pigs, sheep and scientific futures: enthusing young people through science ralph levinson institute...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Pigs, sheep and scientific futures: enthusing young people through science
Ralph Levinson
Institute of Education
University of London
r.levinson@ioe.ac.uk
Motivating factors
Citizenship 21st Century Science Nuffield A-level Biology Science Museum report (Reiss et al); King’s (Osborne and Collins) Valuable Lessons House of Commons S&T sub committee 2002 Supports reflection on the Nature of Science (Zeidler et al) Statutory requirement (National Curriculum) It might just help young people to recognise that there’s a connection
between science and values
Pigs and xenotransplantation
Media Market Scientific acceptability Risk/probability/danger Rights and responsibilities Consideration of interests Precautionary principle Empathy Mythology
Hot p®otatoes
First to third world attitudes Power/politics Trust Regulation Statistics Complexity of scientific process Notion of ‘natural’
The naturalistic fallacy and its problems It is widely recognised that ‘is’ statements in science cannot be turned
into the ‘ought’ statements of moral discourse. For example, science can fairly accurately judge the consequences of bringing together a number of sub-critical masses of U-235 above a densely populated geographical area. It can say absolutely nothing, however, about whether such an action would be right or wrong. The answer to the latter question lies outside the domain of science but within the remit of a moral discourse. The domains of scientific and moral discourse are fundamentally different; they have different core concepts . . ., different procedural ground rules and different tests for truth. . . To apply science’s empirical test for truth within the moral domain would turn morality into pragmatism. (E. Hall, SSR (295) p.15.)
The ‘impurity’ of science
From its Baconian inception, modern science has been about both knowledge and power, above all the power to control and dominate nature, including human nature. Nowhere perhaps has this Faustian pact been made so explicit as in the programme that has shaped molecular biology since its origins (Stephen Rose, Lifelines, Penguin.)
Dealing with a dilemma
Evidence
ReasonDifference of opinion
Feelings Ethics
Imagination
Risk
Uncertainty
Why teaching contemporary issues in science might be particularly suitable for G&Ts
Encourages learners to be open to new ideas Supports learning across subjects Links to wider contexts Involves learners in a range of settings Reflect on process of their own learning Models how experts handle complex tasks Analysis using processes of arguments
Teacher roles
Not to be directive (G&Ts tend to be good self-regulators)
Formulate procedures for discussion Socratic questioning Dealing with ‘the grey’ Weighing judgements
Research into teaching controversial issues in science Argumentation (Osborne et al) ‘Stories’ (Solomon) Consensus projects (Kolstoe) Drama (Odergaard) Consequence maps/decision-making
(Ratcliffe)
Stimulating discussion
Newspaper headlines Concept cartoons Advertisements Video clips (e.g. www.highwire.org.uk/awards/pages/index.html) Photographs Websites Radio excerpts (plan in advance to tape) Soaps (Holby City, The Archers) Museum exhibits
Promoting group discussion
Defined outcome Focused topic Personalised topic Explicit procedures Structure of and roles within group Time limits Conflict stimulus Intervention Experience of group work Access resources
Encouraging group discussion
Experiences of everyday life give rise to talk Strong explicit interactional rules. Sequence of
what is going to be done is brought into the discussion
Adult’s role is mainly procedural and to clarify what has been said.
Adult is not judgemental about a pupil’s contribution
Pauses to allow for reflection
Problems with controversy
Early consensus Knowledge Expectations of teacher/leader Anti-social views Dogma Sensitivities Grey areas
Strategies for discussion on ethics
Some people think ….is a good idea because . . .
Others think it is a good idea because. . . . .
Further arguments that are in favour are . . . But some people think that it is not a good idea
because . . .
Others say . . .
Further arguments against are . . .
Having looked at the arguments for and against I think . . .
What would I do?
What could I do?
What should I do?
What if I tell Rick I’m a carrier?
Personal
He’ll leave me whether we’re tested or not
He’ll agree to be tested
Rick will be tested positive
Rick will be tested negative
We’ll split up. We don’t want to risk having a sick child.
We’ll stay together and have a baby
Our baby will be free of the condition
Our baby will have the condition
We will have to make special arrangements to care for the baby
Family
My brothers and sisters will be tested
Useful websites
http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/teacher_zone/upd8/– Cloning– Caffeine – Global warming– Biowarfare– Mobile phones
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/index.asp– Nuclear waste
http://www.sycd.co.uk/can_we_should_we/startfil/home.htm– Immunisation– Energy resources
Re-thinking science lessons Science itself may be a study of nature,
but science lessons should be the study of what people have said and thought about nature. (Clive Sutton, 1992, Words, Science and Learning, Open University Press, p.92)
top related