|
ABOUT THE BES | CONTACT US | HOW TO JOIN | LOG IN | SITE MAP | HELP | |
|
|
|
||
|
 AREA OF INTEREST: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 Home |
||||
| Journals & Publications |
||||
| Education & Careers |
||||
| Meetings |
||||
| Grants & Prizes |
||||
| News |
||||
| Specialist Groups |
||||
| Membership |
||||
| Public Affairs |
||||
| Beyond the BES |
||||
 |
|
Home
> Education & Careers
> resources
> teg
> Issue 24
> TEG Issue 24: Educating Ecologists by Malcolm McElhone
|
||||||
|
Electronic TEGPublished in TEG news issue 24, 1998, by the British Ecological Society. Educating Ecologistsby Malcolm McElhone
By doubting theoretical insights, we question and by questioning, it is possible to perceive the truth. In science, stronger theories are those that have withstood severe testing. For example, a contrast can be made between the theory of evolution by natural selection which has withstood one hundred and thirty years of unsuccessful refutation (Mayr 1991) with that of the theory of spontaneous generation. Louie Pasteur carried out a great series of experiments that falsified the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. It is conceivable that even well tested journal theories may be conceivably refuted. The importance of discovery by creating and testing ecological theories in ecology is emphasised in Rigler and Peters (1995). In many ways, this book could be seen as an attack on orthodox teaching and research in ecology. History and the philosophy of science teach us that scientific theories are open to modification. A greater emphasis can be made both in scientific research and science education on how to improve theories through discovery, by testing and criticism. This involve most severely testing hypothesis, showing them to be wrong and creating of new improved ones. Karl Popper and his colleagues are famous for pointing out the difference between generalisations and hypotheses. Francis Bacon was mistaken when he supposed that theories can be simply read off from a collection of facts. He failed to grasp the importance of hypothesis testing, particularly the manner in which hypotheses guide interpretation of experimental data. The philosopher of science, Whewell stressed that the progress of science depends on the formation of fruitful hypothesis. Progress is piecemeal and the element of truth in a hypothesis in the useful guide for future research. Researching and learning are two very similar activities, both involve the discovery of something new. In research, this may involve something formerly unknown such as the discovery of the structure of DNA. In an educational setting, while the teacher may have a partial to good notion of the theory of the structure of DNA, the pupils' notions, if any, is small and hence what is learnt is a discovery of some kind. Most orthodox science teaching is done by a method of transmission from teacher to student. Very often the student is a passive receiver of facts, figures, information and theory. This is, in many respects, similar to the view that facts can be read off from nature, if she is studied closely enough. That we receive a view of nature rather than create and examine our own. The former is the inductive approach centred upon the view that repetition of facts, usually over a very short period of time and limited space, serve as a basis for the justification of holding a theory to be true. This rather mechanical view of nature is untenable as it assumes that universe is completely determined, clockwork and void of surprises. Several discoveries in quantum mechanics and in ecology have well illustrated that the fabric of nature is somewhat indeterminate. In short, the past is an unreliable guide to the future so theories can never be made certain. However, it is still possible to get nearer the truth and improve theories. Due to insufficient or impossible grounds for justifying theories, Karl Popper suggests that the hypothetico-deductive system can be more fruitfully employed. This method involves analysis by explanation, by logically deducing the predictions of a theory. The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain, to clear up difficulties in understanding. Often a valuable hypothesis is achieved by some mental jump discoveries are rarely totally rational. Ideas are formalised into hypothesis and these intern guide experimentation or observation An experiment is planned in the light of an hypothesis in order to test it. Observations are made only because of some interest or expectation. The learning process in science, linked closely to the act of discovery, is based upon the idea that students actively seek and criticise scientific theories, rather than exploit them as is done in applied science such as bio-engineering. Popper argues that 'theories are the products of the human mind' .Our intellect does not draw laws from nature, but imposes its laws on nature. The intellect in science freely invents laws which it tries to impose upon nature with varying degrees of success (Popper 1984). Popper's view is that something comes from nothing, science is an attempt to introduce new forms into the universe. New forms with greater truth content. These new forms, new hypothesis, may put previous observations or facts in a new light. The key characteristic of the hypothesis is that it is critically testable, capable of being eliminated. Any hypothesis is a speculation about the truth: the necessity is that it is created in as a logically composed structure which can be tested and potentially shown to be wrong. As science is constantly in a state of flux, when we examine a particular hypothesis, a concise report evaluating the state of critical discussion can be made. No matter what orthodox science teaches us, there are always competing hypotheses, creation Vs evolution, Darwinism Vs Lamarkism. Science is healthier for this competitive struggle. The critical feature of a hypothesis is that it should solve a problem and be testable. Part of the inquiry process involves a consideration of how and to what extent the theory has been tested. It sometimes has to be acknowledged that special conditions may be necessary for a theory to be tested e.g. an eclipse. What is vital is that account is made of the manner in which theories have stood up to tests, the more stringent and ingenious the better. This is an evaluation of past performance. Popperian being indeterminists, consider theories not to be reliable guides to the future. The status of a theory in the scientific body of knowledge can be evaluated on the basis of the following questions. Firstly, does the theory predict anything? Does it predict more than its rivals and can the theory be shown to be wrong? Popper's ideas are quite radical. They aim to prevent degeneration in science by increasing competitiveness between rival theories. (See Bartley 1994 for a popperian critique of Western universities). My view is that even young learners of science can be encouraged to participate in creating theories that compete with orthodoxy. Their theories may be wrong , if they are prepared to see this and improve them then they will learn . This approach facilitates both creativity and rationality. According to Miller (1994), the rational agent is not the agent who gets things right, but the agent who is ready to correct mistakes, as far as she is able, where possible, the scientific knowledge and expertise available to him/her. He makes the admirable point that we all call on science not because we think it is reliable, but because we think it is true. As teachers we may know little bits and pieces of science, yet in our ignorance we are equal with our students. Less stress should be placed on rights of admission into science, this way domination of the intellectual market place is prevented and, hopefully, more inventiveness, more innovations are made. It maybe even possible to refute the odd theory or two. Science education should be aware of how it may often subordinate learning to teaching (Gattegno 1984). Often there is too much emphasis on the theoretical certainty and full empirical content of sciences like ecology. Students are expected to absorb a huge amounts of knowledge rather than critically engage and test out ideas. More emphasis might be placed as inspiring doubt and spotting the difference between opinion and what constitutes more scientific properties of ideas and theories. Much of our science needs revision and strengthening. Part of any scientific, educational process involves opening up awareness and inspiring students to creatively contribute to a body of knowledge, even in a small way. Some text books attempt draw students into questioning and problem solving modes of thinking (e.g. Krebs, 1994), but most standard text books are so frightening gloated with opinion and pseudo-science that even the freshest and keenest of mind may revolt or simply find something better to do. An understanding of ecological science has much to offer not only for those who see it a one part of a solution to environmental problem-solving, but for those who share with Popper the notion that science is one of the greatest spiritual endeavours created by civilisation. Indeed, the learning of ecology by inquiry, encourages the student to acquire highly relevant, transferable skills. Society and science have much to gain from those who see ecological science as a process of understanding that provokes contemplation, enquiry and dissent rather than a passive learning of our rather limited contemporary, and it has to be admitted somewhat unscientific view of the natural world. Hopefully ecology will not become another meaningless weasel word like social. Ecology by inquiry, by question and criticism can be taught in a Socratic approach as early as in the primary school ( See Fischer 1995 for some clues). To enhance free inquiry students ought to be taught to handle questions, select theories and appreciate the fallibility of science, and see it as exercise in trial and error rather than the pursuit of clarity and certainty. My arguments lead to a somewhat unorthodox pedagogy, yet one that stretches back to the dawn of civilisation in Greece. It is a pedagogy which islogically deducible from Popper's study of scientific methodology. Learners' actively create general theories which grown change and influence further thought and perceptions at all levels. The learning process is not about passively absorbing facts, figures, myths and theories but actively learning from experience by action and selection, modifying or selecting by a process of trial and error. Perkinson (1993) dares to challenge prevailing theories of education that teachers should be responsible for transmitting a fixed body of knowledge to students. He argues that we should take the critical approach to education, an approach based on Popper's theory of knowledge, that is, build upon the learner's prior knowledge and experience, deal with misconceptions, elicit a critical approach and correct and extend their knowledge. The general point made in his book is to remind education of human fallibility, science is human and hence science is fallible. Students can never have perfect skills or flawless knowledge, however ,what ever the level of their proficiency may be they can always improve. Emphasis is on improvement. As teachers of science we must encourage students to ask questions, work on problems and attempt to find solutions. This involves fostering a serious investigative spirit, watching progress that is made in handling questions under investigation and seeing how new light is shed upon them. Gattegno argues that this approach avoids fragmentation that results from over analysis, enhances integration and avoids irrelevancies. The end is not authoritative and final but a pregnant formulation of what reality must be informed of - a multitude of stimulating challenges which require examination and testing. The first educable trait in the learner is that we all accept many opinions without critical examination and this requires a critical attitude. The teacher realises that the role played is one small part of the transformation process of the learners' state of knowing. The greatest gift a science teacher can give to students is the confidence and skills to ask questions and become an autonomous learner (see Baume 1994) and to convince learners that ecological education, any education, is an adventure in discovery of the known by the unknown. Much of this is done by fostering a critical attitude to counter as much intellectual error as possible. It is on this principle that we should organise our courses and institutions. Once this is acknowledge by a sufficient number of ecological science teachers and researchers, we can stop apologising to everybody and get on with the very necessary task of teaching and creating ecological theories that take us nearer the truth. ReferencesBartley, W.W. III (1990), Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the Wealth of Nations. Open Court. La Salle, Illinois. Baume, D. (1994), Developing Learner Autonomy. SEDA paper, 84. Gattegno, C. (1971) What we owe children: the subordination of teaching tolearning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Perkinson, H. J. (1993) Teachers without goals/students without purpose. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Fischer, R. (1995). Socratic Education. Thinking. The Journal of Philosophy for Children 12, 3, 23-29. Krebs, C.J. (1994) Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Addison Wesley. Longman, Inc. Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genius of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Penguin Books. Miller, D. (1994) Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Open Court. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois. Rigler, F. H. and Peters, R. H. (1995) Science and Limnology. Ecology Institute, D-21385 Odendorf/Luhe, Germany. [Editor: 0. Kinne] Popper, K.R. (1983) Realism and the Aims of Science: Hutchinson (Edited byW.W. Bartley, III). Popper, K. R. (1982) Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Routledge Malcolm will take part in the Education Session at the Winter Meeting where he and I will do a double act. I shall criticise Popper and Malcolm will attempt to put me right! | ||||||
|
|
teg
Issue 27
Much biology teaching to day is instrumental and over-specialised. I have a tentative and very humble solution to this immensely complicated folly and that there is too much teaching and not sufficient opportunity for early learners of science to progress as active inquirers. This can be seen a little more clearly when it is understood that science pursues the truth and more emphasis placed on explanation rather than application. A clear and radically innovative view of how science progresses is given in the works of Sir Karl Popper. Here, I attempt to simplify the problem. I focus on the teaching of ecological science. The scientific approach involves the creation and testing of theories in which theoretical understanding is checked by direct test against reality. 
