On Science and Society – and knowledge for all

1. On Science and Society – and knowledge for all Mattias Lundin & Ragnar Olsson Erasmus IP Ioannina June 13th 2012

2. The structureof the presentation – a trialogue • Trialogue (part one) • Short youtube clip • Discussion 1 • Discussion 2 • Trialogue (part two) • Also: • Basis for the workshop. Whatwe present canmaybe be used in the discussions in the workshop

3. On Science and Society – and knowledge for all Scientific Literacy • On today’sschoolwork • On my furthereducation • On my contributionto the futuresociety

4. On Science and Society – and knowledge for all • The charter tourist • The backpacker

5. On Science and Society – and knowledge for all • A youtube clip • 12 minutes • Attention toyourownreflections • Useyourteachereyes!

6. Conciertoevolucion

7. Conciertoevolucion • On yourown: • What is the mostimportantreflectionthatyouwould like tobringup from the film? • Write down your choice on a paper and whyyoumadethat choice

8. Conciertoevolucion • Togetherwith the person sittingnexttoyou: • What is the mostimportantreflectionthatyouwould like tobringup from the film (onlyoneissue) • Write down your choice on a paper and whyyoumadethat choice • 5 minutes

9. Conciertoevolucion • Togetherwithyour (international) group: • Try toagreeupon the mostimportantreflectionthatyouwould like tobringup from the film (onlyonereflection) • Write down your choice and whyyoumadethat choice. E-mail your choice: ragnar.olsson@lnu.se ~20 minutes

10. Yourreflections!

11. Conclusions?

12. Conclusions? • Let’sseeif the final part of the video-clip cangiveus a hint!

13. Science and technology for all, what is that? • How do weaddress the concept science and technology for all, as teachers? • Defining the coreof science knowledge

14. Science and technology for all?

15. Let’steach! • Or let’s try another approach… • Democracy • Power • Participation

16. Science and society – a metaphor

17. Science and society – anothermetaphor

18. Science and society – anothermetaphor

19. Science and society – anothermetaphor

20. Wolff Michael Roth • Fibre- thread Roth, W.-F. (2002). Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective human praxis. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35(1) p.9-23. • How do weuse the different threads? • Who is todecidewhatto do with it?

21. Sustainability • Ecological • Economic • Social

22. Sustainabledevelopment

23. Scientific literacy • What does this mean to teachers’ assignment? • What is important paying special attention to?

24. To promote learning – what learning? • Three different approaches when designing learning situation • Essentialism • Progressivism • Reconstructivism

25. ESSENTIALISM Subject content in focus Central concepts of the subject Organisation of the existing subject knowledge Knowledge is built in accordance with for example the corresponding academic subject The teacher becomes a crucial person in the classroom – the person that knows the subject

26. PROGRESSIVISM The student in focus The student’s interest in focus for the activity Meaningful activities Students’ experiences are crucial for learning Problem solving and cooperation Direct experiences are to prefer The students need to be active.

27. RECONSTRUCTIVISM The construction of sustainable society The student’s learning is a part of the reconstruction of the society Democratic development Different perspectives need to be elicited To use knowledge to argue in, for example the public debate To critically evaluate different alternatives

28. Different consequences for science education (Sandell, Öhman & Östman, 2003)

29. Who has the power? • Albert Einstein: "Concern for man himself must always constitute the chief objective of all technological effort -- concern for the big, unsolved problems of how to organize human work and the distribution of commodities in such a manner as to assure that the results of our scientific thinking may be a blessing to mankind, and not a curse."

30. To thinkaboutbefore the Linnaeus workshop • How do we use our different knowledge? • Who has the power to make decisions about how knowledge is used?

31. Thanks for paying attention Ragnar ragnar.olsson@lnu.se Mattias mattias.lundin@lnu.se

32. Roth, W.-F. (2002). Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective human praxis. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35(1) p.9-23. • Några utvalda avsnitt ur artikeln som skulle kunna ingå i vår keynote. • When theorised from the viewpoint of praxis, ‘scientific literacy’ is not something that is owned by (or characterises) certain individuals. Rather, ‘scientific literacy’ is an emergent, collective phenomenon. Such scientific literacy may, for example, emerge when ordinary citizens question a scientist about the methodology he used, which turns out to fall short considering the problem at hand. (p. 7) • Thinking the relationship between individual and collective life in terms of fibre and thread allows us a new approach to theorising ‘scientific literacy’. It is no longer a property of a single fibre or a small number of fibres (scientific community) but it is a property that becomes recognisable and analysable at the level of the thread. Thinking of science as a fibre among fibres helps us to understand it as an entity and as context in a more general endeavour (thread). From the perspective of the thread, science plays a role as all the other forms of knowledge and practices (p. 7) • Thinking the relationship between individual and collective life in terms of fibre and thread allows us a new approach to theorising ‘scientific literacy’. It is no longer a property of a single fibre or a small number of fibres (scientific community) but it is a property that becomes recognisable and analysable at the level of the thread. Thinking of science as a fibre among fibres helps us to understand it as an entity and as context in a more general endeavour (thread). From the perspective of the thread, science plays a role as all the other forms of knowledge and practices; any attempt to privilege it abstracts from the fact that it itself exists only because of all the other threads. Science education would then be the endeavour to make scientific literacy possible as a collective rather than individual characteristic. It would amount to creating opportunities for individuals (fibres) to participate, each in their own ways, to contribute to the emergence of the phenomenon at a collective level. We are then interested not only in what scientists have to say at the meeting, but also in what all the others have to say who participate (speak, listen, applaud), and specifically the residents whose access to proper drinking water is being denied. This means that not all individuals have to know a basic stock of scientific facts or concepts—we do drive without knowing anything about car mechanics and we do eat bread without knowing how to bake. If we take scientific literacy to be a characteristic of emergent collective practice, then it does not matter which piece each and everyone contributes but that in the end, decisions are made that take account of a variety of relevant (local) knowledge, values, and beliefs. (p. 7) • Rethinking knowing and learning, science and scientific literacy, and collective public meetings and individual contributions from the perspective of fibres and thread, leads us to radically different conclusions about what and how curriculum should be designed and enacted. When learning is no longer identified with grey matter between the ears but with the relations between people and with doing things together, our views of teaching will change. When learning no longer ‘belong[s] to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which they are part’ (McDermott 1993: 292), we need to rethink what science curriculum ought to look like. (p. 8)