so, should we or should we not?

Dr E. Demoncheaux

 



----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <kst24@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Saturday, 20 September, 2008 11:40:36
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision


An unusual week in that how science teachers should respond to
students' thinking was major news in the UK!

Thank you to colleagues who expressed support for my sentiments in
the letter to Times Educational Supplement (TES) about the Royal
Society (the premiere scientific society of the UK) parting company
with its Education Director rather than support him and the work of
science teachers.

For those of you outside of the UK, an edited version
(http://www.tes. co.uk/article. aspx?storycode= 6002661#) of the TES
letter was published (I copied the full version to the RS itself),
but there were also a number of other TES items sympathetic to
Michael's position:

"Unfortunately, his speech was misinterpreted by some fellow
scientists and colleagues at the Royal Society, who forced him out of
his post as director of education."
(http://www.tes. co.uk/article. aspx?storycode= 6002622)

"he was simply arguing that teachers should respect the beliefs of
students and treat them as a starting point for learning about the
scientific explanation for how life on earth developed. As many
science teachers will know, Professor Reiss's comments are in line
with the latest government guidelines on teaching about creationism
and intelligent design, issued last year. These are crystal clear and
state that "creationism and intelligent design are not part of the
science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be
taught as science". But they go on to say that questions about
creationism or intelligent design that arise in science lessons offer
a chance to explore why they are not considered to be scientific
theories, unlike evolution."
http://www.tes. co.uk/article. aspx?storycode= 6002664

Keith

>Well done Keith. You have my full support.
>
>John Oversby
>
>On Sep 17 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
>
>>Copy of email sent to the Times Educational Supplement
>>
>>I was saddened to learn of the Royal Society's decision (announced
>>today at <http://royalsociety .org/>http://royalsociety .org/) to ask
>>Prof. Michael Reiss to
>>stand down form his post as Director of Education following
>>widespread coverage of remarks he made about teaching evolution to
>>students with creationist world-views. The gist of Prof. Reiss'
>>argument was that the appropriate response to students who raise
>>their beliefs in class when they are taught the scientific theory of
>>natural selection should not be to ignore, dismiss or ridicule the
>>students' views, but rather to respect their ideas as a starting pint
>>for discussion, and to challenge them through the scientific
>>arguments that have led to evolution by natural selection becoming
>>some a strongly supported and widely accepted model for how life on
>>earth has developed.
>>
>>Prof. Reiss' comments are said to have damaged the reputation of the
>>Royal Society. As it seems accepted that, as Prof. Reiss has made it
>>absolutely clear, he was not suggesting teaching creationist ideas
>>(as some misleading media reports implied or suggested); and that his
>>views about the status of evolution (as a successful scientific
>>theory) and creationism (as something that is not scientifically
>>supported and so not a scientific theory or model) seem totally in
>>keeping with the broad scientific consensus, it is hard to see how
>>his comments are objectionable. If the mis-reporting was seen as
>>potentially damaging to the Royal Society, then it should have taken
>>the opportunity to use the widespread media interest to reiterate and
>>explain its own position.
>>
>>I can only conclude that what was found objectionable about Prof.
>>Reiss' position was that he was using his vast experience as a
>>science teacher and researcher of science classrooms to suggest that
>>certain approaches naively offered by some academic scientists with
>>no experience of teaching in the school system, are likely to be
>>ineffective. Rather, he draws upon the widely accepted,
>>evidence-based position adopted by most science educators, that the
> >best way to develop children's thinking is to give them the chance to
>>talk about their ideas, and to explore and understand why scientists
>>have come to understand things differently. This general principle is
>>central to science education, and is strongly supported by research
>>evidence: just as natural selection is in biology. It reflects the
>>scientific values of maintaining an open mind, and of considering and
>>evaluating evidence, that we hope to instill in students. Of course,
>>children with strong creationist views may not be prepared to
>>question their existing ideas if these are central to their cultural
>>and family identities: but Reiss' recommendations make more sense
>>than simply dismissing their ideas as irrelevant and telling them to
>>instead learn something that contradicts their own strong
>>convictions. Children's creationist views may be irrelevant to
>>science, but they are highly significant to both their learning of
>>the science, and their developing attitudes to science as a source of
>>reliable knowledge. Those FRS who decided to ignore this and call for
>>Reiss dismissal, seem to be forgetting that their own expertise is in
>>science, not schooling, which is presumably why they appointed a
>>science teacher and educational researcher to high office in the
>>Society.
>>
>>In summary, the decision to dismiss Reiss seems to suggests that some
>>academic scientists feel they know best in education, and are not
>>prepared to listen to experts informed by a different field of
>>research than their own. I fear that it will be this decision to sack
>>rather than explain which could bring the Royal Society in disrepute,
>>not the inaccurate reporting of a talk in the media. In my view, the
>>Royal Society has today done a disservice to science education in the
>>UK, and so indirectly to the future of science.
>>
>>
>
>--
>From John Oversby
>
>Institute of Education
>Reading University
>Reading
>RG6 1HY
>Tel 0118 378 5906
>
>

--
Dr. Keith S. Taber

http://www.educ. cam.ac.uk/ staff/taber. html
http://people. pwf.cam.ac. uk/kst24/

University Senior Lecturer in Science Education

Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom

to join an electronic discussion list on
learning in science
please visit
http://uk.groups. yahoo.com/ group/learning- science-concepts

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]