learning-science-concepts· Regarding aspects of learners' scientific conceptions; understanding the learning process; and facilitating science learning.
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner: learning-science-concepts-owner@...
Posted on the NARST list, for those who do not see it:
>
>Issue 12.2 of the Electronic Journal of Science Education is posted at:
>http://ejse.southwestern.edu/
>
>Michael
>
>--
>Michael Kamen
>Associate Professor and Chair
>Education Department
>Southwestern University
>P.O. Box 770
>Georgetown, TX 78627-0770
>(512) 863-1948
>(512) 863-1535 (FAX)
>kamenm@...
>www.southwestern.edu/~kamenm
>
>Electronic Journal of Science Education
>ejse@...
>ejse.southwestern.edu
>
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
Feb 2009 - bicentenary of Darwin's birth
Nov 2009 - On the Origin of Species turns 150
What an opportunity i. to show the children how a scientist goes about his
business and ii. to celebrate everything about Darwin.
As a starter look up http://www.darwin2009.cam.ac.uk/
Â
Â
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner:Â learning-science-concepts-owner@...
------------------------------------
About this list:
Purpose: an international forum for discussing aspects of learning in science,
and for circulating news about publications, projects, etc., related to this
theme.
Membership: open to teachers at any level, researchers into learning in science
and related fields, and any others interested in the topic.
This list gives you the choice of receiving e-mails individually, or as a single
daily digest of all messages circulated that day.
homepage:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
bookmarks to other sites:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
bibliography on learning in science
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This list is a moderated discussion group (ie postings are vetted for relevance
to the group theme).
Moderator: Dr. Keith Taber, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
to join an un-moderated general science education discussion list, please visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/science-education/
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: "learning-science-concepts@..."
<learning-science-concepts@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Saturday, 1 November, 2008 21:25:11
Subject: LSC: File - monthly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner: learning-science-concepts-owner@...
Applications are invited for an Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC]
+3 Research Studentship to undertake PhD study in the University of
Cambridge Faculty of Education on some topic linked to the work of the
epiSTEMe project (Effecting Principled Improvement in STEM Education:
Student Engagement and Learning in Early Secondary-School Physical Science
and Mathematics). This project forms part of the ESRC's Targeted Initiative
on Science and Mathematics Education.
The Research Studentship holder will work primarily on an independent study
associated with the project, but will have opportunities for involvement in
all aspects of the project's work relevant to supporting advanced research
training and career development. Supervision will be provided by one or
more of the project investigators: Professors Kenneth Ruthven, Christine
Howe, Neil Mercer, and Dr Keith Taber.
The studentship is available for up to 36 months, and the actual start date
is open to negotiation. The expectation is that the successful candidate is
likely to commence in October 2009, at the start of the 2009/10 academic
year. Other applicants will also be eligible to be considered for an ESRC
quota Research Studentship (3 available in the Faculty) and a Faculty
Research Studentship on similar terms (1 available) for an October 2009
start.
This award is subject to the standard terms and conditions for ESRC
Research Studentships. Candidates must also satisfy normal University and
Faculty requirements for PhD study. Details of the Application Procedure
and Further Particulars of the Studentship are available at
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/about/jobs/#Studentship.
Any enquiries should be directed to Emma Rixon (er206@...) in the
Faculty's Higher Degrees office.
Closing Date for Applications: 15 December 2008
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
>
> Journal: Foundations of Chemistry
>
>
> Volume 10, Number 3 / October, 2008 (10th anniversary edition)
> First special issue on papers from ISPC 2007 Symposium
>
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m41p713w33m8/?
p=f008efaf99eb47dfbdbc2114ce7dd60c&pi=0
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Editorial 30
> Eric Scerri
>
> ISPC 2007 editorial
> Tami I. Spector
>
> Fundamental theories and their empirical patches
> Jerome A. Berson
>
> Atom and aether in nineteenth-century physical science
> Alan F. Chalmers
>
> Theories of the chemical bond and its true nature
> G. K. Vemulapalli
>
> Implementation and innovation in total synthesis
> W. M. Goodwin
>
> Wilhelm Ostwald’s energetics 3: energetic theory and applications,
> part II
> Robert J. Deltete
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance, by Eric Scerri,
> Oxford University Press, 2007.
>
> http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Chemistry/?
> view=usa&ci=9780195305739
>
> Named as "Outstanding Academic Book for 2007" by Choice
> Library Magazine.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Collected Papers on the Philosophy of Chemistry, Imperial College
> Press, London, 2008.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Dr. Eric Scerri,
> Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry,
> UCLA
>
> http://faculty.chemistry.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?
> personnel_id=294334
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you know anyone in the science education area who may wish to
apply, please pass on.
Thank you
Keith
Research Studentships in Education
The Faculty of Education at Cambridge is a leading international
centre for research, with particular strengths in: school
development, leadership and improvement; education in languages, arts
and humanities; inequalities in education; psychology and
neuroscience; history of education; language and literacy; teacher
development at primary and secondary levels; educational uses of ICT;
and maths and science education. Studentships are available for
candidates whose research interests are in these main areas of
activity. A research studentship at Cambridge will allow you to work
closely with international experts in their field and be part of an
active and fast-developing research community.
In 2008-9 we will have 4 studentships available; 3 funded by the ESRC
and one by the Faculty. The studentships are for 4 years and cover
fees and a subsistence grant. To be eligible you need to be a citizen
of the EU and have at least an Upper Second Class Honours degree or
equivalent in a relevant subject.
For further information see:
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/courses/higherdegrees/funding/index.html
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner: learning-science-concepts-owner@...
I liked your final paragraph Eric!
Regards
Brian
Â
Brian E. Wakeman
Free-lance Educational Consultant
----- Original Message ----
From: eric_demoncheaux <eric_demoncheaux@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Tuesday, 30 September, 2008 18:28:23
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
Dear colleagues,
I thank you for your valuable comments. My view as Science Educator
and Scientist is indeed to keep an open mind while making sure my
pupils are given both side of the argument.
Assemblies where "Creation or Evolution" is discussed will often
lead to the debate been characterized as "Religion vs. Science".
However, they do not have to be in opposition. They are sometimes in
quite different fields of study, but sometimes actually in
parallel. Firstly (and far, far more importantly than the
Creationist red herring) there is the whole area of Science and
Social Responsibility. Scientific research is highly dangerous
unless it works with a moral compass: Why are we building a better
atom bomb ? should we research on these embryos ? etc etc. The new
GCSE Science syllabus is addressing this perspective in topics such
as the environment and human fertility treatments. By the same
token, my colleague teaching RS told me that a large section of
their GCSE RS course is called Religion and Medical Ethics. There
is no "versus" in any of this.
I personally believe that Creationism need not be a block over which
we need not stumble. The doctrine of Special Creation, and the
literal truth of Genesis, are beliefs which were held by Christians
until Darwin, by Christians whose knowledge was partial. Two
centuries before that, the Vatican was still teaching Ptolemaic
astronomy and threatening Galileo with the instruments of torture.
The huge majority of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
all. We are all seekers after truth, and we discover it inch by
inch.
Of course, I still have absolute – absolute – respect for those of
my Christian colleagues who hold different views. One day I will
stand before my Maker and He will chuckle at my feeble, imperfect
attempts to understand Him…
Dr E. Demoncheaux
Head of Science
Battle Abbey School
--- In learning-science- concepts@ yahoogroups. co.uk, John Oversby
<j.p.oversby@ ...> wrote:
>
> I, too, wish to thanks James for his comment. Recently, Anna
Cleaves and
> Rob Toplis reported that a significant majority of the science
teachers
> they questioned took a creationist stance about the origin of the
universe
> and evolution. One of my new secondary teacher education students
told me
> last week that creationism was scientific, he was convinced. I am
sure that
> there will be more if I probe a little. Of course, the position we
have in
> schools is very messy, as Keith illustrates below. Nevertheless,
it may
> well be very helpful to engage more with this discussion, not
least because
> I am very sad about how some senior scientists, and The Royal
Society, have
> treated Michael Reiss. My respect for his position, even though I
am an
> atheist, is very strong.
>
> John Oversby
>
> On Sep 30 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
>
> >I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
> >comment on these issue, and recognise the good
> >sense of much of what he is saying.
> >
> >I'd offer a brief observation:
> >
> >
> >At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:
> >
> >>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
> >>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
> >>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
> >>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.
> >
> >If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
> >not sure. 1) I think the language used in
> >classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
> >and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
> >2) teachers have to try to model scientific
> >language yet get quick clear messages across.
> >(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
> >as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
> >tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
> >that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
> >force that makes things fall when we drop them'
> >or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
> >science teachers would have no problem with that
> >use of belief.
> >(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
> >will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
> >particles' rather than always saying something
> >like 'scientists have found that modelling the
> >world as consisting of tiny particles offers
> >considerable explanatory power' - which surely
> >implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
> >deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
> >is just generation of language with a lot of
> >tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
> >caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
> >despite what James suggests ought to be - I
> >suspect many scientists and science teachers do
> >believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
> >'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.
> >
> >Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
> >and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
> >as consisting of tiny particles offers
> >considerable explanatory power' based on the
> >evidence available to me at this time, but as a
> >scientist I am in principle open to changing my
> >mind if I come to interpret the weight of
> >evidence available to me differently. (However,
> >as a science educator I also know that my current
> >understanding will influence how I interpret any
> >new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
> >rational to others.)
> >
> >So if James is suggesting that the best response
> >to a child offering questions and arguments from
> >a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
> >belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
> >not sure the distinction will be clear to most
> >pupils who probably consider much of what they
> >are told in science to be beliefs rather than
> >models. So I have much sympathy with James'
> >position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
> >criterion what would be clear to students.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> From John Oversby
> Institute of Education
> Reading University
> Reading
> RG6 1HY
> Tel 0118 378 5906
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear colleagues,
I thank you for your valuable comments. My view as Science Educator
and Scientist is indeed to keep an open mind while making sure my
pupils are given both side of the argument.
Assemblies where "Creation or Evolution" is discussed will often
lead to the debate been characterized as "Religion vs. Science".
However, they do not have to be in opposition. They are sometimes in
quite different fields of study, but sometimes actually in
parallel. Firstly (and far, far more importantly than the
Creationist red herring) there is the whole area of Science and
Social Responsibility. Scientific research is highly dangerous
unless it works with a moral compass: Why are we building a better
atom bomb ? should we research on these embryos ? etc etc. The new
GCSE Science syllabus is addressing this perspective in topics such
as the environment and human fertility treatments. By the same
token, my colleague teaching RS told me that a large section of
their GCSE RS course is called Religion and Medical Ethics. There
is no "versus" in any of this.
I personally believe that Creationism need not be a block over which
we need not stumble. The doctrine of Special Creation, and the
literal truth of Genesis, are beliefs which were held by Christians
until Darwin, by Christians whose knowledge was partial. Two
centuries before that, the Vatican was still teaching Ptolemaic
astronomy and threatening Galileo with the instruments of torture.
The huge majority of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
all. We are all seekers after truth, and we discover it inch by
inch.
Of course, I still have absolute – absolute – respect for those of
my Christian colleagues who hold different views. One day I will
stand before my Maker and He will chuckle at my feeble, imperfect
attempts to understand Him…
Dr E. Demoncheaux
Head of Science
Battle Abbey School
--- In learning-science-concepts@..., John Oversby
<j.p.oversby@...> wrote:
>
> I, too, wish to thanks James for his comment. Recently, Anna
Cleaves and
> Rob Toplis reported that a significant majority of the science
teachers
> they questioned took a creationist stance about the origin of the
universe
> and evolution. One of my new secondary teacher education students
told me
> last week that creationism was scientific, he was convinced. I am
sure that
> there will be more if I probe a little. Of course, the position we
have in
> schools is very messy, as Keith illustrates below. Nevertheless,
it may
> well be very helpful to engage more with this discussion, not
least because
> I am very sad about how some senior scientists, and The Royal
Society, have
> treated Michael Reiss. My respect for his position, even though I
am an
> atheist, is very strong.
>
> John Oversby
>
> On Sep 30 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
>
> >I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
> >comment on these issue, and recognise the good
> >sense of much of what he is saying.
> >
> >I'd offer a brief observation:
> >
> >
> >At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:
> >
> >>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
> >>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
> >>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
> >>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.
> >
> >If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
> >not sure. 1) I think the language used in
> >classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
> >and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
> >2) teachers have to try to model scientific
> >language yet get quick clear messages across.
> >(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
> >as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
> >tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
> >that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
> >force that makes things fall when we drop them'
> >or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
> >science teachers would have no problem with that
> >use of belief.
> >(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
> >will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
> >particles' rather than always saying something
> >like 'scientists have found that modelling the
> >world as consisting of tiny particles offers
> >considerable explanatory power' - which surely
> >implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
> >deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
> >is just generation of language with a lot of
> >tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
> >caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
> >despite what James suggests ought to be - I
> >suspect many scientists and science teachers do
> >believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
> >'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.
> >
> >Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
> >and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
> >as consisting of tiny particles offers
> >considerable explanatory power' based on the
> >evidence available to me at this time, but as a
> >scientist I am in principle open to changing my
> >mind if I come to interpret the weight of
> >evidence available to me differently. (However,
> >as a science educator I also know that my current
> >understanding will influence how I interpret any
> >new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
> >rational to others.)
> >
> >So if James is suggesting that the best response
> >to a child offering questions and arguments from
> >a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
> >belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
> >not sure the distinction will be clear to most
> >pupils who probably consider much of what they
> >are told in science to be beliefs rather than
> >models. So I have much sympathy with James'
> >position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
> >criterion what would be clear to students.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> From John Oversby
> Institute of Education
> Reading University
> Reading
> RG6 1HY
> Tel 0118 378 5906
>
I, too, wish to thanks James for his comment. Recently, Anna Cleaves and
Rob Toplis reported that a significant majority of the science teachers
they questioned took a creationist stance about the origin of the universe
and evolution. One of my new secondary teacher education students told me
last week that creationism was scientific, he was convinced. I am sure that
there will be more if I probe a little. Of course, the position we have in
schools is very messy, as Keith illustrates below. Nevertheless, it may
well be very helpful to engage more with this discussion, not least because
I am very sad about how some senior scientists, and The Royal Society, have
treated Michael Reiss. My respect for his position, even though I am an
atheist, is very strong.
John Oversby
On Sep 30 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
>I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
>comment on these issue, and recognise the good
>sense of much of what he is saying.
>
>I'd offer a brief observation:
>
>
>At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:
>
>>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
>>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
>>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
>>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.
>
>If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
>not sure. 1) I think the language used in
>classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
>and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
>2) teachers have to try to model scientific
>language yet get quick clear messages across.
>(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
>as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
>tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
>that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
>force that makes things fall when we drop them'
>or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
>science teachers would have no problem with that
>use of belief.
>(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
>will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
>particles' rather than always saying something
>like 'scientists have found that modelling the
>world as consisting of tiny particles offers
>considerable explanatory power' - which surely
>implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
>deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
>is just generation of language with a lot of
>tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
>caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
>despite what James suggests ought to be - I
>suspect many scientists and science teachers do
>believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
>'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.
>
>Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
>and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
>as consisting of tiny particles offers
>considerable explanatory power' based on the
>evidence available to me at this time, but as a
>scientist I am in principle open to changing my
>mind if I come to interpret the weight of
>evidence available to me differently. (However,
>as a science educator I also know that my current
>understanding will influence how I interpret any
>new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
>rational to others.)
>
>So if James is suggesting that the best response
>to a child offering questions and arguments from
>a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
>belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
>not sure the distinction will be clear to most
>pupils who probably consider much of what they
>are told in science to be beliefs rather than
>models. So I have much sympathy with James'
>position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
>criterion what would be clear to students.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
--
From John Oversby
Institute of Education
Reading University
Reading
RG6 1HY
Tel 0118 378 5906
I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
comment on these issue, and recognise the good
sense of much of what he is saying.
I'd offer a brief observation:
At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:
>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.
If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
not sure. 1) I think the language used in
classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
2) teachers have to try to model scientific
language yet get quick clear messages across.
(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
force that makes things fall when we drop them'
or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
science teachers would have no problem with that
use of belief.
(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
particles' rather than always saying something
like 'scientists have found that modelling the
world as consisting of tiny particles offers
considerable explanatory power' - which surely
implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
is just generation of language with a lot of
tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
despite what James suggests ought to be - I
suspect many scientists and science teachers do
believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.
Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
as consisting of tiny particles offers
considerable explanatory power' based on the
evidence available to me at this time, but as a
scientist I am in principle open to changing my
mind if I come to interpret the weight of
evidence available to me differently. (However,
as a science educator I also know that my current
understanding will influence how I interpret any
new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
rational to others.)
So if James is suggesting that the best response
to a child offering questions and arguments from
a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
not sure the distinction will be clear to most
pupils who probably consider much of what they
are told in science to be beliefs rather than
models. So I have much sympathy with James'
position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
criterion what would be clear to students.
Best wishes
Keith
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
I'd like to offer another view here if I may.
I am very interested in the creationism/evolution issue in schools. I
attend creationist meetings to find out about their point of view and
tactics. I talk to creationists to try and understand thier mindset
and try not to jump to judgements about the issues which can be very
sensitive ones for children, parents and some teachers.
Michael Reiss knows where I stand on this issue and in general our
positions are not far apart at all. Leaving aside the conduct of the
RS in this matter, the issue seems to boil down to WHERE creationism
is addressed, and addressed it should be, in schools.
There already exists in schools a place for this to happen, RE.
Indeed, one of the creationist organisations has had opportunity to
put forward its view on the subject of creation vs evolution in a
schools programme in RE. Paul taylor who openly derides science
education and calls for the creationist opposing view to be presented
in science (he is a former state science teacher) appears in this
programme. The unit in the RE scheme of work exists in year 9 to
discuss issues of science vs religion and origins as well as the big
bang an evolution and opposing viewpoints. Yet he never tells his
congregation that he has prticipated in this programme and that the
creationist viewpoint can openly be discussed in KS3 and beyond in
all state schools.
So my question to all creationists is, given that the opportunity
denied them in the USA is not an issue in UK schools, i.e. the
discussion of their views and their religious standpoint in RE
lessons, why do they spend so much time pushing their congregation to
challenge science and science teachers?
I hear plenty of creationist pseudoscience about 'challenge your
science teacher to explain how something camne from
nothing'; 'challenge your science teacher to explain how evolution
cannot produce a single transitional fossil'; 'challenge your science
teacher to explain how evolution is able to explain the origin of
complexity and the increases in information in DNA required to
produce new species?'
The reason that they are encouraging attacks to 'science' is that in
reality it is not about a genuine discussion of the issues (they have
that officially in the school curriculum). It is about the pushing of
their views into other subjects so that their minority view
is 'respected' and discussed in all areas. They are quite open on
this. This want ALL education to be from a biblical standpoint with
the authority of the Bible being the authority and word of all
subjects.
The fact is that context is very important in school science. When
children discuss what they have done in school it is related to the
subject; 'today we did this in science' 'we did this in technology'
etc etc. What the creationist movement wishes is for their viewpoint
to reside within science so that it is, in the minds of children,
linked with science. Their books and pamphlets are also about this
linking of good science and creationism (e.g. their books on
dinosaurs filled with good science and nonsense such as T.rex in the
garden of Eden and humans and dinosaurs co-existing with dinosaurs on
the ark.
Creationists know that discussing creationism in RE (where I believe
it belongs) is not enough, it must pervade all areas of the school
curriculum if they are to 'convert' the godless (me included).
My answer to 'what do you do when a child brings up creationism in
science' is quite simple.
Creationism is about your faith and belief. Science is not about
faith or belief, it is about the aceptance of evidence. beliefs are
often irrational and without evidence, science cannot deal with this
issue, in the same way that science cannot deal with other issues of
faith and belief such as how many Gods are there really? Or which
religion is the 'true' one. These are maters for RE not science.
We don't talk in science about belief in gravity or atoms. Science is
about our understanding of the natural world and does not deal with
the supernatural.
In essence science does not need to be a challenge to faith or
belief. I accept evolution because of the weight of evidence for it
(in the same way as I accept gravity and atoms). I may still believe
in a God (a personal one perhaps) that may be irrational to Dawkins
and others but that's my belief.
Evolution is not about the oprtigin of life, it is about the
diversity and development of life. Evolution is no challenge to any
faith.
My apologies for the long post, but there is a lot to 'unpack' in
this issue.
James Williams
University of Sussex
James.Williams@...
--- In learning-science-concepts@..., Brian wakeman
<brianwakeman@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Dewey......wise counsel.....
>
> Brian
> Â
> Brian E. Wakeman
> Free-lance Educational Consultant
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dewey Dykstra <ddykstra@...>
> To: learning-science-concepts@...
> Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 23:43:08
> Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
>
>
> 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@boisestate .edu
> 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
> Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
> <http://www.boisesta te.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.
> ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Thank you for this Dewey......wise counsel.....
Brian
Â
Brian E. Wakeman
Free-lance Educational Consultant
----- Original Message ----
From: Dewey Dykstra <ddykstra@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 23:43:08
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
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@boisestate .edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
<http://www.boisesta te.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.
++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes thank you Keith for your helpful TES article.
Perhaps.....too..... we should help pupils evaluate some of the weaknesses in
current Scientific theory too.....
Are we sure that 'sowing seeds of doubt' is a noble educational objective?
Getting students to question , compare perspectives, and evaluate alternative
ideas is very much part of the RE classroom........but should that be the case
in the Science lab?
Reflectively,
Brian
Regards
Â
Brian E. Wakeman
Free-lance Educational Consultant
----- Original Message ----
From: puni selva <shiyammy@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 23:19:16
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
Keith
Thank you for your great contribution to Science Education.
Puni
----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <kst24@.... uk>
To: learning-science- concepts@ yahoogroups. co.uk
Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 22:43:06
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
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
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <<mailto:kst24% 40cam.ac. uk>kst24@.... uk>
>To:
><mailto:learning- science-concepts %40yahoogroups. co.uk>learning-science-
concepts@ yahoogroups. co.uk
>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.>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.>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.>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>http://royalsociety
>>>.org/><http://royalsociety>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
>Â >>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
>>Â >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.>http://www.educ. cam.ac.uk/ staff/taber. html
><http://people.>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.>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]
>
>
--
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]
------------ --------- --------- ------
About this list:
Purpose: an international forum for discussing aspects of learning in science,
and for circulating news about publications, projects, etc., related to this
theme.
Membership: open to teachers at any level, researchers into learning in science
and related fields, and any others interested in the topic.
This list gives you the choice of receiving e-mails individually, or as a single
daily digest of all messages circulated that day.
homepage:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/learning- science-concepts /
bookmarks to other sites:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/learning- science-concepts /links
bibliography on learning in science
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/learning- science-concepts /files/
This list is a moderated discussion group (ie postings are vetted for relevance
to the group theme).
Moderator: Dr. Keith Taber, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
http://www.educ. cam.ac.uk/ staff/taber. html
to join an un-moderated general science education discussion list, please visit:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/science- education/
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nicely put, John.
Â
I assume that the spelling 'mistake' was intended............
Â
Regards
Sue
Â
Dr Sue Howarth
Senior Lecturer in Science Education
University of Worcester
Â
Â
Â
Â
--- On Fri, 26/9/08, John Oversby <j.p.oversby@...> wrote:
From: John Oversby <j.p.oversby@...>
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Date: Friday, 26 September, 2008, 11:24 AM
The Royal Society formal position, as is that of Michael Reiss and The
Association for Science Education, is that creationism is not scientific
and is not part of the science curriulum. If a learner raises a creationist
position in class, this presents a golden opportunity to identify and
discuss the components of what makes an approach scientific, in a way that
is not dismissive but is one that seeks to teach the learner about
scientific positions. This was the position of Michael Reiss, and it is
mine, but it seems from the response of some scientits (not Lord Winston or
Roland Jackson of the BA) that any discussion in science should be simply
dismissed. This simply entrenches original positions and prevents further
learning.
John Oversby
On Sep 25 2008, Demoncheaux Eric wrote:
>so, should we or should we not?
>
>Dr E. Demoncheaux
>
>Â
>
>
>
--
From John Oversby
Institute of Education
Reading University
Reading
RG6 1HY
Tel 0118 378 5906
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Royal Society formal position, as is that of Michael Reiss and The
Association for Science Education, is that creationism is not scientific
and is not part of the science curriulum. If a learner raises a creationist
position in class, this presents a golden opportunity to identify and
discuss the components of what makes an approach scientific, in a way that
is not dismissive but is one that seeks to teach the learner about
scientific positions. This was the position of Michael Reiss, and it is
mine, but it seems from the response of some scientits (not Lord Winston or
Roland Jackson of the BA) that any discussion in science should be simply
dismissed. This simply entrenches original positions and prevents further
learning.
John Oversby
On Sep 25 2008, Demoncheaux Eric wrote:
>so, should we or should we not?
>
>Dr E. Demoncheaux
>
>Â
>
>
>
--
From John Oversby
Institute of Education
Reading University
Reading
RG6 1HY
Tel 0118 378 5906
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Keith
Thank you for your great contribution to Science Education.
Puni
----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <kst24@...>
To: learning-science-concepts@...
Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 22:43:06
Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
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
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <<mailto:kst24%40cam.ac.uk>kst24@...>
>To:
><mailto:learning-science-concepts%40yahoogroups.co.uk>learning-science-concepts\
@yahoogroups.co.uk
>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.>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.>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.>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>http://royalsociety
>>>.org/><http://royalsociety>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
>Â >>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
>>Â >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.>http://www.educ. cam.ac.uk/ staff/taber. html
><http://people.>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.>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]
>
>
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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]
------------------------------------
About this list:
Purpose: an international forum for discussing aspects of learning in science,
and for circulating news about publications, projects, etc., related to this
theme.
Membership: open to teachers at any level, researchers into learning in science
and related fields, and any others interested in the topic.
This list gives you the choice of receiving e-mails individually, or as a single
daily digest of all messages circulated that day.
homepage:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
bookmarks to other sites:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
bibliography on learning in science
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This list is a moderated discussion group (ie postings are vetted for relevance
to the group theme).
Moderator: Dr. Keith Taber, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
to join an un-moderated general science education discussion list, please visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/science-education/
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Dr. Keith S. Taber <<mailto:kst24%40cam.ac.uk>kst24@...>
>To:
><mailto:learning-science-concepts%40yahoogroups.co.uk>learning-science-concepts\
@yahoogroups.co.uk
>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.>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.>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.>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>http://royalsociety
>>>.org/><http://royalsociety>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.>http://www.educ. cam.ac.uk/ staff/taber. html
><http://people.>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.>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]
>
>
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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]
so, should we or should we not?
Dr E. Demoncheaux
Â
----- 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]
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.htmlhttp://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]
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/) 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
I agree. It is sad to see this move made by such a historic and
prestigious scientific society. BUT, it strikes me that this can be
understood in the context of the folk theory of science teaching
practiced so widely and thoroughly. The folk theory goes like this:
Science teaching is the presentation of the established canon by
approved methods for the benefit of the deserving.
Every failure of science education and destructive science education
policy can be traced back to this folk theory. Sadly the evidence of
these failures and destructive policies is legion. Much of the
evidence has been revealed in peer reviewed settings for at least the
last 40 years in science education research literature.
Unfortunately, there have been 'successes.' In particular we have
done a remarkably successful job at entrenching the folk theory and
its implications as to the nature of scientific knowledge and how it
is 'learned,' such that the folk theory is like the air we breathe.
Most simply are unaware of it. Alternatives do not exist in their
minds.
Dewey
On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:49 AM, shiyammy wrote:
> Very sad to hear what RS has asked Prof Reiss to do.
> This opportunity should be used as a moment of self-appraisal as
> far as
> propogation of scientific ideas goes.
> All scientists have an obligation to convey their findings(not only
> about evolution) to the public. There is one effective way(teachers,
> cognitive psychologists and many man-on-the-street know) how this can
> be done: MAKING BRIDGES between new knowledge and old knowledge.
> Right now one major area is educating all human beings on sustainable
> environment - we have to ensure the learning/teaching bridges have no
> gaps!
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Very sad to hear what RS has asked Prof Reiss to do.
This opportunity should be used as a moment of self-appraisal as far as
propogation of scientific ideas goes.
All scientists have an obligation to convey their findings(not only
about evolution) to the public. There is one effective way(teachers,
cognitive psychologists and many man-on-the-street know) how this can
be done: MAKING BRIDGES between new knowledge and old knowledge.
Right now one major area is educating all human beings on sustainable
environment - we have to ensure the learning/teaching bridges have no
gaps!
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/) 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.
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner: learning-science-concepts-owner@...
The following post is available at the University of Cambridge, UK
Research Associate
Salary: £25,888-£33,780 pa
Limit of tenure: up to 38 months from 01.11.2008
Applications are invited for a Research Associate
position available for up to 38 months from 1
November 2008, starting date negotiable. The
postholder will work on an ESRC-funded research
project, 'Effecting Principled Improvement in
STEM Education: Student Engagement and Learning
in Early Secondary-School Physical Science and
Mathematics', which forms part of the ESRC's
Targeted Research Initiative on Science and
Mathematics Education. Under the leadership of
Profs. Kenneth Ruthven, Christine Howe, Neil
Mercer and Dr. Keith Taber, and working with
another Research Associate, the post-holder will
join a research team collaborating with 20
teacher co-researchers to design and evaluate a
theorised teaching intervention, using a variety
of research methods. For this position, expertise
in quantitative methods and statistical analysis
is particularly important.
The position requires a PhD in Education,
Psychology, or a cognate area, or equivalent
research training, experience and achievement.
Fuller details of post responsibilities and
person specifications are provided in the further
particulars. The successful candidate will be
required to obtain a CRB enhanced disclosure.
Informal enquiries should be made to the Project
Director (Prof. Kenneth Ruthven) on
kr18@....
Further details and application procedure are
available at
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/about/jobs/#JR03978.
Closing Date: 15 September 2008
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
The email to group members:
Dear Colleagues,
It is a real pleasure for me to inform you about the electronic
journal IJESE (International Journal of Environmental and
Science Education).
The IJESE is peer-reviewed educational journal publishing articles in
the field of environmental and science education. Since it will be a
full-featured online-only journal, articles can be quickly published
and made available to researchers worldwide.
The IJESE will publish a wide range of research papers, as well as
research summaries and general interest articles in closely related
disciplines. The journal will also publish book reviews, teaching
materials, conversation/interviews and opinion papers.
The Editorial Board welcomes original scientific papers addressing
the issues of environmental and science education.
If you wish to publish an article please contact me the following
email addresses: <mailto:editorijese@...>editorijese@...
& <mailto:ijese@...>ijese@...
Detailed background information on the submission of papers and
reviews can be found at the IJESE website:
<http://www.ijese.com/>http://www.ijese.com/
Best wishes
Huseyin Bag, Ph.D.
Editor
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education
<mailto:E-mail%3Aeditorijese@...>E-mail:editorijese@...
--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.htmlhttp://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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The learning-science-concepts list is intended as a forum for discussion for
teachers, researchers and others who are interested in aspects of learning in
science. Particular themes might be: alternative conceptions in science;
modeling the learning process; scaffolding learning; developing and critiquing
teaching analogies and models. Suitable postings might include observations
about learners' conceptions; news of relevant publications; consideration of
problematic aspects of learning science; information about teaching materials,
curriculum or research projects. The list has a web-site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
To post a message, send an e-mail to
learning-science-concepts@...
Group members may opt to receive messages as separate e-mails, or a daily
collated message, or to only have access to messages via the web-site. To read
the latest message on the web, or to search the archive of messages, go to
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/messages
The group has a links (electronic 'bookmarks') page at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
This includes links under the following headings:
* Articles and papers on the web - papers relating to aspects of learning in
science
* Archives and Portals - Web-based resource archives, and portals to web-based
resources
* Bibliographical info. - Details of books of interest - as reported on
web-sites
* Discussion lists - Discussion lists relevant to learning in science
* Journals - Home pages of journals carrying material relevant to science
education
* Organisations - Organisations concerned with science education, or with
science and its communication, educational research etc.
* People and places - Science education centres, etc.
* Research Projects - Research projects related to learning in science
* Science Education resource links - Links to sites where science teaching and
learning resources can be accessed
The group also has a files page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
This can be used to make papers available for download.
To contact the list moderator, Dr. Keith Taber, e-mail:
List owner: learning-science-concepts-owner@...
Send Email
Offline 
Online Now 
