1 / 12

Evaluating Claims to Knowledge Inquiry for Citizenship — beyond laboratory inquiry

Evaluating Claims to Knowledge Inquiry for Citizenship — beyond laboratory inquiry. Frank Jenkins, PhD, retired Secondary Science Education Centre for Mathematics Science and Technology Education ( CMASTE ) Centre for Research in Youth Science Teaching and Learning ( CRYSTAL Alberta )

benedict-buckner
Download Presentation

Evaluating Claims to Knowledge Inquiry for Citizenship — beyond laboratory inquiry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Claims to KnowledgeInquiry for Citizenship—beyond laboratory inquiry Frank Jenkins, PhD, retired Secondary Science Education Centre for Mathematics Science and Technology Education (CMASTE) Centre for Research in Youth Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL Alberta) University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada [Accompanying assignments] FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  2. Carl Sagan on School Science • Carl Sagan: • “The whole idea of democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge.” • Demon Haunted World, p. 76 • “[These tools] are hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science….” DHW, p. 77 • Frank Jenkins: • We have allowed pure science knowledge to dominate other kinds of knowledge. This expresses our current (not past, and hopefully not future) valuing within curriculum & assessment. FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  3. Creating & Testing My Claim • Education and science primary research literature • Daily Edmonton Journal including Sunday Reader • Nutrition Action Health Newsletter by Centre for Science in Public Interest (CSPI) (a magazine) • Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan (a book) • Wingnuts by John Avlon (a book) • The Best American Science Writing by Groopman (book) • What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell (a book) • The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan (a book) • All Life is Problem Solvingby Karl Popper (a book) FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  4. Contexts: Inquiry for Citizenship Source of claims • newspaper articles • magazine articles • lobbying literature • radio and TV news/ads • primary research literature (peer-reviewed) • textbook and classroom language/talk (yours?) Types of claims • medical research • MS liberation treatment • alternative medicine • candling; aromatherapy • environmental research • oil sands development • claims of the paranormal • water witching • education research FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  5. Evaluating claims to knowledge health claims; e.g., • drug efficacy • surgery efficacy • diet efficacy • vitamin efficacy • exercise effectiveness • brain-use effectiveness • sleep effects • social effects • attitude effects alternative medicine; e.g., • naturopathy • chiropractic • aromatherapy • acupuncture • herbal therapy • magnetic therapy • organic foods • faith-healing • psychic surgery FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  6. Evaluating claims to knowledge • environmental claims • global warming • acid rain • radioactivity • mining & restoration • flaring • drag-netting fish • fish farming • pesticide use • paranormal claims • alien abductions; UFOs • big-foot; crop circles • psycho-kinetic powers • channeling; mindreading • fairies; ghosts; visions • astrology; ESP • halo readings et al FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  7. Evaluating claims to knowledge • educational claims • curriculum emphases • whole reading • inquiry-based sci. ed. • nature of science benefits • class size • metacognition • constructivism • laboratory work • assessment techniques • paranormal claims • alien abductions; UFOs • big-foot; crop circles • psycho-kinetic powers • channeling; mindreading • fairies; ghosts; visions • astrology; ESP • halo readings et al • psycho-surgery FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  8. Nutrition Action byCentre for Science in the Public Interest Quick Studies • Mg and Sudden Death • 88 000 women • 26 years • correlational study • Omega-3s Miss Mark • randomly assigned • 4,800 subjects (60-80 a) • 1 of 4 margarines; 3.5 a • no significant difference • Don’t Just Walk • 260 middle aged • four groups (1 control) • 9 months • quotes other studies • Protein & Carbs • eight country study • 800 adults lost weight • then given either protein or carbs FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  9. Climate Cover-Up book (Hoggan) --evaluating claims to knowledge • relevant credentials? • practicing researcher? • legitimate peer-review? • paid “expert” opinion? • respected journal? • source hyper-vigilance? • national science academy? • evidence-based science? • selected evidence? • fact checking? • scientific attitudes? • scientific integrity? • big-money lobbying? • ethical PR firm? • against misinformation? • petition vs. survey? • problem of balance? • economic interest? • tolerance for uncertainty? • manipulated media? FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  10. Evaluating health claims: Q’s 1. funding agency? 2. relevant credentials? 3. legitimate peer-review? 4. respected journal? 5. anecdotal, correlational or cause-&-effect study? 6. animal or clinical trial? 7. double-blind study? 8. placebo & placebo effect? 9. evidence-based science? 10. population for sample? 11. random sample? 12. sample size? 13. term of study? 14. replication needed? 15. (un)certainty expressed? 16. statistically significant? 17. in whose interest? ethics? FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  11. Evaluating environmental claims—Q’s 1. funding agency? 2. relevant credentials? 3. legitimate peer-review? 4. respected journal? 5. anecdotal, correlational or cause-&-effect study? 9. evidence-based science? 10. population for sample? 13. term of study? 14. replication needed? 15. (un)certainty expressed? 16. statistically significant? 17. in whose interest? ethics? 18. number of samples? 19. number of variables? 20. number of sample sites? 21. seasonal sampling? 21. up-down stream tests? FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

  12. Thank you Hand-off to you: • How do we create, test & use inquiry-based (NoS) science education in the classroom & laboratory. • How do we create, test and use inquiry (NoS) tools for citizenship. • Consider the potential and persevere with your experience, knowledge and problem solving approach. Acknowledgements: • my fellow authors; school and university colleagues • my students; my family • others who have written and worked on this endeavour • www.CMASTE.caunder Outreach and Science Educ. • www.CRYSTALAlberta.ca under Science Reasoning Text fjenkins@ualberta.net FJenkins@UAlberta.net, 2011-10-22 ATA SC Conf.

More Related