The knowledge explosion in science education: Balancing practical and theoretical knowledge

✍ Scribed by Andrew Boulton; Debra Panizzon

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1998
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 25 KB
• Volume: 35
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0022-4308
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199805)35:5<475::aid-tea1>3.0.co;2-m

✦ Synopsis

In a recent guest editorial, Harding and Vining (1997) suggested that the knowledge explosion in science promotes a perception that scientific knowledge is temporary and unreliable, leading to teaching methods that emphasize how science is done at the expense of knowledge. They opined that although scientific knowledge accumulates rapidly, new theories do not replace old in a revolutionary way, but are blended so that knowledge evolves as a mixture of new and old. To exemplify this, Harding and Vining used three examples of changes in scientific thinking [1858 (theory of evolution), 1900 (genetics), and 1953 (molecular biology)], claiming that each was followed by some 40 years with no major changes in the concepts that emerged. As these theories become better understood, they can be explained more economically, and so they enter the textbooks we use for students. Harding and Vining concluded:

We can prepare students best for the future, not by teaching them about the methods of science, but by giving them a framework of knowledge about each subject so they have something to build on in the future. (p. 974) Herein, we explore some of the arguments by Harding and Vining (1997) and present a recent ecological example that partially supports their conclusions. We contend their statement above is restrictive because it generalizes across all levels of students. We suggest it is important that students understand how the knowledge that they learn is earned, why data may remain unchanging but scientists' conclusions might vary, and, most important, that there is considerable subjectivity in science-after all, researchers are human. In other words, it is essential that students understand the true "scientific process" (Roth, 1993).