Reviewed by Chris and Laura
This article argues that to effectively participate in discussions involving socioscientific issues, individuals should be aware of eight topics “concerning the nature of science and scientific knowledge” (p. 292). These topics, broadly defined, center on the process of science rather the objective knowledge of scientific concepts per se. We might think of this as being more aware of an S&TS approach to science. (Chris and I agreed that this seemed to be an—albeit ironic—use of the deficit model to reject a traditional deficit model approach to science education!) Kolsto seems to position science education as preparation for citizenship; the bulk of his article concerns strategies for secondary school curriculum, as will be outlined in more depth below.Kolsto argues that “many of the suggested teaching models suffer from lack of discussion and inclusion of knowledge concerning the nature of science and scientific knowledge” (p. 292). In order to remedy this fact, he proposes that classroom students be exposed to “controversial socioscientific issues.” Rather than just focus on the content of the science involved, however, students should be guided in taking a closer look at “content-transcending topics” such as “the human character of science, values in science, limits of science, and tactics for decision-making in science” (p. 293). By outlining eight “content-transcending topics,” Kolsto argues that he is offering a remedy to the “three challenges” facing science teachers:
• Specificity: As those of us who have delved into the S&TS literature know, “content-transcending topics” typically discussed in regard to the nature or process of science might be too vague or broad to guide a traditional secondary classroom curriculum. Kolsto suggests that his selected topics narrow this broadness.
• Relevance: Teachers should be able to stress how each topics “might contribute to different problems the students might encounter in their adult life” (p. 293).
• Amount of information: It is important that teachers emphasize the amount of knowledge about a particular topic so as to “put it within reach of most students” (p. 293).
By meeting these goals, the eight topics “constitute a minimum range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to emphasize in science education” (p. 293).
The eight topics suggested are as follows:
Topic #1: Understanding the nature of scientific consensus (or lack thereof). Whom do you believe? The difference between “ready-made-science” and “science-in-the-making” (building off of Latour’s concept) in terms of certainty, disagreement and debate; How the latter can transform into the former (and perhaps vice-versa).
This topics “leaves us with a description of science as involving social processes through which scientists are scrutinizing the validity of presented experimental evidence and proposing explanations and through which consensus sometimes evolves [but not always]” (p. 295).
Why important: To allow students to see that science is both “an institution” and “socially-constructed.” Kolsto argues, “This contrasts the presentation of scientific knowledge as merely the result of the individual works of a few brilliant scientists like Darwin and Einstein and will also constitute a step away from the positivist epistemology often implicit in school science” (p. 296).
Topic #2: Sciences as one of several social domains. Centrally, Kolsto feels that students should understand that science is but one of several “social domains” that exercise influence on decision-making (others being religion, ethics, politics, etc.). Can science “solve” socioscientific problems? The potential for stakeholder disagreement on problems and solutions; The inability of science to weigh different sets of values against each other; Not everything can be broken down into a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Why important: To make students open to, and accepting of, knowledge from domains other than science.
Topic #3: Descriptive vs. normative statements. The issue of “value-free” versus “value-laden” science; In the risk communication field, this issue is often manifested in the phrase “acceptable risk” – that is, on what grounds do we judge risks to be “acceptable” (or not)?
Why important: To make it easier for students to evaluate claims and arguments and discriminate between “knowledge” and opinion.
Topic #4: Demands for underpinning evidence. Scientific inquiry is traditionally seen as objective and neutral. In the context of uncertainty and controversy, however, it is important to consider the motivations of scientists who are arguing as to what counts as “evidence” and what does not.
Why important: To allow students to question what particular interests may be at stake in a particular scientific issue.
Topic 5: Scientific models as context bound. The need to understand local knowledge, even if we don’t necessarily consider it “scientific” in nature; The now-famous Cumbria sheep farmers example.
Why important: To allow students to be able to “criticize expert reports and question the premises and assumptions of relevance that they are based upon” (p. 301).
Topic 6: Scientific evidence. How do we define “evidence?” Similar to topic #4, our underlying values help shape what information we consider valid and what information we do not; The issue of statistical versus anecdotal evidence, manifested in the tension between “no scientific proof” and “I am the proof.” The need for these two camps to understand – rather that dismiss – each other.
Why important: To allow students to have an awareness and appreciation of the role of both “anecdotal” and statistical evidence as important in the decision-making process.
Topic #7: Suspension of belief. What happens when, given uncertainties, scientists decline to give firm answers? All things being equal, “most scientists will restrict themselves to information that they believe to be noncontroversial and consensual among researchers within the field of study” (p. 303). If scientists don’t draw conclusions (“frame” the data), someone else will.
Why important: To show the students that they must, ultimately, make decisions for themselves based on the “best intersubjective knowledge available” (p. 303).
Topic 8: Scrutinize science-related knowledge claims. The role of skepticism in science; The importance of considering contextual and social factors – credibility of the source making a scientific claim, its motivations and values, etc.
Why important: To help students come to question the idea of a “scientific fact” vs. an “opinion.”
** In sum, Kolsto argues that by teaching these topics in the classroom, students will be able to become “autonomous and critical” (p. 307) and to evaluate “socioscientific controversies”and draw informed conclusions, thus fulfilling his idea of “citizenship.” How, you might ask, would this sort of curriculum actually be implemented in practice? Kolsto spends a bit of time in the discussion referring to issues of training instructors and forging collaborations between teachers of different subjects to teach these topic areas. Importantly, one would need to have a baseline understanding of both teachers’ and students’ baseline “knowledge and views on science as a social enterprise and science in social contexts” (p. 308) before beginning a curriculum like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment