Perhaps.....too..... we should help pupils evaluate some of the weaknesses in current Scientific theory too.....
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?
----- Original Message ----
From: puni selva <shiya
...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: learning-science-conce
...@yahoogroups.co.uk
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 <ks...@cam.ac. 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>ks...@cam.ac. 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
> >>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. 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
...
