Teaching Scientific Thinking Across the Curriculum in 21st Century Classrooms

“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.” Carl Sagan

Judging from headlines and media chatter about our students’ performances on international science assessments for the past several years, the United States has been doomed economically for at least a decade. A New York Times headline in December 2012 most recently prognosticated our economic demise with, “US Students Still Lag Globally in Math and Science, Tests Show.” In that article, the Times declares economic doom by stating, “As those with superior math and science skills increasingly thrive in a global economy, the lag among American students could be a cause for concern.” According to the Times, we are doomed economically because our international science test scores tell us that is the case.

Back  in 2007 another New York Times article forecast economic doom at the hand of Asian countries with better science scores. In “Study Compares States’ Math and Science Scores with Other Countries,’” the Times stated, “Our Asian economic competitors are winning the race to prepare students in math and science.” That article, which compared state science scores to the scores of other nations, even declared Massachusetts, with the highest state science scores in the land to be doomed economically at the hand of Asian nations. That same year, the Washington Post joined the chorus with, “U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around the World on Math-Science Test.”  The Post again declared economic doom because of 2006 math-science scores on the Program for International Student Assessment. Former Governor of Colorado, stated at the time, “How are our children going to be able to compete with the children of the world?” Once again, economic doom is declared.

Finally, in 2009, it was CNN who made another economic doom declaration in, “U.S. Students Behind in Math, Science, Analysis Says.” In this article, the news network declares, “American children aren’t necessarily getting smarter or dumber, but that might not be good enough to compete globally…” In other words, we’re doomed economically because of our science test scores. Every time a new set of international test scores are released, this pattern is repeated, and the same theme is reiterated: The US is doomed economically because we did not get the highest scores in the world in math and science. But should our concern really be with whether or not we’re ranked first in the world in math and science tests? Shouldn’t we be less concerned about whether our students have the number 1 science scores in the world and more concerned about whether our students are actually learning science and how to think scientifically?  Perhaps what we really need is a framework of fundamental assumptions to guide the teaching of science as a“way of thinking” across subject areas.

Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, argues that science is the means for discovering what is true based on facts.  It is with this process of discovery and inquiry with which our students need the most help. What they need are help understanding  fundamental principles of science that guide true scientific thinking. Based on Sagan’s ideas, here are four assumptions about the the nature of scientific thinking that should inform all our teaching across content areas.

• Science involves being willing to accept facts even when they contradict your current views. As Carl Sagan points out, “Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.” Too often, science is used to simply confirm currently held worldviews. In the process, facts that don’t fit are either tossed out or made irrelevant. But science isn’t about confirming our beliefs about the world; it’s about discovering the world we don’t know, and that means accepting sometimes things that contradict our worldviews. I call this being comfortable with contradiction. Teaching our students to be comfortable with contradiction is one of the keys to scientific thinking.
• Science involves holding our theories, hypotheses, and beliefs about the world as tentative. Beliefs can change, when facts change. What is true today is subject to change when facts change. The job of science is to constantly examine facts, and adjust views when the facts warrant it. It is what Sagan describes as carrying “alternative hypotheses in our heads and seeing which best fits the facts.” Teaching students to embrace the “tentativeness of what-they-know” is an important part of scientific thinking too.
• Science involves questioning “arguments from authority.” Carl Sagan states this much more clearly than I can: “Authorities must prove their arguments like everyone else.” Teaching our students that “no one gets a pass” on proof in their argument is vital to scientific thinking.
• Science involves engaging fully what Sagan calls its “error-correcting machinery.” Our students need to understand the processes of error-correcting, such as peer review and critical questioning. They need to understand that our beliefs and our conclusions should be subject to these processes so that any errors made at arriving at those conclusions are made evident. For science to work, this “error-correcting machinery” must be utilized. Like an error purification system, the ideas that can’t stand up to peer review or criticism are at least looked upon with skepticism, if not rejected. Teaching students about science’s built-in-error correction system is important to 21st century scientific thinking too.
• Finally, as Sagan points out, “Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge.” Our students, in the process of engaging in scientific thinking, need to understand its limitations as well. They need to know that there are questions to which science may not be able to answer. Absolute beliefs, even in the infallibity of science, result in a kind of fundamentalism not too different that found in religion. Teaching students scientific thinking’s limitations and pitfalls is an important part of scientific thinking.

While the predictions for American economic doom based on science test scores is probably going to continue, what is of greater concern is whether our students are actually learning how to think scientifically. Our students need to be engaged in scientific thinking, not just in science either. They need to engage in science across the curriculum. In order to do that, all of our teaching needs to be informed by basic guiding assumptions about science like these five. Otherwise, our students will be ill-equipped to engage in scientific thinking.

Equipping Students with a Baloney-Detection Kit in the Information Age

According to Michael Shermer, "Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims." He also points out that skeptics aren't "closeminded or cynical;" they are "curious and cautious," and their beliefs are open to revision when the facts change.

In an information-rich world where we are bombarded with all manner of fantastic claims and ideas, one would do well to adopt some degree of skepticism. For our students, being able to evaluate extraordinary claims, and be skeptical, is a vital skill in the 21st century. 

In January, I posted "8 Must-Have Skills for Spotting Misinformation for 21st Century Students" in which I pointed out a starter list of "baloney-detection skills" based on Loren Collins' book Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation. In a more recent post, entitled "What Is Skepticism, Anyway?" author Michael Shermer reviewed a "Baloney-Detection Kit" produced by Skeptic magazine.This kit captures some additional important "baloney-detection skills" our 21st century students need. Below, I have taken the liberty to adapt this "Baloney-Detection Skills Kit"  for educational use and teaching.

When students encounter any claim made by someone either in or out of cyberspace, here's a list of questions they might ask:

• Does the source of the claim often make similar claims? According to Sherrmer, "Pseudo-scientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts." They also tend make numerous fantastic claims. It is important to recognize when an individual makes a habit of making radical claims, because that is perhaps a good sign their claims are bogus or suspect.
• Have the claims been verified by other sources? Pseudo-scientists and others often make statements that are unverified or only verified by those within their own belief circle. It is important to teach our students how to "check on those who are checking the claims" being made.
• Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought? In other words, have efforts only been made to seek out evidence that confirms the claim, not dis-confirm?  Our students need to be able to recognize when a claimant is caught up in confirmation bias. They need to understand that science emphasizes checking and rechecking the evidence. Verification and replication are vital. Being able to recognize when someone is trying to falsify a claim is the key to detecting misinformation.
• Has the person making the claim given a different explanation for what is happening, or are they simply denying the existing explanation? Those engaged in misinformation often resort to criticizing the claim they oppose and the arguments, but not affirm what they believe. Students need to be able to recognize when someone is only attacking at explanation but not offering any alternative. This is a sign that a person's claims are possibly suspect.
• Does the person's personal beliefs and biases drive their conclusions or vice versa? It is important for our students to understand how biases and personal beliefs slant interpretations of data. Also, students need to understand the importance of engaging in a "peer-review" process in order to detect those biases and beliefs, and to determine how those have affected the claims being made.

When it comes to teaching our students to be skeptical, I like the aphorism Shermer offers. It is an excellent guide for ourselves and our students in an age of misinformation. He writes:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In the 21st century, there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching our students to demand extraordinary evidence when they are faced with fantastic claims. Critical evaluation of information is a 21st century survival tool our students can't live without.

Posted with Blogsy