Char Bezanson wrote, in part:
>As a botanist and a science educator, I've been following
>the "science-fair" strand with interest. I am very
>interested in the fallout from teaching of "the" scientific
>method, which is much more complex than we sometimes give it
>credit for (von Helmont's historic experiments to determine
>where the "mass" of a tree came from are a good example- he
>used "the" method as well as the technology of the time
>would allow, but came to very incomplete conclusions!).
My understanding of von Helmont's research is that he was not trying to
determine the source of mass in a willow tree but was trying to determine
whether plants gained mass by consuming soil. His observations were (not
quotes of von Helmont), "Animals gain mass by eating food. I never have
seen a plant eat food but perhaps their roots, which I cannot see, are
eating food from the soil. This could explain my observation that when
plants are grown in the same soil over a long period of time, they
eventually don't grow so vigorously." Problem: "Do plants gain mass by
eating soil?" His experiment, elegant in its simplicity, clearly showed
that plants do not "eat" soil, dispelling a point of common knowledge
(belief?) that had been around for centuries. True, his experiment did not
show the source of the plant's mass but by dispelling a widely held belief,
he triggered the long line of experiments of ever increasing complexity and
sophistication that led to our present understanding of photosynthesis. He
unleashed the question, "Well, if the plant's mass doesn't come from eating
soil, where DOES it come from?" I use this example of a classic experiment
in plant physiology early in my non-majors introductory course to show
students that experimental results contrary to the hypothesis are not
worthless; in fact, when the hypothesis is supported, we have succeeded
only in confirming what we already know because the hypothesis was based on
what we already know (or think we know). Science moves forward when the
hypothesis is NOT confirmed by experimental evidence and we are forced to
think again, to formulate and test a new hypothesis and eventually arrive
at a new understanding.
>I have forwarded much this strand to a very well-read
>Minnesota science educator, Ed Hessler of MESFI, the
>Minnesota Environmental Sciences Foundation. If the
>Botanical Society or others are really interested in
>producing materials addressing data analysis or experimental
>design, Ed provides many useful references to check. School
>science is concerned with "doing science right", but is also
>concerned with "how we learn science".
[see Ed's lengthy, informative response in Char's message]
Here, I think, Char and Ed helped me to think about what might be a major
problem in science education today. I raise these questions:
* Are we confusing "doing science" with "teaching and learning
science?" When a scientist does science, i.e., designs and carries out an
experiment, he/she doesn't worry about learning styles, educational
standards, rubrics, developmentally appropriate curriculum, authentic
assessment, etc. The scientist knows the steps of the scientific method
and consciously or subconsciously carries out the investigation to uncover
new knowledge. On the other hand, when we teach science, we DO have to be
concerned about learning styles, and all the other important considerations
(often flipped off by professional scientists as "educational jargon" but
having a basis in educational psychology and other forms of educational
research as outlined so well by Ed). The two kinds of activity may get
confused when we teach science by doing science... a technique that would
be effective but is very rarely done in reality (because the hands-on
activities in the classrooms, science fairs, etc. often are contrived
demonstrations, do not follow the steps of the scientific method, are not
followed through, etc., etc.).
* Except at the university level where research and teaching are
both parts of a professor's responsibility, the people who do science
rarely teach science and the people who teach science rarely do science.
Not only do we not cross these lines in our work, we rarely even talk with
one another! The professors who teach the science methods courses rarely
attend any of the frequent lectures in our college on the latest scientific
discoveries! Nor do we attend their presentations on the latest results of
pedagogical research! How do they know what to teach and how do we know
how to teach?
We are so specialized in our training and use so much jargon that we do not
understand one another; at most universities we not only are in different
departments but in different schools and colleges, and even the campus
planners are partly to blame because they put our buildings far apart on
most campuses! Our professional journals print articles in science or
articles in education but not both-- and we do not read journals from the
other disciplines. Promotion and tenure criteria lock us into our molds.
This leads to a situation where the educators have all the latest
information about the most effective pedagogy but are often weak in content
(and we scientists find numerous errors of fact in their curricular
materials). The scientists, on the other hand, are up on all the latest
scientific discoveries in their fields but often have little if any
knowledge about the most effective pedagogies. How many practicing
scientists have read any of the books in the list Ed provided? How many
employ any of those techniques in their college classrooms?
* Does our preparation of science teachers (including all
elementary teachers because most of the are required to teach science along
with language arts, social studies, creative arts, etc.) include sufficient
content in science? In spite of declarations of intent on the importance
of content, I'm willing to bet that the latest research (which I don't know
because I don't read it!) shows that pre-service undergraduate programs are
much more focused on pedagogy than on content. This is a paradox because
there is so much more content to know but it is usually explained by the
fact that educators, not content specialists (scientists in this case) too
often are determining the degree and certification requirements.
* And this shoe must be put on the other foot: How many graduate
programs in science require any training in pedagogy in spite of the fact
that virtually all of the graduates of the program will teach?
QUESTION: Can scientists and science educators begin talking with one
another? Will science education really improve without that dialogue? Are
there some steps each of us might take to improve the situation even if
they fall short of a complete reform?
Sorry for the length of this!
Dave Kramer
*********************
David W. Kramer, Ph.D.
Asst. Prof. of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology
Ohio State University at Mansfield
1680 University Drive
Mansfield, OH 44906-1547
Phone: (419) 755-4344 FAX: (419) 755-4367
e-mail: kramer.8 at osu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7241 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/plant-ed/attachments/20010419/2210dc84/attachment.bin
