Humanistic science education: The history of science and other relevant contexts

Self Cite

This article establishes a rational, feasible, and necessary conclusion to reform high school science content into an equitable experience for its wide diversity of students' selfidentities. Research indicates that 85% of graduates would not normally have enrolled in any science course unless required. Their values are more aligned with their everyday world and/or the world of the humanities, to varying degrees. The 15% had already fulfilled their science prerequisite for postsecondary science-related programs, to varying degrees. The article's conclusion rests mainly on historical and economic evidence, respectively: (1) The Sputnik crisis that instilled public fear and anxiety about the perceived technological gap between the United States and Soviet Union. This led to reforming high school science and implementing National Aeronautics and Space Administration.(2) The on-growing climate-change crisis for which the smart international money is increasingly investing in sustainable businesses and industries, which catalyze a shift in public values from the current "profit society" to a "sustainable society." The article's rationale connects the two historical events. Over the past 30 years, the nature of normal science has evolved into post-normal science.Today the public square also includes: (a) an international assessment project that receives a negative validity audit in this article; (b) a vocal small minority within the 85%, proud of their antiscience self-identities and their leaders' hostile behavior (a problem to ameliorate by a reformed

Section: The Changing Meanings Of the Nature Of Science And Nosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humanistic school science: Research, policy, politics and classrooms

Aikenhead

2022

Self Cite

“…The interactions between science and society, generally speaking, has been a concern for science educators (among which we count ourselves). For instance, such interest among researchers has taken the form of concern for bridging the gap between the "two cultures" (Snow, 1959) of sciences and the humanities (Klopfer & Aikenhead, 2022); even earlier, Longbottom and Butler (1999) have made a case that science, as a paragon of rationality among school subjects, should serve as an exemplar for democratic decision-making. More recently, concerns about the corrosive influence of contemporary media on the public trust in science and evidence-backed rational debate have also been a motivating concern (e.g., Höttecke & Allchin, 2020).…”

Section: Why Teach Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to become ignorant: Improving the quality of epistemic knowledge in science education

Tan

Koh

2022

In considering goals for science education, it is conventional to make arguments for the utility of scientific knowledge for a variety of purposes. Less prominent are rationales based on the beauty or truth of science. In this paper, we examine how an approach to science education might be different if we shift the goals of communication to an appreciation of the ways in which our knowledge is limited, and how the practical boundaries of our knowledge can be closer than we think—in other words, how we are collectively ignorant. Key to this approach is a renewed understanding of the role of material investigations in providing partial knowledge. Instead of providing incontrovertible evidence, empirical investigations provide a form of “explanatory excess” whereby the appropriate choice of explanation is not necessarily one that can be simplistically determined. Although scientific practices provide techniques to minimize the possibility of error in making our conclusions, these practices are performed by fallible human communities, from which the notion of “tentative, yet durable” claims derives. We argue that public scientific literacy may be better served by more circumspect claims of validity, and crucially, an enhanced understanding of the ways in which materiality influences epistemic processes and limits our claims. We illustrate these proposals through the case of the International Young Physicists' Tournament, a contest that invites participants to play with interesting physical phenomena for over a year. We identify three factors prominent in these tournament problems that present possibilities for increasing the authenticity of practical investigations. These are (i) multiple physical interactions in phenomena leading to the openness of choice of explanatory theory; (ii) the qualitative, subjective nature of the explanatory utility of theories; and (iii) the material contingency of empirical investigations. We argue that a more open‐handed embrace of the limits of our knowledge may serve as a better epistemic orientation for science instruction.

“…In the postwar milieu of the 1940s, Harvard University President and chemist James B. Conant, concerned over a public misunderstanding of scientific practice as a general method of solving problems, proposed as a solution the study of historical cases crucial to scientific advances (Rudolph, 2019). Proposing humanist contexts—civic engagement, technology and society, philosophy of science, and cultural studies—for deciding what to teach followed Harvard's lead for more than 70 years (Klopfer & Aikenhead, 2022).…”

Section: What To Teach?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trusting the social value of diverse scientific enterprises: Matching a patchwork of challenges to a mosaic of responses

Ault

2022

Across decades, science educators have invested in curricula that presume scientific unity. The phrases “habits of mind, scientific method, processes of science, inquiry skills, nature of science, practices of science” reflect this obsession. However, historians look with skepticism at universal notions of science and endorse truth‐seeking circumscribed by context. Indeed, inadequate appreciation of diversity may lead to the mistrust of disciplines that appear to depart from simplistic notions of “the” scientific method and thus imperil the political will to search for solutions to the problems of climate change, extinction and environmental degradation, and global pandemic. Accordingly, science educators stand at a crossroads. They can choose to reinforce scientific naivete by following the long‐standing quest for unity among the sciences as guidance for what to teach, or they may accept the disunity of disciplines, teach the value of diverse sciences to solve societal problems and cultivate trust in appropriate responses to distinct challenges.