 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 9, Issue 2, Article 1
(Dec., 2008) |
All three science curricula portrayed different ideas about science in different ways, which have been discussed in the previous sections and summarized in Table III. The existing science curriculum for science focus students portrays the three IAS well: (i) Science is socially and culturally embedded; (ii) Scientific knowledge is tentative and (iii) Science is empirically based. This curriculum does not effectively portray other IAS. Ideas like the ‘different forms of scientific inquiry’, ‘human inference, imagination and creativity in science’, ‘science and questioning’ and ‘co-operation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge’ humanize the scientific endeavor and convey a great adventure, thus enhancing students’ interest in science (McComas et al., 1998). The incomplete and/or negative portrayal of these ideas, therefore, may discourage creative and co-operative students from studying science at later stages. Students are likely to face difficulties in understanding a coherent picture of science due to the absence of any discussion regarding the differences between observation and inference and the differences between laws and theories. The above discussion suggests that the existing curriculum for science students does not work well with the suggestions from current literature about communicating ideas about science.
As discussed earlier, the existing general science curriculum portrays most of the ideas about science suggested by Lederman (2004) and Osborne et al. (2003) incompletely and negatively. Thus, the students of humanities and business studies concentrations are likely to get an incomplete and inaccurate picture of science. Moreover, they will not have more formal science education in future, and therefore, science and decision making in science related matters will remain as an uncomfortable territory in their lives.
Although the proposed curriculum does not include an explicit discussion on IAS, some of the ideas in the ideas are portrayed well in the curriculum. These are: (i) science is empirically based, (ii) analysis and interpretation of data, (iii) hypothesis and prediction, (iv) diversity in doing science, (v) science necessarily involves human inference, imagination and creativity and (vi) co-operation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge. These aspects are portrayed in a manner consistent with the recommendation of Lederman (2004) and Osborne et al. (2003). The proposed curriculum presents science as certain knowledge, but it does not explain why science is certain. This is inconsistent with the recommendation of Lederman (2004) and Osborne et al. (2003); because, although much of the science knowledge in school curriculum is well-established and beyond a reasonable doubt, it is subject to change in the future given new evidence or new interpretations of old evidence. The proposed science curriculum does not portray other ideas about science well.
The above findings suggest that the process of reforming science education in Bangladesh has been heading towards the desired direction in terms of portrayal of IAS. However, some important ideas have not been portrayed well in the curriculum. In line with the views of science educators (Driver et al., 1996 ; McComas et al., 1998), I firmly believe that acceptable views on how science works is vital to: (a) enhance the learning of science content, (b) enhance the understanding of science, (c) enhance interest in science and appreciate science as a human endeavor, (d) help people use scientific knowledge in everyday life and (e) enhance future citizens’ political and educational decision making. The way science is portrayed in school science curricula contributes significantly in shaping students’ views about science. Therefore, the proposed curriculum should include explicit content on how science works and it should clarify ideas about science. The ideas that ‘scientific knowledge is tentative’, ‘science is socially and culturally embedded’, scientific laws and theories, ‘science is subjective and theory-laden knowledge’, observation and inference, and questioning should be clarified in the curriculum. Also, an important idea to be included explicitly in the proposed curriculum is that scientific inquiry may take place in the forms of descriptive, correlational or experimental research. An open investigation in the proposed curriculum creates a great opportunity to communicate IAS to students. However, inclusion of IAS in the curriculum or textbooks will not make any difference unless they are communicated well in the classroom. Teachers are the responsible for communicating IAS to students accurately; therefore, teachers should be trained on what and how they will communicate ideas about science to students.
Note: I would like to thank Dr. Deborah Corrigan and Mr. Stephen Keast, Faculty of Education, Monash University, for their guidance during the original study and writing of this paper.
