Narst Invited Session
William W. Cobern (icwwc@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU)
Wed, 06 Mar 1996 12:19:53 -0700>Return-Path: <owner-narst-l@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU>
>Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:20:29 -0800
>Reply-To: Norm Lederman <lederman@UCS.ORST.EDU>
>Sender: National Association for Research in Science Teaching
> <NARST-L@UWF.BITNET>
>From: Norm Lederman <lederman@UCS.ORST.EDU>
>Subject: Narst Invited Session
>Comments: To: narst-l@uwf.cc.uwf.edu
>To: Multiple recipients of list NARST-L <NARST-L@UWF.BITNET>
>
> Review of Research in Education (vol. 7, pages 282-306),
> Washington, D.C.: AERA.
>
>Wolpert, L. (1993). The unnatural nature of science.
> Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
>
>
>
>
>CORTES' MULTICULTURAL EMPOWERMENT MODEL MEETS
>WITTROCK'S GENERATIVE TEACHING IN SCIENCE
>
>CATHLEEN C. LOVING
>Texas A&M University
>Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction
>College Station, TX 77843-4232, U.S.A.
>e-mail: cloving@tamu.edu
>
>ABSTRACT
>
> Carlos Cortes' Multicultural Empowerment Model is based on his
>notion of "adducation" and "E Pluribus Unum." Using this model as a
>guide, and a moderate rational, realist philosophical framework, I
>adapt the Cortes' model to science using Wittrock's Model of
>Generative Science Teaching. My goal is to develop a balanced
>multicultural approach to teaching science to children of different
>ethnic cultures--one that both values and teaches their cultures and
>beliefs, while moving them towards important mainstream science
>understanding. I justify the Cortes model by comparing it to other
>major multicultural approaches. I then interweave the attributes of
>multicultural empowerment with Wittrock's generative attributes,
>using a lesson about plants as an example.
>
>INTRODUCTION
>
> This paper suggests a model for teaching science to children of
>varying backgrounds, using as its basis the work of historian Carlos
>E. Cortes (1990 a, 1990b, 1993, 1994). My intent is to show how, in
>a variety of ways, one can move all students to wards meaningful
>understanding in important areas of mainstream science, while using
>the potpourri of ethnic and cultural backgrounds and beliefs these
>children bring to the classroom to enrich rather than detract from
>their science learning.
>
> First, a philosophical and historical rationale is given to
>support a moderate version of multicultural science education. This
>is followed by clarification of the assumptions on which this model
>is based. In preparing the reader for the strengths of
> the Cortes' approach to teaching diverse groups of children,
>reference to and, in some cases, detailed descriptions of three
>categories related to multicultural education are given. Although
>the first category is broad (Hazen & Trefil, 1990; Ravitch & F inn,
>1987; Hirsch, 1987; Bloom, 1987; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990; and
>Matthews, 1994), it more or less ignores issues of student race,
>ethnicity and culture. The second category is the narrowest--and
>perhaps the most dogmatic in its tenets--best described as
>ethnocentric and led by Adams (1990), Van Sertima (1984) and others.
>Of particular interest is the third category, which might be called
>mainstream multiculturalist. Again broadly defined, this category
>includes a number of prolific writers and academics (DePalma, 1990;
>Banks 19 93), but within this third category it is the "Great
>American Balancing Act" (Cortes, 1994) this paper promotes.
>
> One way to begin helping ethnic minority students (and their
>parents) stay in the science "pipeline" is to make parents feel
>comfortable and relevant in their child's education. Efforts to keep
>students successfully involved and value their everyday knowledge
>helps. Achievement of these objectives can be aided by a balanced,
>multicultural approach. The balance comes from: 1) valuing children,
>their families, and the ir culture--while at the same time promoting
>the good of the common; 2) valuing the best of what science has come
>to explain--while avoiding various extremes like scientisim or
>pseudoscience; 3) engaging children (at any age in school) and their
>families in science employing a generative teaching and learning
>model to emphasize meaningful learning.
>
> Once the Cortes approach is presented as a balanced alternative
>to traditional, ethnocentric and other multicultural models, its
>tenets will be combined with the model of generative science teaching
>and learning of Merlin C. Wittrock (1994) to produc e what I hope is
>a viable and promising option for teachers of children from many
>backgrounds.
>
>REFERENCES
>
>Adams, H. H. III. (1990) . African-American baseline essays--Science
>baseline essay : African and African-American contributions to
>science and technology. Portland, OR: Multnomah School District,
>Portland Public Schools.
>
>Banks, J.A. (1993) . The canon debate, knowledge construction and
>multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22 (5), 4-14.
>
>Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York:
>Simon & Schuster.
>
>Cortes, C.E. (1990a). "E Pluribus Unum:" Out of many, one,
>California Perspectives: An Anthology From the Immigrant Students
>Project, Vol 1. San Francisco: California Tomorrow.
>
>Cortes, C.E. (1990b). A curricular basic for our multicultural
>future. Doubts and Certainties: Newsletter of the NEA Mastery in
>Learning Project., IV (7/8), 1-5. Cortes, C.E. (1993).
>Acculturation, assimilation, and 'adducation'. BEO Outreach, March,
>3-5.
>
>Cortes, C. E. ( 1994). Limits to "Pluribus" limits to "Unum:" Unity,
>diversity and the great American balancing act. National Forum: Phi
>Kappa Phi , 74 (1), 6-8.
>
>DePalma, A. (1990, November 4 ) . The culture question. New York
>Times Education Life, IV- A, 22-23.
>
>Hazen, R.M. & Trefil, J. (1990). Science matters: Achieving
>scientific literacy, New York: Doubleday.
>
>Hirsch, E.D. Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American
>needs to know, Boston: Hougton Mifflin.
>
>Matthews, M. R. (1994 ). Science teaching: The role of history and
>philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
>
>Ravitch, D, & Finn, C.E. Jr. (1987). What do our 17-year olds know?
>A report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature.
>New York: Harper and Row.
>
>Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans.
>New York: Oxford University Press.
>
>Van Sertima, I. (1984). Blacks in science: Ancient and modern. New
>Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Books.
>
>Wittrock, M.C. (1994). Generative science teaching. In P. Fensham,
>R. Gunstone & R. White (eds.), The content of science: A
>constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London:
>Falmer Press.
>
>
>
>
>A Cautionary Tale About the Nature of Science and Science Teaching.
>
>Michael R. Matthews
>University of New South Wales
>
>
>In this contribution I wish to do the following:
>
>1. Restate the classical, or Enlightenment, expectations for
>learning about the nature of science.
>
>2. Briefly examine a 1960s debate about the nature of science and
>science teaching.
>
>3. Suggest some parallels between mistakes of the 1960s and
>contemporary constructivist proposals.
>
>4. Attempt to identify the educational objective in learning about
>the nature of science.
>
> I conclude that science programmes in any scheme of liberal
>education will include discussion of the nature of science its
>history, methodology, philosophy, social and cultural impacts, and it
>relation to other forms of knowledge. And all but the mo st
>impoverished technical programmes will also include aspects of the
>nature of science scientific method, hypothesis generation and
>testing, and so on. The art of the teacher is to judge the
>sophistication of his or her students, and present aspects of
> the nature of science that are intelligible to them without being
>overwhelming. To my mind the nature of science is best approached
>inductively and tentatively, not didactically. This is one of the
>educational benefits of a case study approach to philo sophy of
>science. The philosophical issues, or lessons about the nature of
>science, can arise from questions about, and discussion of, episodes
>in the history of science, from appropriate biographies of
>scientists, from laboratory exercises including one s that replicate
>historical experiments, from textbook illustrations, from popular
>writings, or from science-related social issues. Developing an
>informed yet critical mind is surely an undisputed goal of nature of
>science teaching.
>
> Students opinions can be criticised and corrected, but finally
>they must be encouraged to make their own decisions and develop their
>own informed positions. Education in science, or in anything else,
>cannot be just a mantra-like repetition of what th e teacher says.
>Intellectual autonomy is characteristic of a liberally educated
>person, and there is no reason why science classrooms cannot
>contribute to its development.
>
>
>
>
>Consensus About The Nature of Science: Implications for a
>Preservice Elementary Methods Course
>
>Yvonne J. Meichtry
>
>Introduction
>
>This paper provides a summary of challenges that were evident and
>decisions that were made regarding efforts to teach the nature of
>science in a preservice elementary science methods course. The
>sources of information upon which the views expressed in this paper
>are based include the practical experiences of teaching the nature of
>science to middle school and preservice elementary education
>students, an examination of literature over 30 years, the results of
>research studies conducted at various levels of education, data
>collected during the evaluation of efforts to reform science
>education, and current national standards for teaching the nature of
>science. The context for which the information presented in this
>paper has implications is the preparation of preservice elementary
>science teachers.
>
>The experiences of this author when designing and teaching an
>elementary science methods course has led to the following questions
>regarding the nature of science: 1) What aspects of the nature of
>science need to be included to fully represent the multi-faceted
>nature of science?; 2) What are the most effective ways of developing
>understandings related to the nature of science; 3) What is a
>realistic expectation, in the context of this course, in regard to
>developing understandings related to the nature of science? The
>challenges evident in answering these questions include a literature
>base that defines the nature of science in a variety of ways and
>through the use of inconsistent terminology, a research base that is
>largely incomplete, and a general lack of attention to the nature of
>science by science education curricula at the K-12 and university
>levels. A careful examination of literature-based information which
>does exist about the nature of science, coupled with the knowledge
>base relating to constructivist teaching premises, however, has
>resulted in successful efforts to incorporate learnings about the
>nature of science in a science methods course.
>
>Teaching the Nature of Science in a
>Preservice Elementary Education Science Methods Course
>
>To overcome challenges presented by the lack of a standardized
>definition of the nature of science and by the limited knowledge base
>of students, the nature of science was characterized by the two broad
>areas of the nature of scientific inquiry and the nature of
>scientific knowledge that results from such inquiry. Scientific
>inquiry was described as the processes used to generate and test
>scientific knowledge. These processes, more specifically, were
>presented as stating a research question, hypothesizing, observation,
>collection-recording-interpretation of data, and drawing conclusions.
>The two aspects of the nature of scientific knowledge emphasized were
>the developmental and testable nature.
>
>These definitions of the nature of science proved useful with this
>population of students not only because their understanding of these
>aspects of the nature of science was very limited, but because these
>definitions are applicable to the teaching of elementary grade
>students. As part of an action research effort to assess the
>effectiveness of teaching strategies to develop understandings about
>the nature of science, students were asked to define science on the
>first day of class. The results of this exercise revealed that
>students' viewed science primarily as a knowledge base to be studied
>and learned; their views of the processes of science were largely
>incomplete. These views of students are not surprising when consi
>dering the evidence presented in the literature that this aspect of
>science is the one most often neglected by school curricula and least
>understood by K-12 and university students alike. A decision to study
>of the nature of science through the broader context of scientific
>literacy was based on a major objective of current science education
>reform to develop the scientific literacy of all students. Although
>there is no standardized defini tion of scientific literacy, the
>nature of science is consistently identified throughout the
>literature as a component of scientific literacy. As was done with
>defining the nature of science, scientific literacy was discussed in
>general terms which characterized the array of definitions presented
>in the literature and by current reform recommendations. The areas of
>scientific literacy studied in this course were an understanding of
>basic scientific concepts, the ability to use and understand
>scientific processes, the use of higher order thinking skills, and
>the development of scientific attitudes and value, such as
>objectivity, openness, the value of trial and error, intellectual
>honesty, and tolerance for ambiguity.
>
>Due to their limited knowledge base about the nature of science and
>experience of learning science (K-16) through primarily traditional
>methods, students were involved in an experience which required them
>to use the process of science through the design a nd conduct of
>their own research study. Results of the action research study
>conducted with these students revealed that the experience of
>actually using the processes of science to research a question had
>developed a greater understanding of the nature of science of
>virtually every student. The results of this study are consistent
>with the theoretical-based premises of constructivism.
>
>Summary
>
>The goal of developing students' own understandings of the nature of
>science while teaching them methods of developing their future
>elementary students' understandings was one of many goals of teaching
>a preservice elementary education science methods cou rse. This goal
>was accomplished through an examination of the literature and a
>knowledge of effective teaching practices, such as modeling,
>providing "real" science experiences for students to construct their
>own knowledge of the nature of science, refle ct on their new
>knowledge, and relate this knowledge to teaching elementary grade
>students. Although the knowledge base presented in the literature
>was helpful in the design and teaching of a preservice elementary
>science methods course, there is a great need for further research of
>and dialogue about the nature of science. While the author of this
>paper chooses to include instruction related to the nature of science
>in a methods course, there are many faculty who do not. More
>information and more explicit , convincing, and widespread
>communication about
>the importance of teaching the nature of science and how to do so is
>critical to the preparation of science teachers.
>
>Until the point in time when this population of students possess more
>sophisticated views about the nature of science, the lack of
>consensus of how the nature of science is viewed by the science
>education community lacks relevance. The general views of the nature
>of science that are agreed upon-the view of science as a process to
>generate and test knowledge, and the developmental and testable
>nature of science - are the views of the nature of science relevant
>to the population of preservice elementary teachers.
>
>
>
>
>Acknowledging students' agency: Science educators' responsibility in
>evolution education
>
>Sherry A. Southerland
>University of Utah
>Department of Educational Studies
>307 Milton Bennion Hall
>Salt Lake City, UT 84112
>Southe_S@gse.utah.edu
>
> Many of the current conceptions of learning describe a process of
>conceptual change in which a learner is thought to possess a
>conceptual framework through which she/he understands a topic.
>Learning, then, is characterized as a series of restructurings of
>this framework, restructurings based upon the learner 's attempt to
>make sense of her/his world. Derivations of this very broad
>conception of learning describe the role of the learner's conceptual
>ecology, that is a set of organizing conceptions (including
>epistemological commitments, anomalies, metaphors, analogies and
>metaphysical beliefs), in informing the process of conceptual change
>(Strike & Posner, 1992). Using this model, many science educators
>understand learning to be a very complex, recursive process informed
>and informing many of the learner's extralogical and affective
>commitments (Demastes-Southerland, Good, & Pebbles, 1995).
>
> Learning as conceived in this revisionist theory of conceptual
>change has several characteristics: (a) the learner is actively
>involved in making sense of the phenomenon/situation, (b) this sense
>making process occurs within an ecology comprised of all of the
>learner's past knowledge, experiences, interests, emotional
>commitments, and (c) because of the actions of a conceptual ecology
>learning does not always proceed along traditional logical, linear
>pathways.
>
> Using this understanding of conceptual change, one can foresee
>that the learning of science topics that contradict and call into
>question other areas of a learner's knowledge is a difficult and
>complex project. This difficulty has been widely recogni zed in
>evolution education (Cummins, Demastes-Southerland, & Hafner, 1994;
>Settlage, 1994),. While we understand that the issues of acceptance
>of evolution and understanding of this concept are related, several
>studies have demonstrated that this is not a simple relationship
>(Bishop & Ander son, 1990; Demastes Southerland, Good, & Pebbles,
>1995).
>
> Scharmann (1990), in his work with inservice science teachers and
>their understanding of evolutionary theory, comments that students
>need to "create a place to stand" between scientific knowledge and
>their personal knowledge. This resonates with Grumet's (1988, p. 33)
>reconceptualization of schooling: If we are to bridge the gap that
>divides the public from the private in our culture and our
>consciousness, then we need to think of schooling as a time and place
>where those opposition can be mediated and reconceived.
>
> I argue that it is a science educator's role to provide the
>scaffolding necessary for students to mediate the oppositions between
>formal knowledge frameworks and their own sources of personal
>understandings. Historically, however, the scientism endem ic to
>classroom portrayals of science prohibited such scaffolding. Duschl
>(1988) described scientism as an ideology that sets no limits on the
>authority of science, thus setting science beyond reproach. Clearly,
>such an hegemonic understanding of scient ific knowledge allows
>little or no room for students to compare and contrast different
>knowledge claims. Eventually, this approach is counterproductive to
>our attempts to help students understand usefully apply evolutionary
>theory.
>
> While the traditional portrayal of the scientistic nature of
>science is becoming less prominent in academic circles, I argue that
>the robust form of multiculturalism (Matthews, 1994) participates in
>an altered version of a scientistic discourse and th us also denies
>the agency of students in learning. In robust multiculturalism (as
>opposed to curricular multiculturalism) local or ethnic
>understandings about nature are seen as equivalents to "western"
>science (a term not without controversy itself [Norman, 1995]). An
>example of this is seen in Adam's (1990) Baseline Essay in Science in
>which Afrocentric means of understanding the natural (and
>supernatural) world are viewed as a form of ethnic science. I argue
>that by lumping together different wa ys of knowing, an inclusive
>definition of science denies the importance of fundamentally
>different ways of understanding the world. Instead of celebrating
>the differences (in method, assumptions and goals) of the many
>different ways knowing, robust multiculturalism forces all meaning
>into an ill-fitting construct of science. This approach once again
>places science on the pedestal of true epistemic power.
>
> A pedagogical more useful approach than the traditional
>scientistic approach to the natural sciences or the equally
>scientistic approach of robust multiculturalism is to instead
>carefully help our students delineate what is science and what is
>not; wh en science is a useful approach to meaning making and when it
>is not; what assumptions science makes and what it rejects. As
>suggested by Scharmann (1990) and Smith (1995), our role in the
>classroom should be to help students construct an understanding of
>the uses and limitations of science. The alternatives of presenting
>science as the only source of true knowledge or lumping together all
>forms of meaning making about the natural world as science fail to
>allow students to determine when to usefully apply scientific
>knowledge and when to reject it. Such scientistic approaches deny
>students' agency in the learning process, and so leaves them no
>"place to stand" as they compare knowledge frameworks.
>
>References
>
>Adams, H. H. III. (1990). African-American baseline essays-Science
>baseline essay: African and African-american Contributions to
>science and technology. Portland: Multnomah School District I,
>Portland Public Schools.
>
>Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. (1990). Students conceptions of natural
>selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science
>Teaching, 27, 415-427.
>
>Cummins, C. L., Demastes, S. S., & Hafner, M. S. (Eds.) Special
>Issue: The teaching and learning of biological evolution. Journal of
>Research in Science Teaching, 31.
>
>Demastes, S. S., Good, R., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students'
>conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in
>evolution. Science Education, 79, 637-666.
>
>Duschl, R. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of science
>education. Science Education, 72, 51-62.
>
>Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bitter Milk. The University of Massachusetts
>Press: Amherst, MA.
>
>Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and
>philosophy of science. Routledge, New York.
>
>Norman, O. (1995). Beyond Kuhn: The epistemology and
>historiography of an inclusive sociocultural discourse on science.
>In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fified (Eds), Proceedings of
>the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teac hing
>Conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, pp. 858-863.
>
>Scharmann, L. C. (2990). Enhancing and understanding of the
>premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified
>instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 91-100.
>
>Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot
>of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science
>Teaching, 31, 449-458. Smith, M. U. (1995). Philosophical and
>Epistemological issues in evolution education. In F. Finley, D.
>Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fified (Eds), Proceedings of the Third
>International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference.
>Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
>pp. 1080-1090.
>
>Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of
>conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.),
>Philosophy of science cognitive psychology, and educational theory
>and practice. New York: State University of New York Press, pp.
>147-176.
>
>
>
>
>Science Or Technology? A Study Of High School Students' Ability To
>Distinguish Between Science And Technology
>
>John E. Trowbridge
>Teacher Education Department
>Southeastern Louisiana University
>&
>James H. Wandersee
>Graduate Studies in Curriculum and Instruction
>Louisiana State University
>
>The ability to distinguish between science and technology is now a
>"standard" for current science teaching and curriculum planning. Two
>important documents have driven this practice; National Science
>Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Benchmarks for Sci entific
>Literacy (AAAS, 1993). In general, high school students do not
>distinguish between the roles of science and technology (NRC, 1996,
>p. 191). Further argument for making the distinction between science
>and technology comes from Good and Demastes (1996) who outline the
>consequences of conflating science and technology. One such
>consequence is that science is often blamed for the invention or use
>of certain technologies.
>
>Method
>
>In the winter of 1996, we developed and administered a questionnaire
>to high school students (N=117) to probe their conceptions related to
>science and technology, and how clearly they could distinguish
>between science and technology. Because of our previous educational
>investigations in the domain of marine biology, all of the items
>dealt with topics related to it. All students were drawn from high
>schools in southern Louisiana, both public and parochial. The
>students we re primarily juniors and seniors. They were in the midst
>of their third or fourth high school science course and self-reported
>an average grade of "B" on previous science courses.
>
>Results
>
>Defining science
>
>The majority of students' written definitions of science focused
>primarily on science as a knowledge base, a collection of facts;
>understanding the universe by gathering information was secondary.
>Only eleven students' (9.5%) answers included the idea th at science
>is a process or a way of obtaining knowledge. Students, in general,
>tended to have a restricted view of what science is. This phenomenon
>of "limited view" is illustrated via our investigation and has been
>used by science educators as an argum ent for teaching the nature of
>science by using the history and philosophy of science (Matthews,
>1994).
>
>Defining Technology
>
>In our study, students' definitions of technology centered around the
>ideas that technology is applied science or the practical use of
>science (34%), a societal advancement (22%), or a development that
>makes life easier (19%). The idea that technology is always related
>to machinery or is equivalent to machines is noteworthy, and appeared
>in 15% of the responses. It seems that students' notions of
>technology are restricted to a positive application or an advance of
>science that makes life easier. The students also assumed a marriage
>of science to technology. There is no indication that they knew
>technology can proceed on its own without a science connection.
>Furthermore, there is no indication they rec ognized that technology
>can be applied in a harmful manner or can be applied to anything else
>other than service to humans.
>
> Thus, any technology applied for environmental purposes or to
>protect plants and wildlife was excluded. Because 15% of the
>students we surveyed answered that technology equals machines (thus,
>excluding other kinds of non-mechanical technologies such as
>biotechnology), we see that as additional evidence of students'
>restricted notion of what technology is. None of the students
>indicated that technology has the added risk of failure.
>
>Characteristics of Science and Technology
>
>In one section of our questionnaire, students were asked to do the
>following. From a list of literature-related characteristics for
>science and technology, students were asked to match each item's
>characteristic to either science or technology. Table 1 lists the
>students' choices.
>
>Table 1
>
>Students' Assignment of Characteristics to Either Science or
>Technology, By Percentage
>
>Characteristic Science Technology
>Seeks answers about nature 93 6
>Explains and predicts 62 25
>Usually one leads the other one 61 27
>Depends on evidence 46 28
>Can solve human problems 19 72
>Can have side effects and risks 13 77
>Involves tradeoffs 10 64
>Note: N=117
>
>Students were able to characterize both science and technology in a
>somewhat reasonable manner except for the characteristic "Depends on
>evidence." The "lead-lag" issue was also not well understood.
>Associations with science or technology On the questio nnaire, 10
>terms were listed with a Likert-type scale for the students to
>associate as being either more associated with science (1) or more
>associated with technology (5). The results are listed in Table 2.
>
>Table 2
>Students' Associations With Science or Technology
>
>Term Average ranking
>Coral reefs 1.3
>Red tides 1.8
>Endangered marine mammals 2.0
>Coastal erosion 2.2
>Undersea vent organisms 2.2
>Wetland loss 2.3
>Marine debris 2.3
>SCUBA diving 3.4
>Hurricane tracking 3.8
>Deep-Sea oil drilling platforms 4.3
>
>Note: N=117, 1 = associated with science, 5 = associated with technology
>
>Deep-sea drilling is the only term students strongly associated with
>technology. Strangely, SCUBA diving and hurricane tracking did not
>muster the strong associations with technology that we expected.
>Items that were strongly associated with science included coral reefs
>and red tides. Vent organisms, endangered marine mammals, coastal
>erosion, and wetland loss were associated only weakly with science.
>It would seem logical to assume that if students do not have clear
>criteria to distinguish between science and technology, their ability
>to classify something into those categories prior to analysis would
>also be hampered. This is what the averages for the Table 2 items
>imply. However, we recognize that the distinctions we asked students
>to make here can exhibit variance in rationales, even among
>professionals.
>
>Is the submarine science or technology?
>
>Students were asked if a submarine is an example of science or
>technology. They were also asked to justify their responses. The
>majority of students (88%) chose technology. Interestingly, 12% of
>the pupils wrote that it was an example of both. There was a great
>deal of variation in the written justifications. Nearly one-third of
>the students (32%, about 1 in 3) reasoned that a submarine was the
>product of science, an advancement of science, or an application of
>science. The reason that "it is made by humans" was used by 10% of
>the students and an additional five percent reasoned that a submarine
>was an example of technology because it consists of machines or
>machinery.
>
>Are Dead Zones science or technology?
>
>Students were asked (a) if the discovery of dead zones (areas of
>low-oxygen seawater) in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of science
>or technology and (b) to justify their response. Most of the
>students (82%) indicated that dead zones are an example of science.
>In contrast, 11% thought dead zones were an example of technology,
>and 7% percent thought it was both science and technology. Again, a
>wide range of responses made it difficult to categorize
>justifications. However, it was clear that 28% of the students
>reasoned dead zones are an example of science because they have to do
>with nature or that they occur naturally and that they are not
>man-made, a flawed criterion. Again, students seemed to a sk
>themselves the implicit "machine or nature?" question in making up
>their minds.
>
>Are science and technology related?
>
>One of the questions on our questionnaire asked students (a) if they
>thought science and technology were related and (b) to offer an
>explanation of their constructed response. Almost all of the
>students (98%) indicated that science and technology were related.
>The majority of justifications included that technology is the result
>of science, that technology advances science, and that technology is
>applied science. The close relationship between science and
>technology seemed clear to most high school students. However, they
>don't seem to recognize that either science or technology can stand
>on its own, and may not be dependent on the other. It is true that
>technology has advanced our scientific understandi ng of many things,
>but some science is done without the aid of technology. While it is
>also true that technology is oft-times an application of scientific
>principles, but technologies cab also evolve without the benefit of
>science. Consider wine making and ancient metallurgy.
>
>Discussion
>
>Current instructional laboratory activities often times blur the
>distinction between science and technology. A common elementary
>school activity, frequently called "float your boat," supplies
>students with various materials such as aluminum foil and mode ling
>clay and challenges then to construct a vessel that floats. Once a
>vessel is constructed that floats, the challenge is given as to how
>much cargo (usually marbles or nails) it can hold without sinking.
>The goal of this laboratory exercise and end product is a the
>construction of a vessel that floats and supports a load, an
>engineering or technological solution. Concepts such as fluid
>displacement, buoyancy, and Archimedes' principle are not made
>explicit enough to justify this activity as a "science" laboratory
>exercise. Another laboratory activity often done is the
>reconstruction or mimicking of a flashlight. Students are supplied
>with wire, batteries, and a light bulb. The end product or desired
>goal is a functioning light. Concepts such as cell electrochemistry,
>electron flow, direct current, and the nature of an electrical
>circuits are usually not integrated with the activity. Since our
>survey used marine science and technology content for examples, we
>think case studies from history of marine science and technology can
>help students see the difference between science and technology. For
>example, Louis Agassiz, an influential mentor of America's first
>generation of biologists, required his students to hone their skills
>of direct observation.
>
>Students would sometimes spend many days with a single fish specimen,
>waiting for Professor Agassiz to return periodically and question
>them (Trowbridge & Wandersee, 1995). Noted science educator Dorthy
>Gabel (1984) rationalizes observation to be among t he most basic
>skills needed in the study of science. She states, "Teaching
>children to become discriminating observers is one of the major
>objectives of science education in the elementary school (p. 1)." It
>would seem that laboratory exercises that engage students in direct
>observations will go a long way in helping students learn and use
>science processes, along with learning sc ience concepts. Silvia
>Earle, an accomplished marine scientist, spent many years developing
>deep-sea submersibles. Her goal was to develop a submersible or a
>diving suit that could only be occupied by one person and allow that
>person to function independently on the ocean bottom at great depths.
>At one point in her career, she had an opportuni ty to use a
>Japanese-made prototype submersible. Unfortunately, at the time she
>had no scientific research agenda to justify using this experimental
>technology. She quickly had to devise a research program to satisfy
>the government agencies involved tha t she indeed had a scientific
>purpose for going to the bottom of the ocean because they had no
>visionary interest in the technology (Earle, 1995). Since then, many
>discoveries in marine science have been conducted using submersibles!
>
> It is recognized that science and technology have different
>goals. It must be further recognized that themselves may have
>different goals when engaging in scientific inquiry. Schauble,
>Klopfer, and Raghavan (1991) investigated the hypothesis that wh en
>children engage in science experiments they often use an engineering
>model of experimentation, characterized by the more familiar goal of
>manipulating variables to produce a desired outcome. Failure to
>recognize that science and technology can operate independent of each
>other is an important finding of this study. Furthermore, students
>in this study failed to recognize that all technology has side
>effects and a potential to fail. The students seemed to have a
>limited view of technology--restricting their examples and
>definitions to such things as machines or electronic devices. The
>"lead-lag" issue and fuzzy "technoscience" issues have eluded them.
>We see car efully chosen cases from the histories of biology as
>having potential for improving the ability of students to distinguish
>between science, technoscience, and technology.
>
>References
>
>American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
>Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
>
>Earle, S. A. (1995). Sea change: A message from the oceans. New York:
>Putnam's Sons.
>
>Gabel, D. (1984). Introductory science skills. Prospect Heights, IL:
>Waveland Press.
>
>Good, R. G. & Demastes, S. (1996). Science and technology have
>different goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
>National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis,
>Missouri March 31 - April 3, 1996.
>
>James, C. C. (1996). National science and technology week 1996:
>Design connections through science and technology. Science Scope V.19
>(n4), pp. 29-31.
>
>Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and
>philosophy of science. New York: Routledge. National Research
>Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
>DC: National Academy Press.
>
>Trowbridge, J. E. and Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Agassiz's influence
>on marine science teaching: promoting nature study by direct
>observation. In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.)
>Proceeding, Volume 2, Third International History, Philosophy, And
>Science Teaching Conference, Oct. 29 - Nov. 1, 1995, Minneapolis, MN.
>
*************************************************************
William W. Cobern, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Science Education
College of Education
Arizona State University West
PO Box 37100
Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100
Voice: 602 543 6334 or 6300
FAX: 602 543 6350
Internet: icwwc@asuvm.inre.asu.edu