Supporting Self-Directed Learning in Science and Technology Beyond the School Years

Beyond the School Years

Léonie J. Rennie, Susan M. Stocklmayer, John K. Gilbert

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429784583
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Enseignement des sciences et technologies

While much has been written about science education from pre-K through to postgraduate study, interaction with science and technology does not stop when schooling ends. Moving beyond scholarship on conventional education, this book extends the research and provides an original in-depth look at adult and lifelong learning in science and technology. By identifying the knowledge and skills that individuals need to engage in self-directed learning, the book highlights how educators can best support adult learners beyond the years of formal schooling. Through case studies and empirical analysis, the authors offer a research-based exploration of adults' self-directed learning and provide tools to support adults' learning experiences in a wide range of environments while being inclusive of all educational backgrounds.

1

What Are Science and Technology?

It is not too much of a stretch to say that science and technology (and more recently STEM – science, technology, engineering, mathematics) have become buzzwords of our times. There are so many definitions of each that it is very easy to get confused, especially if the aim is to find a clear-cut, unambiguous definition. We can begin to get an understanding of what these terms mean by looking at some dictionary/thesaurus definitions and teasing out the commonalities. Table 1.1 presents the results of a search for “science” gleaned from a range of dictionaries, texts, and web-based sources. It shows four common meanings for science and also gives examples of what might count as science for each meaning. Table 1.2 provides the results of a similar search for the meaning of “technology”.

TABLE 1.1 Common meanings of science with examples

Common meanings	Examples of science for this meaning
The systematic study of phenomena in the physical and natural world, especially by using observation and experiment	Identifying the factors that control the growth of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, or of tomatoes
A branch of science, the study or knowledge of a particular area of the physical or natural world	Geology, chemistry
A systematically organised body of knowledge about a particular subject	The anatomy of a horse, or the life of a star
An activity that is studied or performed methodically	Making meteorological observations or documenting plant species

TABLE 1.2 Common meanings of technology with examples

Common meanings	Examples of technology for this meaning
The development and application of artefacts, devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes to meet human needs and desires	Design and manufacture of a screwdriver, a smart phone, or a chocolate éclair
A methodology for the application of technical knowledge or tools	The process of making accurate meteorological recordings, or stitching a straight seam on a garment
Equipment, machines, and systems considered as a unit	A thermometer, a steam engine, or a classification key for plants
The sum of all practical knowledge in a particular area	Knowledge about how to manufacture and use textiles, or to breed terriers

Overall, two things stand out from Tables 1.1 and 1.2: Science is systematic; its purpose is to build dependable knowledge and understanding of the physical and natural world based on observation and experiment. Technology involves the development and manufacture of artefacts and the application of tools and systems to meet human needs.

It is easy to see why technology is sometimes considered to be the application of the knowledge of science, and sometimes it is, but it is more appropriate to describe science and technology as interrelated, continuously interacting together. A meteorologist might observe the weather, but the observations are far more useful for predicting weather if tools (such as thermometers, hygrometers, and satellite imagery) are used to extend and quantify those observations.

Perhaps surprisingly, a search of various learned scientific societies’ websites found little that defined what was meant by science. One exception was the United Kingdom Science Council, who also “found that definitions of science were not readily available, and were not easily accessible on the Internet” (UK Science Council, n.d.). In 2009 the Council published its own definition of science so that it was clear what was meant “when it [the Council] talked about sound science and science based policy” (http://www.sciencecouncil.org/definition).

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

(http://www.sciencecouncil.org/definition)

The United Kingdom Science Council’s definition of science is quite consistent with our earlier analysis and so gives some endorsement to it, but it has two additional features. First, the definition includes “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding”, whereas application of knowledge has more often been viewed as the province of technology. Second, science is described as concerning both “the natural and the social world”, an addition that takes the topics of science study to a much broader perspective, because it embraces human behaviour and cultural contexts. Further, because technology is a response to human needs it also is strongly shaped by human behaviour and cultural contexts.

It is a short step to realising why science and technology are so important in our everyday lives. Most readers will possess a smart phone, for example, a mobile digital communication device that is also a computer, TV, radio, GPS, camera, and a portable library for books, music, and video, as well as a console for games and, depending on the apps downloaded, a monitor of personal health, well-being, and many other things besides. Such a device is clearly a technological artefact, but no more so than a pencil, a fork, or a toothbrush. Of course, there is considerably more science research behind the mobile device than the fork, for example, although the latter has existed in various forms for millennia.

The Importance of Science and Technology

It is now commonplace for school curriculum documents to argue the importance of science and technology in people’s everyday lives, and for the need to understand, or at least not be afraid of, science and technology. One example is the vision that underpins the United States-based K-12 Framework for Science Education (NRC, 2012), where it is stated that a compelling case can also be made that understanding science and engineering, now more than ever, is essential for every American citizen. Science, engineering, and the technologies they influence permeate every aspect of modern life. Indeed, some knowledge of science and engineering is required to engage with the major public policy issues of today as well as to make informed everyday decisions, such as selecting among alternative medical treatments or determining how to invest public funds for water supply options. In addition, understanding science and the extraordinary insights it has produced can be meaningful and relevant on a personal level, opening new worlds to explore and offering life-long opportunities for enriching people’s lives. In these contexts, learning science is important for everyone, even those who eventually choose careers in fields other than science or engineering (NRC, 2012, p. 7).

Another example comes from a report on citizenship to the European Commission (2015). In discussing why science education matters, it was argued:

Knowledge of and about science are integral to preparing our population to be actively engaged and responsible citizens, creative and innovative, able to work collaboratively and fully aware of and conversant with the complex challenges facing society. It helps us to explain and understand our world, to guide technological development and innovation and to forecast and plan for the future. It introduces citizens to an important part of our European culture.

(p. 14)

The message from both of these documents is consistent with rhetoric from almost every country: Our students and our citizens need to know about science and technology because they are important in their lives and a part of their culture. This message is not new; for over a century there have been calls for the public to be more knowledgeable about science, along with the practical view that people will live more fulfilling lives if they understand their science and technology dominated world. The arguments for this usually draw on an economic imperative, based in the belief that a better educated public will create a more prosperous nation, and a democratic or civic perspective that the public should be involved in decision-making about significant socioscientific issues and be supportive of government funding in science. There is also a cultural argument: Science and technology are part of our culture and cultural heritage, and should therefore be part of our world view.

These are strong and important arguments, but they have been contested. For example, the implication that all citizens should be able to have informed input to decision-making about policy in science-related matters has long been in dispute. The 1920s debate between Walter Lippmann (an influential journalist) and John Dewey (a leading philosopher and educator) about the capability of the public to participate constructively in public policy is a well-known example. Simplistically, their arguments revolved around human nature and democracy and, of particular interest here, whether the ordinary citizen can attain sufficient knowledge to participate in an informed way in decision-making about public policy, and whether in a democratic society the public should have a role in those decisions. Again simplistically, Lippmann’s view was that the public voted for their decision-makers (their government) who were then responsible for making policy decisions based on guidance from experts. Thus the public had no direct input, and Lippmann believed this to be reasonable because the “truth” was obscured from citizens by the way the media reported it, and the human mind was not capable of understanding the subtleties required. Dewey’s position was more democratic. He believed the public’s view should be heard by government and also by the experts, suggesting a two-way communication between the public and experts, somewhat akin to recent exhortations for scientists to engage with the public.

Much has been written on this debate; for example, DeCesare (2012) discussed the arguments in terms of fundamentally different interpretations of knowledge, whereas analysis by Whipple (2005) focused on communication and democratic participation. Feinstein (2015) advanced a perspective about the Lippmann–Dewey debate that was more aligned with science education, to see what might be learned “about science, education, and democracy” (p. 146). He provided a simplified summary of Lippmann’s and Dewey’s views (see Feinstein, 2015, figure 1 on p. 158), but of course the matter is hardly simple. Wisely, Feinstein did not conclude with a directive to science education, but he teased out three significant issues. He referred to the need to pay attention to how people interpret information about science, how that information is reshaped by various media, and what platforms are available for the “public” to engage with scientists. All three of these issues will be visited (and often revisited) in the chapters that follow, but first we return to the importance of science and technology and what the everyday person might need to know about these disciplines.

Scientific Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science

In the 1950s, the terms science literacy and scientific literacy began to be used to describe what people understand about science but there was little clarity about what these terms actually mean, especially for the everyday citizen compared with people who are working in science. It is worth following some of the arguments in order to come to a position that will enable us to move forward in our thinking about how adults might be helped to learn about science and technology.

More than four decades ago, Shen (1975) proposed three kinds of scientific literacy needed by citizens. He referred first to Consumer scientific literacy, the level of knowledge that enables adults to shop for essentials like food, medicines, and other consumer goods. Second, Cultural scientific literacy describes citizens’ understanding of science as a way of understanding the world, compared with other ways of knowing. Third, Civic scientific literacy denotes the knowledge needed to understand and deal with issues and arguments relating to scientific public policy.

Two decades later, when Shamos (1995) wrote about The Myth of Scientific Literacy, he criticised contemporary definitions of “true” scientific literacy as describing an unattainable goal in which all citizens could be educated to have a knowledge and understanding of science sufficient to be able to make independent judgements on socioscientific issues. He suggested that something more attainable would be

(a) having an awareness of how the science/technology enterprise works, (b) having the public feel comfortable with knowing what science is about, even though it might not know much about science, (c) having the public understand what can be expected from science, and (d) knowing how public opinion can best be heard in respect to the enterprise.

(p. 229)

Both Shen (1975) and Shamos (1995) were focusing on people going about the business of their daily activities, but also having some awareness of the science and technology in the world around them. This seems to be a more realistic approach to scientific literacy and the way the public might engage with science and technology, rather than assuming that all people can have sufficient knowledge and understanding to participate constructively in making decisions about science-related policy.

The arguments about the importance of science and technology led to a perceived need to measure how much the public actually knows about science, and over the last decades there have been regular attempts to survey the populations of various countries to obtain a measure of public understanding of science. Examples of this include the National Science and Engineering Indicators in the United States (National Science Board, 2018), and the European Commission’s Eurobarometer surveys of public opin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. What Are Science and Technology?
• 2. How Do Adults Learn Science and Technology?
• 3. Learning to Deal with Medical Issues
• 4. Pursuing Personal Interests: Learning Through Hobbies
• 5. Learning to Help Others
• 6. Learning for Work
• 7. Learning Through a Diversity of Approaches: The Case of the Moon Diary
• 8. Resources for Self-Directed Learning
• 9. Learning from New Media
• 10. Supporting Self-Directed Learning in Science and Technology
• 11. Advancing the Cause of Adult Literacy in Science and Technology
• About the Authors
• Index