• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Worldviews, students, science teachers, school science: Where to next?

Posted on: Friday, 7 March 2003, 06:00 CST

Worldviews, students, science teachers, school science: Where to next?

Source: Studies In Science Education

University of Saskatchewan, Canada

The boundaries between Caribbean beliefs and practices and conventional science. June George and Joyce Glasgow, UNESCO, Kingston, Jamaica, 1999, ISBN: 976-95037-0-3.

Everyday thoughts about nature: a worldview investigation of important concepts students use to make sense of nature with specific attention of science. William W. Cobern, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000, ISBN 0-7923-6344-2 (Hb).

Cultural studies in science education expanded exponentially in the 1990s. The research programme of June George and Joyce Glasgow, and that of Bill Cobern, contributed substantially to this expansion. Each of their books relates directly to their respective research programmes. The content of the books overlaps sufficiently that their titles could almost be interchanged; for example, Drs. George and Glasgow investigated the everyday thoughts about nature held by people in Trinidad, particularly traditional knowledge about health and the marine environment. Dr. Cobern, on the other hand, essentially investigated the boundaries between students' beliefs and those of their science teachers. (Interestingly, Cobern is liberally cited in George and Glasgow's book, as is George in Cobern's book.) The theoretical framework called 'worldview', a construct honed in cultural anthropology by Kearney (1984), and variously spelled `world view', `world-view', and 'worldview' in the literature, informs both research programmes. The books succinctly convey the key elements, findings and implications of their respective research programmes. I thoroughly enjoyed reading both.

George and Glasgow's scholarly three-chapter monograph, The boundaries between Caribbean beliefs and practices and conventional science, is published by UNESCO in Jamaica, a publisher which obviously put severe space limitations on the authors (35 pages of text, and small pages at that, and a very limited reference section). Chapter 1 describes the evolution of their research programme initiated by `street science' in the 1980s, a programme that has inspired other science educators worldwide. George and Glasgow acknowledge two fields of research (students' prior knowledge and students' cultural backgrounds) that helped them conceptualise their own thinking. Their research resulted in a careful analysis of (1) Caribbean traditional knowledge (`those social customs and beliefs that deal with the same content areas that are dealt with in conventional science', p.5), and (2) the similarities and differences between traditional knowledge and conventional science. George and Glasgow found that the most important difference between the two knowledge systems, as far as student learning is concerned, was their different values, values that guide one's thinking about cause/effect, observations and authority, for instance.

Their research programme was extended in the 1990s by a systematic analysis of traditional knowledge found in an isolated fishing village (Chapter 2). George teased out something more fundamental than values when she analysed `the interpretive framework or worldview that underpins traditional background knowledge of learners' (p.14). Through extensive interviewing, she identified a number of propositions that guided most villagers, and then she analysed these propositions with respect to Kearney's worldview scheme, comparing them to Cobern's worldview analysis of conventional science. For example, 'self' is one of Kearney's worldview components. It turns out that a greater importance is accorded to self (with respect to social responsibility) within the culture of the Trinidadian village than within the culture of science, where one is expected to remove oneself from what one is observing. This turns out to create psychological discomfort for many Trinidadian students in science classes. Let me quote the conclusion to Chapter 2 because it both foreshadows one of Cobern's main conclusions and introduces us to George and Glasgow's Chapter 3:

`It is clear that the traditional practices and beliefs that exist in this community constitute an intricate knowledge system, supported by a worldview that is in some ways similar to, and in many ways different from, the tenets of conventional science. This has implications for the ways in which children from such backgrounds should be taught conventional science in schools.' (pp.22-23)

In Chapter 3, George and Glasgow discuss the implications for students, for teachers, and for curricula, all woven into a theoretical fabric of collateral learning (Jegede, 1995), border crossing (Aikenhead, 1996), and teacher practical knowledge in Trinidadian classrooms. Sage advice ensues. Suggestions for further research are offered, such as the need to understand the theoretical fabric better. Their worldview analysis did not illuminate the theoretical fabric itself, nor did the researchers suggest it would. Another research suggestion calls for collaboration with colleagues in the field of language.

The worldview analysis provides compelling empirical evidence for why many students find school science either irrelevant or offensive, and for why this problem is so serious.

George and Glasgow briefly acknowledge the gate-keeping role of typical science teaching (`the obsession with preparing students for studying science at a higher level', p.33), but they advance another purpose for science teaching, the `concern for students to regard science as an integral part of daily living' (p.32), a key issue to emerge from Cobern's work as well (`developing scientific literacy can only be successful to the extent that science finds a niche in the cognitive and cultural milieu of students', p.3).

Bill Cobern's scholarly 166-page, reference-rich, Everyday thoughts about nature provides extensive empirical data and arguments to illuminate the inner thought structures (worldviews) of some grade nine students and their teachers. To match the author's excellent research and writing, Kluwer Academic Publishers could have been more vigilant about minor technical errors in the book and could have been more generous with the index. The book's 11 chapters are logically organised into three sections:

1. The theoretical framework for Cobern's research programme includes Kearney's (1984) worldview scheme (with references to other parallel research programmes in the literature), conceptions of nature and scientific literacy, and Cobern's interpretive research methodology.

2. Fifteen assertions (claims) are warranted by data, thoughtfully summarised and logically discussed over several chapters, each with a different focus (science and conceptualisations of nature; gender and conceptualisations of nature; the environment, science and religion; and science teachers' talk about nature compared with students' talk). The results are judiciously supplemented by data from an earlier pilot study undertaken with university nursing students.

3. The last section contains three chapters: recommendations for future research (e.g. the need to know more about theoretical notions such as border crossing), a summary of the results and findings, and implications for science teaching.

Thirty-six pages of appendices provide a coherent picture of each participant. From these portraits come the excerpts that support the book's 15 assertions in section 2. The last appendix gives specific directions on how to replicate the interviews.

Cobern's research programme fits within a broader effort called the `Scientific Literacy and Cultural Studies Project' (SLCSP). Thus, he includes assumptions and principles taken from that wider project to create a context for the book's research content. For instance, the SLCSP affirms the importance of a humanistic approach with students (know students as people, thus listen seriously to their voices). As was the case with George and Glasgow, SLCSP has intellectual roots in conceptual change and in a cultural perspective on learning and teaching science.

As with George and Glasgow's work, Cobern's results give cause for personal reflection by all science educators. Here are some highlights from section 2. The seemingly homogeneous group of grade 9 students in Arizona turns out to possess highly divergent worldviews, in spite of their community's common interest in environmental issues. Conventional science teaching tends to mask or ignore this diversity. When the students talked in depth about nature, most of them hardly mentioned science at all. Science was essentially irrelevant to their everyday world of nature. The extent to which science was relevant to students' thoughts about nature (Cobern's definition of scientific literacy) seemed to be unrelated to students' grades in their science course. In other words, the students' academic 'success' was generally unrelated to their scientific literacy. Students' idiosyncratic orientations to nature, fundamentally grounded in a stable personal worldview, had much more meaning for them than a science-oriented approach to nature represented by the science teachers' worldviews. School science was largely irrelevant to most of these students. These findings reinforce many other studies worldwide (e.g. Science Council of Canada ,1984), many of which gave momentum to an STS approach to science teaching.

Interestingly, there were few gender differences detected by Cobern, a result that may have more to do with the particular group of 16 participants, than with discrepant inferences drawn from large- scale gender studies. Religion was a priority topic in many students' conversations about nature. A religious posture was not necessarily related (negatively or positively) to a scientific understanding of nature.

Students tended to privilege an environmental awareness but this too was not related to the degree to which students included science in their view of nature. Science was largely irrelevant to gaining an environmental conscience.

As would be expected, the four science teachers spoke about science in much greater breadth and depth than their students did. During their conversations about nature, the teachers did mention religious and spiritual ideas to a small degree. In addition, the teachers' worldviews differed along scientific discipline lines (two taught physical sciences and two taught biological sciences). This difference, however, may be due to the uniqueness of the four participants. But then again, perhaps different scientific disciplines are attractive to people with slightly different worldviews, a topic Cobern recommended for further study.

The major result for Cobern was the enormous difference between the teachers' worldviews about nature and those of most of the students. I have personally found this discrepancy to be useful to my pre-service science teachers who wonder why high school students did not learn what my students had taught them during a school internship. I have used the concept map versions of Cobern's results (not found in the book because of space limitations no doubt, but acquired at his NARST presentations over the years; e.g. maps by Howard, Ann, Art, and Mr. Hess). The concept maps quickly stimulated my university students into acknowledging the depth to which their own worldviews are discordant with most of their high school students' worldviews. This challenged them to reflect on the purposes of science education, and the dilemma posed by Cobern:

Should science education seek to educate `scientific thinkers' in the pattern of the teachers? Is that what scientific literacy means? Or, should science education seek to foster sound science learning within the matrices of various cultural perspectives? (p.4)

Cobern supports the latter point of view when he talks about `science education de-formalized and cross-connected', and about students 'integrating' scientific concepts into their everyday thinking.

George and Glasgow approach the same issue but they avoid the dichotomy posed by Cobern. They recommend that science teachers promote mental switching between the specialised counter-intuitive world of conventional science and the intuitive everyday world of traditional knowledge. Cobern does hint at George and Glasgow's notion of integration at one point when he discusses border crossing.

Both books emphasise the question: How can a teacher make science accessible to students whose personal worldview is at odds with the worldview of that teacher? Perhaps we should be embracing a broader cultural perspective by asking: how can a science teacher affirm and strengthen a student's cultural identity reflected in the student's worldview?

Reader beware! Both of these questions innocently masquerade as education issues, but in fact the questions are political, challenging the conventional social purpose of schooling (i.e. screening out students who are not clones of their science teachers). Both books acknowledge that their recommendations go against the conventional screening function of school science, but neither book discusses the controversial and political nature of those recommendations. Pedagogical and curriculum change will certainly reconfigure the power, privilege, and prestige currently enjoyed by the status quo (Fensham, 1992). In the real world of teaching, pedagogy-curriculum and politics are inextricably integrated (Fensham, 1998; Roberts, 1988).

The exemplary research methodologies of both research programmes deserve recognition because they can guide other researchers in acquiring highly trustworthy data. Space did not allow George and Glasgow to discuss their methodology, so the reader needs to consult George (1999) for the type of research details found in Cobern's book. Both research programmes employed in-depth semi-structured interviews, but their contexts differed. Cobern's context was purposefully neutral with respect to science, while George and Glasgow's context purposefully probed connections in participants' minds between their traditional knowledge and the content of conventional science. Both took great pains to obtain the most authentic data humanly possible. Because Cobern's book offers a wealth of skilfully acquired, complex data, other researchers can confidently draw on those data to augment their own research studies.

Both research programmes respected the importance of connecting school science with students' everyday lives. It is not surprising therefore that both were influenced by the seminal work of David Layton and colleagues at Leeds (1993), whose research focussed on how science content is used, if at all, by people in the everyday world who need to resolve issues potentially related to science.

Do we need two more books explaining why most students find secondary school science largely irrelevant to their personal lives? Yes, I believe we do because each book in its own way sheds new light on why science educators need to show more respect for students' diverse worldviews. We all benefit from acquiring new ideas, especially when they arise from elegantly crafted research programmes dedicated to fresh, in-depth analyses of students' experiences in science classrooms.

REFERENCES

AIKENHEAD, G.S. (1996) Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52.

FENSHAM, P (1992) Science and technology. In PW Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 789-829.

FENSHAM, P (1998) The politics of legitimating and marginalizing companion meanings: Three case studies. In D.A. Roberts & L. Ostman (Eds.), Problems of making meaning in science curriculum New York: Teachers College Press, 178-192.

GEORGE, J. (1999) World view analysis of knowledge in a rural village: Implications for science education. Science Education, 83, 77-95.

JEGEDE, O.J. (1995) Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Africa. Studies in Science Education, 25, 97-137.

KEARNEY, M. (1984) World view. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers.

LAYTON, D., JENKINS, E., MACGILL, S., & DAVEY, A. (1993) Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton, Driffield, East Yorkshire: Studies in Education Ltd.

ROBERTS, D.A. (1988) What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education. New York: The Falmer Press, 27-54.

SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA (1984) Science for every student: Educating Canadians for tomorrow's world (Report No.36). Ottawa, Canada: Science Council of Canada.

Contact address:

Dept.of Curriculum Studies

College of Education

University of Saskatchewan

28 Campus Drive

Saskatoon

Canada S7N 0X1

Copyright University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education 2001

----

The best of science, space, and technology from RedNova

More News in this Category