Keith's suggestion about sowing seeds is fundamentally sound. The
decision to change one's mind and what to change it to can only be
made by the person her or him self. Confrontation person to person,
esp when there is a power asymmetry, is the best way to cause someone
to 'dig in' instead of engaging in a real interaction, eliminating any
possible meeting of the minds.

We owe students respect. Without this, little if any change in their
understanding will happen. They and we need to learn that respect does
not mean agreement. While many would claim that we as teachers are
supposed to present the established canon as if it is some kind of
unchallengeable truth to the students, our real mission is to engage
students in making sense of their world, but making and testing
explanations against the evidence at hand. Whether a certain
conceptual change happens or not, experiencing this process we use as
scientists will have far more lasting effect and sow more seeds of
change than anything else we can do.

Pushing one's version of the truth generally results in zero change in
understanding on the part of the intended recipients of this supposed
truth. It is easy to see that this is the result of typical, present
the canon, science teaching. Just look at the bibliography on
students conceptions kept at Univ of Kiel. ( <
http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
>). It literally has thousands of published works in refereed
journals. All of these works support this contention.

As long as we act as if there is a superior truth we know and insist
the students agree with, the students will never experience knowing
this process we claim to use as scientists. If they never experience
the process, how can we even begin to expect that they will use any
aspect in their lives? If they never come to use the process in
making sense of their world, why should we expect any better world
than we have seen in the last few years--wars for no good reason,
politics where if you repeat something often enough it becomes 'true'
regardless of any lack of basis in fact, etc.? (Sorry I let US
politics and world economy spill in here.)

Dewey


On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:

> In my view, there is little question that educationally we should
> engage with children's ideas, both to show their ideas the respect we
> want them to show ours, and because conceptual change is not likely
> otherwise.
>
> I accept that in this case, with pupils who are committed to
> creationist beliefs, discussion is unlikey to change their minds, but
> it may sow more of a seed of doubt than either denying their input or
> simply telling them that their ideas are inadmissible or just
> crazy/stupid/ignornat, etc.
>
> Keith
>
>
>> so, should we or should we not?
>>
>> Dr E. Demoncheaux
>>
>>


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Ph. D. Phone: (208)426-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)426-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)426-4330
Boise State University ddykstra@...
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
<http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/Dykstra/Dyks.html>

"The problem in science is you never get to see the yak!"
--D. Dykstra, Science for Monks Project, 2006.

"...a physics major has to be trained to use today's physics whereas
a physics teacher has to be trained to see a development of physical
theories in his students' minds." -- H. Niedderer in
"International Conference on Physics Teachers' Education Proceedings"
Dortmund: University of Dortmund, p. 151, 1992.

"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for
this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in
need of
freedom; without this the plant goes to wreck and ruin without fail."
--A.
Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes," 1949.

"Now there are two theorems that form together the cardinal hinge on
which the whole structure of physical science turns. These theorems
are: (1) THERE IS A REAL OUTER WORLD WHICH EXISTS
INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR ACT OF KNOWING, and, (2) THE REAL
OUTER WORLD IS NOT DIRECTLY KNOWABLE." --M. Planck in
"Where Is Science Going?," 1932. (EMPHASIS in the original)

"As a result of modern research in physics, the ambition and hope,
still cherished by most authorities of the last century, that physical
science could offer a photographic picture and true image of reality
had to be abandoned." --M. Jammer in "Concepts of Force," 1957.

"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make
reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot distinguish
what is real about the universe without a theory...it makes no sense
to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what
reality is independent of a theory."--S. Hawking in "Black Holes
and Baby Universes" 1993.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++