Okay, still not up to party posts. I will get there, I promise. Maybe even one tonight, which means (duh, duh, duuuhhh!) two posts in one day!!
Anyway, just wanted to share this article I found today: Science Engagement in Australia is a 20th Century Toy. I did say I would share science communication things on occasion.
The article says:
Australia is stuck in what theorists call the deficit model, in which the all-knowing scientists impart their knowledge to the empty vessels known as “the public”.
Generally, we consider the deficit model to be a bad thing; the public are NOT empty vessels, and good communication is two way. I agree with that, but the article got me thinking that it is really hard to break out of that model. Perhaps it is because the idea of Western education is founded on the concept - education is merely learning new facts (thereby filling empty vessels). We are slowly moving beyond this, but we have a long way to go.
Maybe because it is easier to stick to this mindframe - think of the simplicity of preparing a lecture on a topic as opposed to planning an interactive learning activity. Of preaching a message to an audience, instead of waiting for and responding to their response.
I got me thinking - most of the 'science-promoting' tools that I know and love are based on the deficit model. :( That is very distressing. Science centres (even though they are interactive, there is still the concept of teaching visitors), Science Week, public lectures.
The article suggests engaging the public requires them to be involved in the debate. But how do you actually do that? How do you let anyone and everyone have a say and still remain legitimate? How do you let everyone get involved? How do you encourage people to look kindly on science without 'preaching' to them with knowledge?
I'm kind of stumped.
I know there are some solutions, but on a national scale, I am stumped. I hope Australian's can break the trend and find an answer, because it is so important.
I'll have to ponder this one some more.
Thoughts anyone?
Hmm. I think, at least in terms of some of the theory-learning we did pre-teaching, that it doesn't have to necessarily do away with the whole concept of one person/location as a source of knowledge; it just has to go beyond that.
ReplyDeleteStart by asking 'the class' what they already know. Let their knowledge guide the direction, let their interests choose the topic. Hard to do that with a static display such as Q, but technology is more than up to the task of being user-directed - hello, internet.
Actually, I guess the internet is the ultimate antithesis to the deficit model: everyone can have a say, and you as a user are totally self-directed, or at least as directed as you are willing to allow yourself to be. So the teacher should be expert enough to be able to follow in the direction the students choose?
IDK. It IS hard, because at a fundamental level, it is a transfer of knowledge that we are talking about, and especially in terms of science, it usually IS the case that one person has more knowledge than the other.
So I guess really the only way you CAN tap into an alternative to the deficit model is to break the assumption that everyone is empty, and equally empty; like I said before, start by finding out what the person does already know, rather than assuming emptiness, and treat all learners as individuals, rather than a generic mass.
IDK! What do you think of these thoughts???
But even schools have set curricula. And you can't just go in any direction the students choose because they might not know what is good to learn. This is a problem with just letting things go willy nilly - you can miss important content. And I think structure, particularly in a school environment, is quite important. (I know that you certainly do still use structure and curricula).
ReplyDeletePerhaps intention is the crucial thing here. If you run a science lecture with the mere intention of 'educating the ignorant masses' as opposed to sharing your message to help grow peoples' knowledge bases, then that would be deficit. But if you acknowledge that your audience has knowledge too, then you are sharing knowledge not spouting it.
Same with science centres. Yes, we hope you learn something from them, but if the communicators in the galleries recognise and value the knowledge that visitor's already have then they don't share the science to merely to teach, but also to allow people to experience science practically and in there own way. Then it is more guiding than preaching. That's what we aim for anyway - science engagement. Which means people don't have to know all the science facts (pah, who can remember them all anyway. I remember reading a quiz that top scientists did - the biologists were totally ignorant about physics, and vice versa) but it is super if they can know that science is there and isn't scary nerds controlling the world (mostly... ;) ) and is an important player in our world. If we can do this, then mission accomplished.