Perhaps the most nagging worry I have for science teachers (myself including) is that students will complete a course holding onto myths and misconceptions. Misconceptions about science concepts will be a conversation for another day and in a different place. However, there is an excellent essay about myths related to the Nature of Science written by Bill McComas. What I enjoy about this essay is that it so effectively draws upon history lessons to explain how we reached our current state of confusion.
I find the section on "scientific method" myth to be quite powerful. More than describing that the steps are just wrong, McComas helped me by understanding what led to this craziness. And in some ways, this is a good lesson in how to overcome misconceptions about science content. The combination of what is right AND what is wrong about the other idea advanced my understanding ... and hopefully that of my students.
Sometimes I think about scientific understanding as an object we can hold in o
ur hands. We use this concept (maybe it's a lens) to examine what we see. In order to get rid of an incorrect idea, we can't simply add to it. We must discard the wrong tool and replace it with the new one. And for the new one to prove its power, it should provide both a clearer explanation AND be useful for a wider set of events. For diagrams like this one to be powerful (sorry if it's too small to read but it's supposed to show that the "scientific method" doesn't proceed in a straight line) such illustrations must be strong enough to overshadow what was being used before.
Whether McComas intended to or not, I wonder whether we should not only teach the accurate information but give attention to the wrong ideas. The challenge with scientific misconceptions (e.g., the Sun is closer to the Earth in summer) may require pulling those naive ideas to the surface. Knowing what is wrong may be necessary to appreciate what make the better idea so superior. I suppose what might be worth considering when working with older students is that they can benefit from knowing why their ideas are wrong. It worked for me and my appreciation of the myth of the scientific method.
The multi-step list seems to have started innocently enough when Keeslar [in the 1940s] prepared a list of characteristics associated with scientific research. This list was refined into a questionnaire and submitted to research scientists for validation. Items that were highly ranked were put in a logical order. Textbook writers quickly adopted this list as the description of how science is done. In in the hands of generations of textbook writers, a simple list of characteristics associated with scientific research became a description of how all scientists work.
Sometimes I think about scientific understanding as an object we can hold in o
ur hands. We use this concept (maybe it's a lens) to examine what we see. In order to get rid of an incorrect idea, we can't simply add to it. We must discard the wrong tool and replace it with the new one. And for the new one to prove its power, it should provide both a clearer explanation AND be useful for a wider set of events. For diagrams like this one to be powerful (sorry if it's too small to read but it's supposed to show that the "scientific method" doesn't proceed in a straight line) such illustrations must be strong enough to overshadow what was being used before.Whether McComas intended to or not, I wonder whether we should not only teach the accurate information but give attention to the wrong ideas. The challenge with scientific misconceptions (e.g., the Sun is closer to the Earth in summer) may require pulling those naive ideas to the surface. Knowing what is wrong may be necessary to appreciate what make the better idea so superior. I suppose what might be worth considering when working with older students is that they can benefit from knowing why their ideas are wrong. It worked for me and my appreciation of the myth of the scientific method.
No comments:
Post a Comment