1
ASTRONOMY WORKSHOPS
KNOWLEDGE1
AND
THE
NATURE
OF
SCIENCE
Haydée Santilli (1) & Susana Boudemont (2)
(1)
(2)
Facultad de Ingeniería – Universidad de Buenos Aires –
Paseo Colon 850 (1063) Bs. As. Argentina
[email protected] – [email protected]
Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio – CONICET Edificio IAFECiudad Universitaria- Bs. As. Argentina.
[email protected]
Abstract
Astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology workshops represent a way for students to
understand better the nature of science. These topics are slightly developed in high
school curricula. In this paper we have analysed the development of this kind of
workshops organized in Argentina. This is a qualitative, holistic and interpretative
research.
We find that students could be aware of current science. They could understand the way
science is built today, recognizing its day by day growth. It is an approach to the
scientific working way. We find that students express just a few inductivist ideas, which
is not in accordance with another published researches. We identify interesting inquiries
related to the day by day of the scientific work. Students could recognize science, as a
human built, it is an image of science less accurate than the fictional usual view that
textbooks and science teachers often offer.
Introduction
The first question to answer is why is so important that students know about the nature
of science. We are living in a “Knowledge Society” in which the educational
requirements are each time more demanding. Scientific education occupies an important
place in the students training. When we want students to understand science, it is not
enough to ask them to study scientific laws and theories. Students need also to
understand the nature of science. Besides teaching the technological and mathematical
aims, it is necessary to present science framed by cultural, social and philosophical
commitments (Matthews, 1994 & 2000).
It is possible to find several kinds of reasoning to justify the necessity of teaching about
the nature of science. Driver et al (1996 in Brickhouse et al, 2002, p. 373, 374) presents
five kinds: utilitarian, democratic, cultural, moral and science learning arguments. An
utilitarian argument could be defined as: “an understanding of science is necessary if people
are to make sense of the science and manage the technological objects and processes they
encounter in everyday life” (p. 373); this argument is essential for the developing of the
named scientific-technological alphabetization. She enounces a democratic argument as:
1
Paper belongs to an UBACyT (UBA Science and Technology) project: “The scientific explanation and
the didactic explanation. Analysis of discourses and explicative resources”, I002, 2004-7.
2
“an understanding of the nature of science is necessary if people are to make sense of
socioscientific issues and participate in the decision-making process” (p.373); it is
fundamental if beside teaching science we have the purpose of getting the citizen’s
education. The cultural argument is based in the fact that science is part of culture; it is
not possible to think about contemporary culture without science. About a moral
argument Driver says: “an understanding of the nature of science can help develop awareness
of the nature of science, and in particular the norms of the scientific community, embodying
moral commitments that are of general value” (p.579). At last, but it is not a less important
argument, Driver presents a science learning argument: “an understanding of the nature of
science supports successful learning of science content” (p.574).
On another way of reasoning, we can analyze the rol of models in natural sciences. We
have to recognize the existence of multiple models for a real system, and that the
relationship between reality and theory is always mediating by any model. Then, the
model notion is central in the understanding and in the developing of natural sciences
(Lombardi, 1997). Although everybody usually talks about models in science and in
science teaching, it is not always understood in a proper way, either from science
practice or from philosophy of science. Then we can find another reason for developing
students’ nature of science knowledge in the words of Matthews (2007, 650): “…nature
of science knowledge (NOS) will involve learning something about the functioning of models in
history of science, and something about their epistemological import”. In this way, to learn
about the nature of science could help students to understand better scientific contents.
The organization of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology
workshops represent a way for the students to recognize the nature of science. Those
workshops allow students to perceive the way in which the scientists built the scientific
knowledge. Astronomers speak about observations, dates and evidences. The evidences
can be observational, either direct or inferential, or mathematical evidences. They use
complex technologies to collect observational data, whose theoretical frame is far from
the student knowledge; we are talking about high school or introductory university
course students. During the workshops teachers must be careful to allow students to
understand this information. When this learning obstacle is overcome, students could
find meaningful explanations to the astronomer observations.
Astronomy workshops could help students to find the relationship between theory and
evidence, warrants for belief, and nature of observation, and from this way, students
could understand better the nature of science. Here, we start from a strong supposition:
when students develop subjects that are interesting for them, and these are meaningful
subjects for the students, they could get a better knowledge about the nature of science.
This is not a shared supposition with the entire community. Some researchers assume
that the students’ knowledge about the nature of science is independent from the
scientific content developed (Brickhouse et al, 2002).
History of science could help students to find the relationship between astronomer work
and the nature of science. An interesting case is Galileo and the discovering of Jupiter’s
moons. Galileo knew that there were three kinds of sky bodies: fixed stars, planets
moving around the sun, and moons moving around the planets. He framed these known
facts in to a general hypothesis. He contrasted his own observations against these
hypotheses. He drew conclusions using a hypothetical-deductive reasoning, as well as,
astronomers do today (Lawson, 2002).
3
Astronomy workshops in Argentina: a case study
Astronomy topics are slightly developed either in high school curricula or in university
introducing courses developed in Argentina. This situation could happen for several
reasons: these topics are almost absent in the school curriculum; the experimental work
is difficult to develop in the teaching institutions; it is necessary to spend a large time
for explaining these topics; it is difficult to find the appropriate teachers; and so on. The
extracurricular approach of these topics allows the introduction of outstanding scientific
knowledge, different ways of scientific work, new technologies and data analysis, and
interpretation systems.
In this paper we have analysed the development of this kind of workshops. They have
been organized since 2002 at IAFE2 (Institute of Astronomy and Space Physics). The
workshops are co-ordinated by scientists of the Institute. In the workshops are
developed subjects like astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology, relativity theory, quantum
physics, and so on3. There, students could find answers to the question: How do
astronomers work in Argentina today? They could inquiry where argentine astronomers
are positioned between middle age astronomers and Hubble’s researchers.
Workshop Characteristics
The workshops are intended for high school and university introductory course
students. Among the student goals we find:
◦ To get better vocation choices
◦ To understand astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology topics
◦ To comprehend the way of researching these topics
◦ To be in touch with researchers
◦ To be aware of current science
The workshops are developed once a week, on a three-hour class, and between twenty
and thirty students by class. The number of classes depends on the workshop. For
example, the workshop: “Introductory astronomy”, was developed on four classes (solar
system, stars and sun, star system and universe) and the workshop: “Relativity and
cosmology”, was done between five and seven classes (some of the topics were history
and elemental concepts about relativity theory, historical introduction of cosmology,
black holes, and Big Bang). Workshop teachers expose the subjects using a power point
presentation that includes movies and simulations, for facility understanding. They do
dialogue expositions that allow students to inquiry. Teachers pose either problems or
paradox to be solved by students. The workshop environment allows students to present
their doubts and inquiries.
Students could obtain a workshop certificate with eighty per cent of participation. They
could ask for a formal test, if they want do. They could propose themselves to be
student assistant for the researchers, too.
2
3
IAFE (Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio)
It could get additional information on www.iafe.uba.ar (Extensión; Talleres de Ciencia para Jóvenes).
4
Research Methodology
This is a qualitative, holistic and interpretative research since we try to rescue the
student’s ideas. This decision is supported by the supposition of reality as a social
construction where the researcher tries to interpret the subjects’ sayings and attitudes. In
this process, the researcher interacts with the researched subjects, affecting this
construction, too (Alves, 1991). This approach allows to have in mind the social aspects
of learning.
It is an exploratory research in which, we try to find out if students learn about the
nature of science at astronomy workshops. It is a case study (Alvarez-Gayou, 2003), the
most important qualitative research way. We describe here a particular situation, but it
could be possible to classify all the categories we find in a database where anybody
could ask for information. If it would publish a good science teaching database of case
study, we would dispose an adequate knowledge frame (Santilli et al, 2007).
The data analysis emerges from the student answers to open inquiries. They are high
school and university level introduce students, whose ages are between fifteen and
nineteen. They have pre-scientific and little assimilated scientific knowledge.
We must explain that these inquiries were designed to test the workshop goals, they
were not thought for analysing students’ nature of science knowledge. But students’
answers allow us to do this research. We analyze over ninety inquiries from 2002 and
2003. Some of the inquiry questions were:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Did you carry out your workshop expectations?
Was the form of the workshop appropriate? Why?
What other questions would you want to know about the IAFE?
Did the workshop help you to get a better vocational choice? Why?
Comments and suggestions about: a) the workshop, b) the topics developed.
The data were analyzed associating each student idea to a category. It was used a
qualitative software called NUDIST. This system helps with the organization of
qualitative data. It allows to assign and to codify categories, and to do searches,
intersections, unions, and so on, too. It is a very helpful tool for qualitative research,
especially when it is a very large data analysis. It is possible to start from known
categories, as it is an exploratory research, the categories emerge from the student
sayings.
The triangulation was done by two ways: 1) “instrument”, different questions of the
inquiry aimed at the same subject; 2) “investigator”, two researchers were involved in
this investigation. One of them was in touch with the students and helped the scientists
with the workshop teaching organization, the other researcher had analyzed, from a long
time, students’ science ideas.
Research results
We find that students’ ideas are mostly associated with two main categories: scientific
research and scientists’ way of working.
5
On scientific research students’ expectations are identified in three categories: material
things, methodology and projects. Next, we define each category and select some
student sayings from it. We identified each student saying with the letter “S” and a
number.
Material things
Students who associate the research with laboratory work; they are worried
about the instruments used, the laboratory installations, and so on.
Students sayings:
S3: “I want to know how they do the research, what tools and devices they need. I
also want to know in what others places an astronomer works”.
S16: “I want to know any more about radio-astronomy, and in what places there
are big telescopes”.
Methodology
Students who are concerned about: the data processing, the result analysis,
the researchers’ way of working, and so on. Students who want to think as
scientists do.
Students sayings:
S20: “How they process the information and how they organize the Institute’s
library”.
S25: “The researches, the projects that are developed today and the getting
results”.
S27: “the workshop teacher asks us about scientific questions, they are inviting us
to think as scientists”.
Projects
Students interested in the projects that are developed at the Institute (IAFE).
Students sayings:
S97: “We want to know, with details, how the researchers work at the IAFE; in
what astronomy field knowledge they develop their research”.
S102: “To know the research, the projects they are developing today at the
Institute”.
On scientists’ way of working we identify two categories: society and profession. Next,
we define each category and select some student sayings from it.
Society
Students are worried about the work environment, the performance of the
Institute, the researchers’ incomes, the astronomer personal life, and so on.
Students sayings:
S9: “I’d like to know, which is the rol of the Institute, and who leads the
institution”.
S21: “To know how researchers work, and if their incomes are enough for a
living”.
S82: “The teacher exposition was clear and concise. It enriched for us to know
personal experiences from the researchers that work here.
6
Profession
Students interested in researchers’ current work, in the scientific way of
working, the working places and so on.
Students sayings:
S2: “I want to know about the research and the professional work, today, either
astronomers or physicists.
S80: “The class was good for me because it was an understanding and complete
class. Moreover, I could get there, a vision of astronomers’ life and way of
working”.
Some students’ ideas are associated with: the scientific explanations, laws and theories,
or the students’ science vision. There were just a few, but we thought they were
important by the research
Student Sayings
S10: We could learn the stellar phenomena or the astronomical ones by using
physical explanations.
S28-29: The participation of everybody at the workshops allows us to deduce by
ourselves some of the laws that rule the universe. Moreover when we learn
astronomy, we could understand how science works: scientists begin stating a
hypothesis and then they try to prove it.
S164: Cosmology for understanding how man gets knowledge from the beginning
of science. We could understand in which way man’s ideas about cosmos have
been changing.
Some Conclusions
When we analyze students’ participation we find students had a great commitment with
the workshops. By a side some of they asked for formal testing and for being accepted
as student assistant for the scientists. Of course, it was a possibility for students, but the
quantity of students that did it was larger than we hoped for. By the other side, we
noticed, from the inquiry analysis, that they did a great number of interesting
suggestions for improving the workshops, either teaching recommendations or about the
activities or the topics to develop.
About the nature of science knowledge, we find a first idea coming from the emerged
categories. The main ones show that students’ ideas are specially oriented in two ways:
research and social aspects about science. We notice that a few students have ideas
about scientific explanations, laws and theories or science vision. Then, we try to
interpret deeper students’ sayings. We deduce a special students’ vision about science
from ideas like “they process the information and how they organize the Institute's library",
“they are inviting us to think as scientists", “I could get there, a vision of astronomers' life and
way of working", “The participation of everybody at the workshops allows us to deduce by
ourselves some of the laws that rule the universe”, “We could understand in which way man’s
ideas about cosmos have been changing”. These ideas show that the development of this
kind of activities allow students to be aware of current science. They could understand
the way science is built today, recognizing its day by day growth. It is an approach to
the scientific way of working. These ideas are far from inductivism who affirms that the
knowledge emerges from the public observation without having in mind any theoretical
7
frame. Inductivism assumes that the scientific way of working is the experimental
verification of laws and theories (Brown, 1998). We pay special attention to the few
inductivist ideas they express, ideas included in the category denominated “Material
things”. There, they were worried about the experimental conditions, the kind of
telescopes they used, the laboratory work, and so on. This last result does not agree with
another published researches. Most specialists affirm that young students present
empirical, inductivist and no theoretical ideas of science (Fernández et al, 2002).
Moreover, inductivist ideas are present also in science teachers and science teacher
students, as show several researches (Cotham and Smith, 1981, Abel and Smith, 1994,
Brickhouse, 1990; all before references in Porlan and Rivero, 1998) (Santilli et al,
2005).
Moreover, in both categories, “Society” and “Profession”, we identify interesting
inquiries related to daily scientific work. From this point of view, the student
participation at the workshops allows them recognize science, as a human built, it is an
image of science less accurate than the fictional usual view that textbooks and science
teachers often offer (Santilli, 1997a y b). This idea of science helps them in two ways:
students can understand better scientific contents, and they could do better vocation
choices. We could suppose that this situation was got because students were in touch
with scientist, but we did not inquiry this, it could be a way to continue the research.
Our stronger conclusion is that astronomy workshops are a very good place to facility
students to be closed to scientific way of working, and to learn about the nature of
science, too.
References
ALVAREZ–GAYOU JURGENSON, J. L., 2003, Cómo hacer investigación cualitativa.
Fundamentos y metodología, México: Paidos Educador.
ALVES, Alda Judith, 1991, O Planejamento de Pesquisas Qualitativas em Educaçao,
Cadernos de Pesquisa, Sao Paulo. Vol. 77, 53-61.
BRICKHOUSE, Nancy W.; DAGHER, Zoubeida R.; SHIPMAN, Harry L.; LETTS,
William J. IV, 2002, Evidence and Warrants for Belief in a College Astronomy Course,
Science and Education. 11(6), 573-588.
BROWN, H. (1998) La nueva filosofía de la ciencia, Editorial Tecnos.
FERNÁNDEZ Isabel, GIL Daniel, VILCHES Amparo, VALDÉS Pablo, CACHAPUZ
Antonio, PRAIA João y SALINAS Julia, 2002, La superación de las visiones
deformadas de la ciencia y la tecnología: un requisito esencial para la renovación de la
educación científica. http://www.unesco.cl/medios/biblioteca/documentos/ed_ciencias_
superacion_visiones_deformadas.pdf?menu=/ing/atematica/educientyamb/docdig/
LAWSON, Anton, E., 2002, What does Galileo’s Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons Tell Us
About the Process of Scientific Discovery? Science and Education, 11(1), 1-24.
LOMBARDI, Olimpia, 1997, La Noción de Modelo en Ciencias, Educación en
Ciencias, Vol. II, Nº 4, 5-13.
MATTHEWS, Michael R., 2007, Models in Science and in Science Education, Science
and Education, 16, 647-652.
8
MATTHEWS, Michael R., 2000, Time for Science Education. How Teaching the
History and Philosophy of Pendulum Motion Can Contribute to Science Literacy.
Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, U.S.A.
MATTHEWS, Michael R., 1994, The Role of History and Philosophy of Science,
Routledge, New York, U.S.A.
PORLAN, Rafael y RIVERO, Ana, 1998, El conocimiento de los profesores, Serie
Fundamentos Nº9. Colección Investigación y Enseñanza. DIADA Editora. Sevilla,
España.
SANTILLI, Haydée y MARTIN, Ana, 2007, “Un camino para identificar las ideas de
los sujetos desde un enfoque cualitativo”. Revista ieRed. ISSN 1794-8061. Pre print.
http://revista.iered.unicauca.edu.co/normas.html
SANTILLI, Haydée y SPELTINI, Cristina, 2005, “Los docentes ingenieros: su visión
de ciencia y tecnología”. Memorias VII Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en
la Didáctica de las Ciencias Educación científica para la ciudadanía. Granada, España, 7
al 10 de septiembre de 2005. Publicación en CD, Enseñanza de las Ciencias. Número
extra Revista Enseñanza de las Ciencias. ISSN: 0212-4521. Páginas 1-5.
SANTILLI, 1997a, Haydée, “Students’ Science Conceptions, their Inquiries and Fears”,
International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference Proceedings,
Calgary, Canada, CD ROM pp 665-670.
SANTILLI, Haydée, 1997b, "Inquietudes de los alumnos frente a la ciencia. Análisis de
cien preguntas sobre Albert Einstein”, Educación y Pedagogía, Revista Universidad de
Antioquía, Colombia, N°18, vol. IX, 145-165.
http://ayura.udea.edu.co/publicaciones/revista/revista18.pdf,