Thanks so much to David Kramer for your thoughtful post on
some of the disconnects between science practitioners and
science educators, especially at K-12, and for your comments
on von Helmont. You've inspired me to look for the original
publication (I suppose it's in Dutch?)! His work has many
applications to the "History and Nature of Science"
standard, not least of which is his persistence in
conducting experiments over a period of many years! School
science at all levels sometimes gives students the
impression (because of very real limitations of time and
resources) that most problems should be solved in one class
period, or one grading period, and that conclusions can be
drawn from one or two experiments. This is one of the
reasons that the National Science Education Standards
suggest that all students have at least one experience with
an extended inquiry at some time in their school career.
Often, however, this is not an experience that their
teachers have had, either, so it should come as no surprise
that the number and quality of these experiences is so
variable!
I sometimes refer to the von Helmont experiments after
showing one of the "Minds of Our Own" tapes from the Private
Universe series (Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Collection)
in which MIT grads are handed a seed and a chunk of wood and
asked where the "mass" of a tree comes from. Almost without
exception they say "from water in the ground, from minerals
in the soil". And, unlike von Helmont, the MIT grads know
about molecules, HAVE learned about photosynthesis, and DO
know that CO2 exisits in the air. The point is that we are
not always asked to connect the details that we learn
together in a meaningful way when learning science, and that
if we don't work through the connections for ourselves, we
tend to revert to naiive concepts. ("Constructivism", more
or less...)
I use the "Minds of Our Own" tapes in my Secondary Science
Methods class. Before showing the photosynthesis segment, I
ask my students (mostly senior biology and chem majors) the
same question, or have them do a concept-map exercise on
photosynthesis. They often don't do very well on it, either-
(as one student said, "Are you trying to make us look
stupid?") Their courses have focused on the trees, often at
the expense of the forest. They can all give me the formula
for photosynthesis, but have often missed the significance
of the process.
(The "Minds of Our Own" series (1997) was inspired by the
first "Private Universe" tape, produced by the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in 1987, in
which new MIT grads were asked to explain the seasons. Most
couldn't do it, and revealed very basic misconceptions about
the solar system which are very common among kids as well.
This tape, and the Minds of Our Own series of three one-hour
tapes, might be an excellent introduction to some current
science education issues for higher-ed and practicing
scientists. They're available from Annenberg/CPB at
www.learner.org. The quality is excellent, and the price is
reasonable. )
"David W. Kramer" wrote:
>> 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 understand!
ing 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
--
Char A. Bezanson (bezanson at stolaf.edu)
School Nature Area Project
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN 55057
*************************************************************
The average person recognizes more than 1000 corporate
logos,
but can identify fewer than 10 plants and animals native to
her locality,
according to Paul Hawken, author of The Ecology of Commerce.
*************************************************************
For more information on the School Nature Area Project,
visit the SNAP website at www.stolaf.edu/other/snap/
---
