adistinctionthatgetsblurredinmodernphysics.
generateaninformedsciencecitizenryinthecountry.Studentsneedtogrowintocitizenswhohaveafeelforwhatscienceisabout,whatmethodsandprocessesareinvolvedingeneratingnewscience,andwhatrelationsciencehaswithtechnologyandsociety.Thishasbecomeincreasinglynecessary,becausescienceandtechnologyaredeeplyimpactingourwaysofliving.Citizensneedtohavesomeminimalfamiliaritywithmoderntechnology,itspossiblebenefitsandrisks;itsimpactonourhealthandenvironment,etc.;sothattheycanmakeinformedchoices,andformulatematureopinionsabouttheseissues.Science,somewouldargue,hasusheredintheAgeofReason,andcanhelpencouragearationaloutlookaboutlife(thoughatpresentthisseemslikeadistantgoal!).These,andseveralotheralliedobjectives,aresometimes,clubbedunderthehead‘scienceandtechnologyliteracy’.Therearenumerousvariantsofthisterm,andmanyshadesandnuances,but,perhaps,itissafetosaythattherationaleforteachingNOSistiedcloselytothisgeneralgoalofschoolscienceeducation.
DoesthatmeanweincorporatetheteachingofNOSattheexpenseofthe‘real’contentofscience?Indoingso,dowenotjeopardisethequalityofknowledgeofourfuturescientists?Willourcountrynotloseoutonitscompetitiveedgeinscience?And,inanycase,willtheteachingofNOSbeofanyrealuseforthelargermajorityofstudentswehaveinmind?
Theseconcerns,widelysharedamongteachers(andscientists),arisenaturallybecausetherelevanceofNOSintheschoolsciencecurriculum,anditspedagogy,arestillnotveryclear.First,itisnotcorrecttothinkthatNOSisrelevantonlyforthenon-sciencegroupindicatedabove,andthatfuturescientistsneedtofocusonlyonacquiringconceptualknowledgethatisatthecoreoftheirsubject.Onthecontrary,thereisanincreasingfeelingamongeducatorsthatlearningNOScandeepenone’sunderstandingofthesubjectitself.Forthepastfewdecades,scienceeducationresearchershavecarriedoutdetailedstudiesatdifferentlevels,ontheepistemicandontologicalbeliefsofstudentswithregardtotheirsubject,
andhaveconcludedthatthesecouldhaveabearingontheircriticalunderstandingofthecontentofthesubject.
Inshort,understandingnatureofscienceisnotonlyrelevantforthegeneralgoalofpromotingscienceandtechnologyliteracy;itisjustasrelevanttoasciencestudent,indevelopingadeeperappreciationforhersubject.
Second,whatisenvisagedisnotto‘dilute’thecontentofscience,butrathertouseitimaginatively,asameanstoteachNOS,amongotherthings.Inotherwords,NOSistobetaught,notbypreachingabstractgeneralitiessetasidein
aseparateunitofthebook;itistobeputincontextbyinterleavingitwiththe
contentofscience.Beforeweseehowthatmightbedone,wemustfirstbroadlyagreeonwhatourviewsareon‘natureofscience’.
Natureofscience:evolvingperspectives
Thenatureofsciencehasbeenasubjectof
philosophicalinquiryallthroughhistory,andcontinues
tobeso,evennow.Assciencehasadvanced,particularlyinthelastfour
centuries,sohaveourideasaboutthenatureofscience.When,inthe16thand17thcenturies,modernsciencewasbeingshapedbytheworkofGalileo,Descartes,KeplerandNewton;FrancisBaconwasformulating,whatwenowcall,thescientificmethod.Roughlyspeaking,theintroductoryparagraphofthisarticlereplicatesBacon’sideasofnatureofscience.TheessenceofBacon’sideasisthatscienceis
Philosophiesseekingarationalbasisofscience,clearlyseparatedthecontextofdiscovery(theintuitivecreativephaseofscienceembeddedinparticularsocialsettings)fromthecontextofjustification(criticalphilosophicalscrutinyoftheoriesclaimedtobecorrect).Theformerwasthoughttobelongtotherealmofpsychology/sociology.Thisdistinctionkepttheactualpracticeofscience,largely,beyondtheirpurview.Inotherwords,theattemptwastoformulatewhatthescientificmethodshouldbe,ratherthanwhatitwasactually.
Around1960s,ThomasKuhn’s,nowfamous,book‘TheStructureofScientificRevolutions’,markedthebeginningofamajortransformationofourideasofnatureofscience,andhowitprogresses.Analyzingsomekeymilestonesinthehistoryofscience(suchastheCopernicanrevolution),Kuhnconcludedthatscientistsnormallyworkwithinacertainparadigm;theyareconservativeuptoapoint,anddonotabandontheirexistingtheorieseveninthefaceofsomeanomalies(disagreementwithexperiment).However,whentheanomaliesarestarkandaccumulatewithtime,thereisacrisisinnormalscience,andtheexistingparadigmisquestioned.Allkindsofalternativeideasfloatduringthecrisis,outofwhichsomepromisingnewideasbegintoattractconsensus,oftenbecauseofsomeparticularlystrikingexemplars.Anewparadigmisborn,andnormalsciencereturns,inwhichscientistsworkoutthedetailsandapplicationsofthechangedparadigm.
ThekeypointtonoteinKuhn’sphilosophyisthattheparadigmshiftisnotgovernedbyapurelyrationalprocess;itinvolvesasocialconsensusinthescientificcommunity.Theadherencetoanexistingparadigminnormalscienceissecuredthroughtraininginourcollegesandgraduateschools.NoteverybodyagreedwithKuhn.LakotosfoundtheunderminingoftherationalbasisofscientificprogressimpliedinKuhn’sideasunacceptable,anddevelopedhisowntheoryintermsofthenotionofcompeting‘researchprogrammes’.Feyerabenddismissedtheveryideathatthereisanyclearmethodinthewayscienceevolves.Hisphilosophyisoftensummarizedbythecatchyline:‘anythinggoes’.Hisnotedbook‘AgainstMethod’celebratescreativityinscienceandadvocatesfreedomofimagination.ThuswhileLakotosfoundthedisorderinherentinKuhn’sviewofsciencealarming,FeyerebendcriticizedKuhnforjusttheoppositereason--forhisorderlyandmechanicalviewofscientific
FrancisBacon'sworkestablishedtheScientificMethod
3534 REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
inductivegeneralizationfromunbiasedobservationsofnature,andcontrolledexperiments.Baconforesawtheimmensepowerofthisnewmethodinnotonlypredicting,butalsocontrollingphenomena.
Inthebeginningofthe20thcentury,aninfluentialgroupofphilosophersofscienceundertooktoformulateamorerigorousversionofthescientificmethod.Briefly,theyregardedastatementoranassertionmeaningfulonlyifitwaseitherlogicallyself-evident,orcouldbeputinaverifiableform;sciencemustonlyhavesuchmeaningfulstatements.Forconvenience,wemayusetheoreticaltermslike‘atom’,‘gene’,‘valency’,butultimately,allscientificassertionsmustbereducibletoobservationstatements.Bythisstrictcriterion,poetryismeaningless,ifharmless,whileametaphysicalassertionisbothmeaninglessandharmful,sinceitpurportstobetrue!Theproponentsofthisphilosophy,calledlogicalpositivism(andinitslater,moremoderate,version,calledlogicalempiricism),couldnotrealisetheirambitionoftranslatingallofscienceintheseterms.
Inthesamespiritofanalysingthescientificmethod,butdistinctfromlogicalpositivisminmanyways,wasthephilosophyofKarlPopper.Popperwasdrivenbyadesiretodifferentiatebetweenscienceand,whatheregardedas,pseudoscience.Heisfamousforhisfalsificationcriterion:atheoryisnotscientificifthereisnowaytorefuteit.Goodscientifictheoriesgiveunambiguouspredictionsthatarefalsifiable.Ifthepredictionisverified,youhavenotconfirmedthetheory;youhavesimplynotshownittobefalseyet.Thisispreciselywherepseudo-sciencesdiffer—theydonotgiveclear-cuttestablepredictions,andcanaccommodateanyobservation.Popperadvocatedthatscienceshould‘stickitsneckout’,giveboldnewpredictions,andsuggestcriticalexperimentsthathavethepotentialtofalsifyatheory.PopperwasinspiredbyEinstein’swork,andhisideasusuallyresonatewithscientists;heisoftencalledthescientists’philosopher.
Inanincisivecriticismofthesedominantideas,aroundthe1950s,Quinearguedthatascientifictheoryisacomplexwebofinterconnectedassumptionsandclaimsthatrelatetoexperienceasawhole.Consequently,itisnotpossibletotestorfalsifyeachstatementofthetheoryinisolation.Hecalledforaholistictheoryofmeaningandtesting.
Byepistemicbeliefswemeanourideasonhowscientificknowledgeisgeneratedandjustified;byontologicalbeliefswemeanbroadlyourideasonthebasiccategoriesofobjectsthatexistinnature.Forexample,classicalphysicsregardsparticlesandelectromagneticwavesastwodistinctontologicalcategories,adistinctionthatgetsblurredinmodernphysics.
generateaninformedsciencecitizenryinthecountry.Studentsneedtogrowintocitizenswhohaveafeelforwhatscienceisabout,whatmethodsandprocessesareinvolvedingeneratingnewscience,andwhatrelationsciencehaswithtechnologyandsociety.Thishasbecomeincreasinglynecessary,becausescienceandtechnologyaredeeplyimpactingourwaysofliving.Citizensneedtohavesomeminimalfamiliaritywithmoderntechnology,itspossiblebenefitsandrisks;itsimpactonourhealthandenvironment,etc.;sothattheycanmakeinformedchoices,andformulatematureopinionsabouttheseissues.Science,somewouldargue,hasusheredintheAgeofReason,andcanhelpencouragearationaloutlookaboutlife(thoughatpresentthisseemslikeadistantgoal!).These,andseveralotheralliedobjectives,aresometimes,clubbedunderthehead‘scienceandtechnologyliteracy’.Therearenumerousvariantsofthisterm,andmanyshadesandnuances,but,perhaps,itissafetosaythattherationaleforteachingNOSistiedcloselytothisgeneralgoalofschoolscienceeducation.
DoesthatmeanweincorporatetheteachingofNOSattheexpenseofthe‘real’contentofscience?Indoingso,dowenotjeopardisethequalityofknowledgeofourfuturescientists?Willourcountrynotloseoutonitscompetitiveedgeinscience?And,inanycase,willtheteachingofNOSbeofanyrealuseforthelargermajorityofstudentswehaveinmind?
Theseconcerns,widelysharedamongteachers(andscientists),arisenaturallybecausetherelevanceofNOSintheschoolsciencecurriculum,anditspedagogy,arestillnotveryclear.First,itisnotcorrecttothinkthatNOSisrelevantonlyforthenon-sciencegroupindicatedabove,andthatfuturescientistsneedtofocusonlyonacquiringconceptualknowledgethatisatthecoreoftheirsubject.Onthecontrary,thereisanincreasingfeelingamongeducatorsthatlearningNOScandeepenone’sunderstandingofthesubjectitself.Forthepastfewdecades,scienceeducationresearchershavecarriedoutdetailedstudiesatdifferentlevels,ontheepistemicandontologicalbeliefsofstudentswithregardtotheirsubject,
andhaveconcludedthatthesecouldhaveabearingontheircriticalunderstandingofthecontentofthesubject.
Inshort,understandingnatureofscienceisnotonlyrelevantforthegeneralgoalofpromotingscienceandtechnologyliteracy;itisjustasrelevanttoasciencestudent,indevelopingadeeperappreciationforhersubject.
Second,whatisenvisagedisnotto‘dilute’thecontentofscience,butrathertouseitimaginatively,asameanstoteachNOS,amongotherthings.Inotherwords,NOSistobetaught,notbypreachingabstractgeneralitiessetasidein
aseparateunitofthebook;itistobeputincontextbyinterleavingitwiththe
contentofscience.Beforeweseehowthatmightbedone,wemustfirstbroadlyagreeonwhatourviewsareon‘natureofscience’.
Natureofscience:evolvingperspectives
Thenatureofsciencehasbeenasubjectof
philosophicalinquiryallthroughhistory,andcontinues
tobeso,evennow.Assciencehasadvanced,particularlyinthelastfour
centuries,sohaveourideasaboutthenatureofscience.When,inthe16thand17thcenturies,modernsciencewasbeingshapedbytheworkofGalileo,Descartes,KeplerandNewton;FrancisBaconwasformulating,whatwenowcall,thescientificmethod.Roughlyspeaking,theintroductoryparagraphofthisarticlereplicatesBacon’sideasofnatureofscience.TheessenceofBacon’sideasisthatscienceis
Philosophiesseekingarationalbasisofscience,clearlyseparatedthecontextofdiscovery(theintuitivecreativephaseofscienceembeddedinparticularsocialsettings)fromthecontextofjustification(criticalphilosophicalscrutinyoftheoriesclaimedtobecorrect).Theformerwasthoughttobelongtotherealmofpsychology/sociology.Thisdistinctionkepttheactualpracticeofscience,largely,beyondtheirpurview.Inotherwords,theattemptwastoformulatewhatthescientificmethodshouldbe,ratherthanwhatitwasactually.
Around1960s,ThomasKuhn’s,nowfamous,book‘TheStructureofScientificRevolutions’,markedthebeginningofamajortransformationofourideasofnatureofscience,andhowitprogresses.Analyzingsomekeymilestonesinthehistoryofscience(suchastheCopernicanrevolution),Kuhnconcludedthatscientistsnormallyworkwithinacertainparadigm;theyareconservativeuptoapoint,anddonotabandontheirexistingtheorieseveninthefaceofsomeanomalies(disagreementwithexperiment).However,whentheanomaliesarestarkandaccumulatewithtime,thereisacrisisinnormalscience,andtheexistingparadigmisquestioned.Allkindsofalternativeideasfloatduringthecrisis,outofwhichsomepromisingnewideasbegintoattractconsensus,oftenbecauseofsomeparticularlystrikingexemplars.Anewparadigmisborn,andnormalsciencereturns,inwhichscientistsworkoutthedetailsandapplicationsofthechangedparadigm.
ThekeypointtonoteinKuhn’sphilosophyisthattheparadigmshiftisnotgovernedbyapurelyrationalprocess;itinvolvesasocialconsensusinthescientificcommunity.Theadherencetoanexistingparadigminnormalscienceissecuredthroughtraininginourcollegesandgraduateschools.NoteverybodyagreedwithKuhn.LakotosfoundtheunderminingoftherationalbasisofscientificprogressimpliedinKuhn’sideasunacceptable,anddevelopedhisowntheoryintermsofthenotionofcompeting‘researchprogrammes’.Feyerabenddismissedtheveryideathatthereisanyclearmethodinthewayscienceevolves.Hisphilosophyisoftensummarizedbythecatchyline:‘anythinggoes’.Hisnotedbook‘AgainstMethod’celebratescreativityinscienceandadvocatesfreedomofimagination.ThuswhileLakotosfoundthedisorderinherentinKuhn’sviewofsciencealarming,FeyerebendcriticizedKuhnforjusttheoppositereason--forhisorderlyandmechanicalviewofscientific
FrancisBacon'sworkestablishedtheScientificMethod
3736 REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
progress.NormalsciencehadaverysignificantroleinKuhn’sscheme,sinceitgoesdeepintoanacceptedparadigm,makingitpossibletodiscoveranomaliesthateventuallyresultinchangingtheparadigm.Feyerebend,ontheotherhand,criticizestheroutinemind-numbingactivitiesofnormalscience,andassertsthatscienceprogressesthroughcreativeleapsofimaginationthatdefyexistingideas.
WhateverthemeritsofKuhn’stheory,itwascertainlyresponsibleforintroducingasociologicaldimensiontophilosophyofscience,inthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.Indeedsomesociologistsviewedthestandardphilosophyofscienceasirrelevant,andassertedthatwecanunderstandnatureofscienceonlybyacriticalanddetailedprobingoftheactualwayinwhichscientistswork.Thisdevelopmenthastakenthedebateonnatureofscienceinmanydifferentdirectionsthatwecannotadequatelydescribehere.But,wecertainlyhaveabetterperspectivenowonthesocio-culturalnormsthatenablesciencetogrow.Forexample,itseemsclearthattheformationofrobustsocialinstitutionsofscience(ScientificSocietiesinEurope,suchastheRoyalSociety)practisingnormsofopenanddemocraticdiscussion,peerreviewingofresearch,andcommunalownershipofscientificlaws,etc.wasascrucialforthegrowthofscience,astheingenuityofindividualscientists.
Wecansummarisesomenewinsightsonnatureofsciencethathavegraduallyemergedfromthesediscourses.First,scienceisnotjustinductionfromobservationsandexperimentaldata;itofteninvolvesimaginativeandradicalnewideasnotnecessarilysuggestedbythem.Forexample,someofthemostsuccessfultheoriesofsciencehavearisenfromgeneralconsiderationsofsimplicityandsymmetry,andadriveforunification.Second,thoughobservationsofnatureareoftenthestartingpoint,notallobservationsareneutral-theyare‘theory-laden’;theories,implicitlyorexplicitly,guideustowhereandwhattoexperimentandobserve(thisdoesnotnecessarilyunderminetheobjectivityofscience).
Third,observationsandexperimentaldataunderdeterminecorrecttheory;severaldifferenttheoriescanallbeconsistentwiththem.Fourth,scienceisnotapurelycognitiveendeavour;thoughitiscertainlyconstrainedbytheempiricalfactsofnature,italsoinvolvessomesocialconsensusamongscientistsandneedsenablingsocio-culturalnormsandconditionsforits
growth.Fifth,science,technologyandsociety(STS)areintertwinedincomplexways,affectingandbeingaffectedbyoneanother.Acorollaryofthelastpointisthatwemustbealerttothepossiblepitfallsinscientificpracticeandtheharmfulconsequencesofuncriticalandunwiseuseoftechnology.
Thisbriefoverviewisintendedonlytogiveaflavourofthesubject;itadmittedlydoesnotcapturethemanysubtleaspectsofphilosophyofscience.See,forexample,Godfrey-Smith(2003)¹foradeepertreatmentofthissubject,andforreferencesoftheclassicworksmentionedabove.
Natureofscience:howandwhattoteach
Withsomuchofthehistoricaldebateonnatureofsciencecontinuingintothepresent,whatisitthatwewishstudentstolearnaboutNOSinschooleducation?Obviously,wecannotimportthecomplexphilosophicalissuesonthematterintoourclassrooms.Therehasbeenmuchreflectiononthispoint,andthefeelingisthatdespitethewiderangeofperspectives,thereisacoreofgenerallyacceptednewideasinNOSthatarelearnablebyyoungstudents.WerecommendreferringtotheNewGenerationScienceStandardsNGSS(2013)²developedintheU.S.A.Ofcourse,similarobjectiveshavebeenadvocatedelsewhere;see,forexample,Pumfrey(1991)³,Osborneetal(2002)⁴;andalsoTaylorandHunt(2014)⁵.Foramuchdeeperperspectiveonthesubject,seeErduranandDagher(2014)⁶.Wesummarize,here,whatinourviewappearstobeabroadconsensus;moredetailsonNOSobjectivescanbefoundinthereferencescited.
NatureofScienceObjectives(Summary)
Studentsshouldappreciatethat…
Scope
…Scienceseekstodescribeandexplainthephysicalworldbasedonempiricalevidence.Somedomainsmaybebeyonditsscope.
Methods
…Scienceadoptsavarietyofapproachesandmethods;thereisnooneuniversalmethodofscience.
Sciencedoesnotinvolveinductiononly.Creativityandimaginationareequallyimportantingeneratinghypothesesandbuildingtheories.
Observationsandexperimentsareofteninsufficienttodetermineatheory.
Scienceinvolvesexpertjudgements,andnotjustlogicaldeductions.Hencetherecanbedisagreement.
Socialaspects
…Scienceisaco-operativemulti-culturalhumanenterprisetowhichcountlessmenandwomencontribute,includingsomenotedindividualswhoplayasignificantrole.Socialinstitutionspractisingnormsofopendebate,peerreviewingandcommonownershipofknowledgearevitalforitsgrowth.
Scienceandtechnologymayleadtoissuesthatneedsocio-culturalresolution.
Scientificknowledge
…isdynamicandsubjecttorevisionbynewempiricalevidence.
Finally,themostimportantbutdifficultquestion:whatpedagogyistobeemployedtoteachNOS?Theideathatcontentaloneisnotenoughinscienceeducationisnotnew,asthehistoryofcurriculumreformssincethe1960s(orevenearlier)shows.Aroundthe1970s,someeducationalreformsemphasizedprocessesofsciencemorethanitscontent:observing,measuring,classifying,analysing,inferring,interpreting,experimenting,predicting,communicating,etc.Soontherewerecriticalappraisalsofthisapproach;someeducatorsquestionedtheverypremisethatthereareasetofgeneraltransferableprocessescommontoallsciences.See,forexample,MillarandDriver(1987)⁷.Forsometimenow,thereseemstobeabroadconvergenceonanInquiry-basedapproachtosciencelearningandteaching.Thisapproach,informedbytheconstructivistphilosophy,nodoubt,involveslearningtheprocessesofsciencementionedabove;butitgoesmuchfurther,toincludeposingquestions,criticalthinking,givingevidence-basedexplanation,justifyingit,andconnectingittoexistingscientificknowledge,etc.Basically,thisapproachadvocatesthelearningofscienceinamannerthatresemblesthewayscientistscarryouttheirinvestigations.
Inquirytasksarenaturallyrelativelysimpleforyoungerchildren,andquiteelaborateforthe
morematurestudents,buttheysharethecommonfeatureof
posingaquestionandseekinganevidence-basedexplanation.Theycanhavedifferentfoci;somemayrelatetoSTSissues,whileothersmaybemorediscipline-oriented.Inquirymayalsoincludereflectionsontheinquirymodeitself,andthusnaturallyincorporateNOS
educationalobjectives.Wereferthereadertoacritical
accountoftheInquiryapproach,includingitsrelation
withNOS,inFlickandLederman(2006)⁸.
AnotherapproachusestheHistoryofScience(HOS)asameanstoteachNOS.Thisagainisnotanewidea;seetheexcellentbookbyHoltonandBrush(2001)⁹.Somekeypointsinitsfavourarethoughttobe:HOSinvolveshumannarrativeswhichenlivenscienceandengagestudents’interest;itoftenhasparallelswithstudents’spontaneousconceptionsandthushelpsusinanticipatingandremedyingtheircontent-specificideas;knowinghowpresentsciencearosefromcompetingideasatdifferenttimesinhistorycanpromotecriticalthinking;andlastly,HOSisthemostnaturalsettingforlearningNOS.WereferthereadertoacomprehensiveHandbookbroughtoutrecentlyonthisissue(Matthews2014)¹⁰.
AsLederman(2006)¹¹hasforcefullyargued,NOSobjectivesshouldberegardedasprimarilycognitiveoutcomesthatcanbeproperlyassessed.Instructionneedstobringthemoutexplicitly,theyareunlikelytobeassimilatedimplicitly,whetherweadoptanInquiryoraHistorybasedapproach.AwholerangeofinquirytasksandHOSbasedvignettes,explicitlyfocussedonNOS;needtobedevelopedifweaimtoimprovestudentunderstandingofnatureofscience.
Acknowledgements
ItisapleasuretothankJ.Ramadas,S.ChunawalaandK.SubramaniamofHBCSE(TIFR)aswellastheanonymousreviewersforgoingthroughthearticlecritically,andofferingusefulcommentsforitsimprovement.
3736 REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
progress.NormalsciencehadaverysignificantroleinKuhn’sscheme,sinceitgoesdeepintoanacceptedparadigm,makingitpossibletodiscoveranomaliesthateventuallyresultinchangingtheparadigm.Feyerebend,ontheotherhand,criticizestheroutinemind-numbingactivitiesofnormalscience,andassertsthatscienceprogressesthroughcreativeleapsofimaginationthatdefyexistingideas.
WhateverthemeritsofKuhn’stheory,itwascertainlyresponsibleforintroducingasociologicaldimensiontophilosophyofscience,inthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.Indeedsomesociologistsviewedthestandardphilosophyofscienceasirrelevant,andassertedthatwecanunderstandnatureofscienceonlybyacriticalanddetailedprobingoftheactualwayinwhichscientistswork.Thisdevelopmenthastakenthedebateonnatureofscienceinmanydifferentdirectionsthatwecannotadequatelydescribehere.But,wecertainlyhaveabetterperspectivenowonthesocio-culturalnormsthatenablesciencetogrow.Forexample,itseemsclearthattheformationofrobustsocialinstitutionsofscience(ScientificSocietiesinEurope,suchastheRoyalSociety)practisingnormsofopenanddemocraticdiscussion,peerreviewingofresearch,andcommunalownershipofscientificlaws,etc.wasascrucialforthegrowthofscience,astheingenuityofindividualscientists.
Wecansummarisesomenewinsightsonnatureofsciencethathavegraduallyemergedfromthesediscourses.First,scienceisnotjustinductionfromobservationsandexperimentaldata;itofteninvolvesimaginativeandradicalnewideasnotnecessarilysuggestedbythem.Forexample,someofthemostsuccessfultheoriesofsciencehavearisenfromgeneralconsiderationsofsimplicityandsymmetry,andadriveforunification.Second,thoughobservationsofnatureareoftenthestartingpoint,notallobservationsareneutral-theyare‘theory-laden’;theories,implicitlyorexplicitly,guideustowhereandwhattoexperimentandobserve(thisdoesnotnecessarilyunderminetheobjectivityofscience).
Third,observationsandexperimentaldataunderdeterminecorrecttheory;severaldifferenttheoriescanallbeconsistentwiththem.Fourth,scienceisnotapurelycognitiveendeavour;thoughitiscertainlyconstrainedbytheempiricalfactsofnature,italsoinvolvessomesocialconsensusamongscientistsandneedsenablingsocio-culturalnormsandconditionsforits
growth.Fifth,science,technologyandsociety(STS)areintertwinedincomplexways,affectingandbeingaffectedbyoneanother.Acorollaryofthelastpointisthatwemustbealerttothepossiblepitfallsinscientificpracticeandtheharmfulconsequencesofuncriticalandunwiseuseoftechnology.
Thisbriefoverviewisintendedonlytogiveaflavourofthesubject;itadmittedlydoesnotcapturethemanysubtleaspectsofphilosophyofscience.See,forexample,Godfrey-Smith(2003)¹foradeepertreatmentofthissubject,andforreferencesoftheclassicworksmentionedabove.
Natureofscience:howandwhattoteach
Withsomuchofthehistoricaldebateonnatureofsciencecontinuingintothepresent,whatisitthatwewishstudentstolearnaboutNOSinschooleducation?Obviously,wecannotimportthecomplexphilosophicalissuesonthematterintoourclassrooms.Therehasbeenmuchreflectiononthispoint,andthefeelingisthatdespitethewiderangeofperspectives,thereisacoreofgenerallyacceptednewideasinNOSthatarelearnablebyyoungstudents.WerecommendreferringtotheNewGenerationScienceStandardsNGSS(2013)²developedintheU.S.A.Ofcourse,similarobjectiveshavebeenadvocatedelsewhere;see,forexample,Pumfrey(1991)³,Osborneetal(2002)⁴;andalsoTaylorandHunt(2014)⁵.Foramuchdeeperperspectiveonthesubject,seeErduranandDagher(2014)⁶.Wesummarize,here,whatinourviewappearstobeabroadconsensus;moredetailsonNOSobjectivescanbefoundinthereferencescited.
NatureofScienceObjectives(Summary)
Studentsshouldappreciatethat…
Scope
…Scienceseekstodescribeandexplainthephysicalworldbasedonempiricalevidence.Somedomainsmaybebeyonditsscope.
Methods
…Scienceadoptsavarietyofapproachesandmethods;thereisnooneuniversalmethodofscience.
Sciencedoesnotinvolveinductiononly.Creativityandimaginationareequallyimportantingeneratinghypothesesandbuildingtheories.
Observationsandexperimentsareofteninsufficienttodetermineatheory.
Scienceinvolvesexpertjudgements,andnotjustlogicaldeductions.Hencetherecanbedisagreement.
Socialaspects
…Scienceisaco-operativemulti-culturalhumanenterprisetowhichcountlessmenandwomencontribute,includingsomenotedindividualswhoplayasignificantrole.Socialinstitutionspractisingnormsofopendebate,peerreviewingandcommonownershipofknowledgearevitalforitsgrowth.
Scienceandtechnologymayleadtoissuesthatneedsocio-culturalresolution.
Scientificknowledge
…isdynamicandsubjecttorevisionbynewempiricalevidence.
Finally,themostimportantbutdifficultquestion:whatpedagogyistobeemployedtoteachNOS?Theideathatcontentaloneisnotenoughinscienceeducationisnotnew,asthehistoryofcurriculumreformssincethe1960s(orevenearlier)shows.Aroundthe1970s,someeducationalreformsemphasizedprocessesofsciencemorethanitscontent:observing,measuring,classifying,analysing,inferring,interpreting,experimenting,predicting,communicating,etc.Soontherewerecriticalappraisalsofthisapproach;someeducatorsquestionedtheverypremisethatthereareasetofgeneraltransferableprocessescommontoallsciences.See,forexample,MillarandDriver(1987)⁷.Forsometimenow,thereseemstobeabroadconvergenceonanInquiry-basedapproachtosciencelearningandteaching.Thisapproach,informedbytheconstructivistphilosophy,nodoubt,involveslearningtheprocessesofsciencementionedabove;butitgoesmuchfurther,toincludeposingquestions,criticalthinking,givingevidence-basedexplanation,justifyingit,andconnectingittoexistingscientificknowledge,etc.Basically,thisapproachadvocatesthelearningofscienceinamannerthatresemblesthewayscientistscarryouttheirinvestigations.
Inquirytasksarenaturallyrelativelysimpleforyoungerchildren,andquiteelaborateforthe
morematurestudents,buttheysharethecommonfeatureof
posingaquestionandseekinganevidence-basedexplanation.Theycanhavedifferentfoci;somemayrelatetoSTSissues,whileothersmaybemorediscipline-oriented.Inquirymayalsoincludereflectionsontheinquirymodeitself,andthusnaturallyincorporateNOS
educationalobjectives.Wereferthereadertoacritical
accountoftheInquiryapproach,includingitsrelation
withNOS,inFlickandLederman(2006)⁸.
AnotherapproachusestheHistoryofScience(HOS)asameanstoteachNOS.Thisagainisnotanewidea;seetheexcellentbookbyHoltonandBrush(2001)⁹.Somekeypointsinitsfavourarethoughttobe:HOSinvolveshumannarrativeswhichenlivenscienceandengagestudents’interest;itoftenhasparallelswithstudents’spontaneousconceptionsandthushelpsusinanticipatingandremedyingtheircontent-specificideas;knowinghowpresentsciencearosefromcompetingideasatdifferenttimesinhistorycanpromotecriticalthinking;andlastly,HOSisthemostnaturalsettingforlearningNOS.WereferthereadertoacomprehensiveHandbookbroughtoutrecentlyonthisissue(Matthews2014)¹⁰.
AsLederman(2006)¹¹hasforcefullyargued,NOSobjectivesshouldberegardedasprimarilycognitiveoutcomesthatcanbeproperlyassessed.Instructionneedstobringthemoutexplicitly,theyareunlikelytobeassimilatedimplicitly,whetherweadoptanInquiryoraHistorybasedapproach.AwholerangeofinquirytasksandHOSbasedvignettes,explicitlyfocussedonNOS;needtobedevelopedifweaimtoimprovestudentunderstandingofnatureofscience.
Acknowledgements
ItisapleasuretothankJ.Ramadas,S.ChunawalaandK.SubramaniamofHBCSE(TIFR)aswellastheanonymousreviewersforgoingthroughthearticlecritically,andofferingusefulcommentsforitsimprovement.
3738 REDISCOVERING SCHOOL SCIENCE
Contributedby:GeethaIyer.Source:Reproduced,withpermission,fromTheScienceEducationReview,Volume3(2004),pp.111-112.www.scienceeducationreview.com
GeethaIyerisanindependentconsultant,workingwithseveralschoolsincurriculumdesignaswellasScience&Environmenteducation.ShewaspreviouslyateacherattheRishiValleySchool,andthen,theHeadofSahyadriSchool(KFI),nearPune.Shehaswrittenextensivelyontopicsineducationandtheenvironment.Shecanbereachedatscopsowl@gmail.com.
References
1.IntroductiontoPhilosophyofScience.Godfrey-SmithP.(2003).Chicago.TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
2.Nextgenerationsciencestandards:Forstates,bystates.NGSS(2013).AppendixHwww.nextgenscience.org
3.HistoryofscienceintheNationalScienceCurriculum:acriticalreviewofresourcesandtheiraims.Pumfrey,S.(1991).BritishJournaloftheHistoryofScience.24,61–78.
4.EPSEProject3Teachingpupils‘ideas-about-science’.Osborne,J.,Ratcliffe,M.,Bartholomew,H.,Collins,S.&Duschl,R.(2002b).SchoolScienceReview,84(307),29–33.
5.HistoryandPhilosophyofScienceandtheTeachingofScienceinEngland.TaylorJ.L.andHuntA.(2014).MatthewsM.R.(ed.)op.cit.2045-2082.
6.ReconceptualizingtheNatureofScienceforScienceEducation.ErduranS.&DagherZ.R(2014).Dordrecht,Netherlands.Springer.
7.Beyondprocesses.Millar,R.&Driver,R.(1987).StudiesinScienceEducation,(14)33–62.
8.ScientificInquiryandNatureofScience.FlickL.B.andLedermanN.G.(eds.)(2006).Dordrecht,Netherlands.Springer.
9.Physics,theHumanAdventure.HoltonG.andBrushS.G.3rded.(2001).NewBrunswick.NJ.RutgersUniversityPress.
10.InternationalHandbookofResearchinHistory,PhilosophyandScienceTeaching.MatthewsM.R.(ed.)(2014).Dordrecht,Netherlands.Springer.
11.SyntaxofNatureofSciencewithinInquiryandScienceInstruction.LedermanN.G.(2006).InFlickL.B.andLedermanN.G.(eds.)(2006)op.cit,301-317.
ArvindKumar,formerlyattheHomiBhabhaCentreforScienceEducation(TataInstituteofFundamentalResearch),Mumbai,nowteachesattheCentreforBasicSciences,Mumbai.Hismainacademicinterestsaretheoreticalphysics,physicseducation,andtheroleofhistoryandphilosophyofscienceinscienceteaching.Theauthorcanbecontactedatarvindk@hbcse.tifr.res.in
Flatus is the gas generated in, or expelled from, the
digestive tract, especially the stomach and intestines. More than 99% of human flatus comprises nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen (hydrogen-consuming bacteria in the digestive tract may consume some of this to produce methane and other gases), carbon dioxide, and methane.
During World War II, US fighter pilots flew at increasing altitudes. The associated reduction in the (external) atmospheric pressure allowed the digestive gases trapped in
their intestines to expand (Boyle’s law), causing very painful cramps. Foods known for their ability to produce flatus – dried beans and peas, vegetables of the cabbage family, carbonated drinks, and beer – were therefore removed from pilots’ menus.
Methane is a combustible gas (e.g. a good fuel for Bunsen
burners), although it is produced by only about one-third of people in the Western world. In the early days of the space race, there was some concern that the methane emitted by astronauts, if accidentally ignited, could cause an explosion within the spacecraft. No such incidents have occurred to date. However, exploding flatus has caused the accidental death of at least one surgical patient. An electrode touched to the patient’s colon ignited the hydrogen and methane it contained, also causing the surgeon to be blown back to the wall of the room.
Flatus: Beware!Flatus: Beware!
top related