Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education Commentary argues for the incorporation of Worldview into Science Education:
Considering science in light of alternative worldviews also often leads to a more thorough analysis of that science and those worldviews — and so, inevitably, people learn the science better.
According to the authors, the drop in American science education is the dismissive attitude Science teachers have toward those with opposing worldviews. This dismissive attitude causes the students to ultimately lose interest and not learn. This alone is an interesting theory and/or admission.
But what if engaging the discussion of evolution in its rich social and ethical context isn’t opening a can of worms, but rather providing a real teachable moment? Educators know intuitively, as well as through concrete research evidence, that people learn best when knowledge and ideas are presented in the context and within the realm of their own lives and worlds. Science professors have an obligation to provide space in which students can recognize and work out the tensions that arise with conflicting personal stances. For example, when we teach evolution, we explicitly encourage our students to point out the conflicts they perceive between evolutionary principles and differing worldviews — their own or those of family or friends. With ridicule expressly forbidden, classroom discussions inevitably lead to students’ acknowledging that humans employ a complex interplay of experience, faith, and trust in evaluating the validity of a concept. Most important, students learn that simplistic rejection of a conflicting worldview is counterproductive.
Such an approach engages students in challenging, critical thinking. The consequences of failing are disconnection and dissonance in the minds of many religious Americans. Perhaps it’s not surprising that the number of Americans going into science is decreasing: We’re not successfully showing them how science works within the context of their daily lives and thinking. Many studies demonstrate that our students are doing less well in relation to other countries on science tests, and that we are falling behind other countries in innovation.
What I liked about this article is the authors advocacy for respect for and a dialogue concerning the pluralism of interpretations of facts. They have nothing to fear from giving space to non-evolutionary views, like creationism and intelligent design, because they are confident that the evidence for evolution will ultimately convince. This attitude toward engagement is to be commended.
Secondly, I noticed the refutation of a discipline-oriented teacher/student relationship.
Some science professors are aware of, and sensitive to, how students with different viewpoints and beliefs can become uncomfortable when discussing certain topics — but that very awareness makes the professors hesitant to involve themselves in such subjects in their classrooms and laboratories. They are afraid of opening what they see as a can of worms; they say, “We already have too much to cover. How can I spend time engaging social issues? Besides, I am a scientist, not an ethicist or a historian.”
Here we see some ideas that I ascribe to postmodernity. First, the recognition that disciplines are not isolated. In short, the scientist is an ethicist and a historian. He or she may not be employed to be directing a course of study in these fields, but every person, scientists included are ethicist and historians. They hold views and those views impact their field of expertise. There is no neutrality concerning these subjects.
Second, an acknowledgment that the science classroom is not a student-centric learning environment. By dismissing the alternative views held by some students, teachers risk become authoritarian and ultimately indoctrinators. The authors are bold in that they declare that a teacher’s own fear is often what is driving the teacher/student relationship. In short, the curriculum can be used by teachers as a way to buffer the teacher from the student. A teacher is not someone who should avoid controversy. If you wish to avoid controversy, then you should perhaps select another occupation. Rather a teacher is one who should model the healthy response to controversy, one which is characterized as dialogue and antithesis.
Incorporating Worldview into Science Education: A Teachable Moment
Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education Commentary argues for the incorporation of Worldview into Science Education:
According to the authors, the drop in American science education is the dismissive attitude Science teachers have toward those with opposing worldviews. This dismissive attitude causes the students to ultimately lose interest and not learn. This alone is an interesting theory and/or admission.
What I liked about this article is the authors advocacy for respect for and a dialogue concerning the pluralism of interpretations of facts. They have nothing to fear from giving space to non-evolutionary views, like creationism and intelligent design, because they are confident that the evidence for evolution will ultimately convince. This attitude toward engagement is to be commended.
Secondly, I noticed the refutation of a discipline-oriented teacher/student relationship.
Here we see some ideas that I ascribe to postmodernity. First, the recognition that disciplines are not isolated. In short, the scientist is an ethicist and a historian. He or she may not be employed to be directing a course of study in these fields, but every person, scientists included are ethicist and historians. They hold views and those views impact their field of expertise. There is no neutrality concerning these subjects.
Second, an acknowledgment that the science classroom is not a student-centric learning environment. By dismissing the alternative views held by some students, teachers risk become authoritarian and ultimately indoctrinators. The authors are bold in that they declare that a teacher’s own fear is often what is driving the teacher/student relationship. In short, the curriculum can be used by teachers as a way to buffer the teacher from the student. A teacher is not someone who should avoid controversy. If you wish to avoid controversy, then you should perhaps select another occupation. Rather a teacher is one who should model the healthy response to controversy, one which is characterized as dialogue and antithesis.