This assignment concerns the first chapter from Bauer, and I am to compare and contrast his views with traditional textbook presentations of the nature of science. The first point is to define the three components that constitute the definition of what science literacy actually is. One of my early thoughts in reading this selection was that maybe we should start identifying as early as possible and putting on a separate educational track the potential scientists among our students. I then began to realize that Bauer's main point is that all of our knowledge, including science, is theory-based, and subject to change. Science literacy, he says, like all types of literacy, should be ecouraged because it is a good thing, not as a tool to accomplish something else. Bauer envisions "STS", or science, tecnology, and society studies being incorporated to everyone's benefit, from the layperson to scientists and engineers.
The author states that science as it is currently taught, using textbooks, is too dogmatic and leaves out the "fits and starts" that good history of science can convey as part of the total picture. Basically, I think he is saying that students need some basic science facts and some training in scientific process, but the emphasis should be on understanding the role of science in society and technology. This would have surprised me a few weeks ago, but in the context of what I have learned this summer it seems logical. I have always tried to help my students see how their science lessons fit into the bigger picture, or better yet, I try to give them the tools with which they will be able to figure those things out for themselves. I have relied less on textbooks than most teachers I know, partially because of my original mentor teacher, and partially perhaps subconsciously for the reasons Bauer gives. I am finding that some of what I am reading this summer I have sort of unknowingly at least been trying to do throughout my career as an educator, even if I didn't have the terms and a defined concept in my mind.
I believe in giving the students a certain base of information predicated on currently accepted ideas, using the scientific method as a basic framework to support the notion of problem-solving, and then getting them to think about how it all fits into the bigger picture of their lives in modern society. The operative word here is think. The key is helping a person develop the ability to make judgements and formulate informed opinions from the perspective of a broad world-view, complete with historical perspectives. This is similar to Bauer's push for more STS and less science, and I feel he makes a strong case, but of course I've only read the first chapter so far.
One point that I must raise here is that science teachers, and for that matter all teachers today, are under enormous pressure to see to it that students attain a certain level of proficiency on standardized tests. Bauer rips this kind of testing at the beginning of the chapter. School funding is actually tied to this now, and even the school's and teacher's certifications in some cases. I guess that at certain times this summer I've gotten excited and enthused about various components of my studies, and then reality sinks in in terms of practicality and applicability. I think the main impact of this reading on me is to encourage me that I have for the most part done the right thing for most of my career and will continue to do so, with some adjustments here and there. I also think that I will be able to see more clearly the picture that Bauer is painting as I progress through the chapters, and will be able to refer back to this discussion.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
2 comments:
Bauer addresses textbook accuracy in this summary of lectures he gave a long time ago... His filter idea is interesting, saying that knowledge, starting from 'frontier science' and moving through primary and secondary sources, becomes more reliable; "it's been cleansed of most of the personal bias, error and dishonesty that may have been there originally." Um, excuse me, but who gets to interpret it as bias etc.? Reactions are never completely objective, unless you're, I dunno, God. or possibly the Buddha.
I think Bauer's a bit of a flake, in all honesty, but this is based on a very small amount of reading.
Reliance on textbooks requires a fair amount of trust on the part of the teacher, I would imagine, to have to assume that the text is based on 'good' (empirical) science, and not convenient, well-financed or trendy science. Trust that the filter has worked.
I'd better stop now. I'm thinking way too much.
This post is a work in progress, I hope to have a better view of Bauer's points as I read more. I wouldn't be so hard on him just yet, and I agree about the textbooks. Oh, there's no such thing as "thinking too much", in my opinion.:)
Post a Comment