William W. Cobern, Betty AJ Adams, Brandy A-S. Pleasants, Andrew Bentley, Robert Kagumba
{"title":"我们是否存在信任问题?探讨大学生对科学的试探性和可信度的看法","authors":"William W. Cobern, Betty AJ Adams, Brandy A-S. Pleasants, Andrew Bentley, Robert Kagumba","doi":"10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Science includes the fundamental attributes of durability and uncertainty; hence, we teach about the “tentative yet durable” nature of science. Public discourse can be different, where one hears both confidence about “settled science” and doubts about “just theories.” The latter observation gives rise to the possibility that emphasis on learning the tentative nature of science offers some people the actionable option of declining to accept canonical science. Our paper reports the findings from initial and replication exploratory studies involving about 500 preservice, elementary/middle school teacher education students at a large Midwestern public university. Using a survey method that included opportunities for student comments, the study tested hypotheses about confidence in the veracity, durability, tentativeness, and trustworthiness of science. We found that most students embrace noncontroversial science as correct, and that almost all embraced the tentative nature of science regardless of what they thought about controversial topics. However, when asked about the trustworthiness of science, many students were not willing to say that they trust scientific knowledge. Even students strongly supportive of science, including controversial science, responded similarly. And why did they say that science is not trustworthy? The explanation echoed by many students was that scientific knowledge is tentative. Our paper concludes with implications for instruction and research. Our findings suggest that it would be prudent for science educators to increase instructional focus on the relationship between data and evidence that leads to the durability of scientific knowledge. Future research needs to thoroughly investigate the public interpretation of what we teach about the nature and characteristics of science, and for the implications it might have on how scientific knowledge is or is not incorporated in the development and implementation of public policy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56374,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"31 5","pages":"1209 - 1238"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do We Have a Trust Problem? Exploring Undergraduate Student Views on the Tentativeness and Trustworthiness of Science\",\"authors\":\"William W. Cobern, Betty AJ Adams, Brandy A-S. Pleasants, Andrew Bentley, Robert Kagumba\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Science includes the fundamental attributes of durability and uncertainty; hence, we teach about the “tentative yet durable” nature of science. Public discourse can be different, where one hears both confidence about “settled science” and doubts about “just theories.” The latter observation gives rise to the possibility that emphasis on learning the tentative nature of science offers some people the actionable option of declining to accept canonical science. Our paper reports the findings from initial and replication exploratory studies involving about 500 preservice, elementary/middle school teacher education students at a large Midwestern public university. Using a survey method that included opportunities for student comments, the study tested hypotheses about confidence in the veracity, durability, tentativeness, and trustworthiness of science. We found that most students embrace noncontroversial science as correct, and that almost all embraced the tentative nature of science regardless of what they thought about controversial topics. However, when asked about the trustworthiness of science, many students were not willing to say that they trust scientific knowledge. Even students strongly supportive of science, including controversial science, responded similarly. And why did they say that science is not trustworthy? The explanation echoed by many students was that scientific knowledge is tentative. Our paper concludes with implications for instruction and research. Our findings suggest that it would be prudent for science educators to increase instructional focus on the relationship between data and evidence that leads to the durability of scientific knowledge. Future research needs to thoroughly investigate the public interpretation of what we teach about the nature and characteristics of science, and for the implications it might have on how scientific knowledge is or is not incorporated in the development and implementation of public policy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Education\",\"volume\":\"31 5\",\"pages\":\"1209 - 1238\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do We Have a Trust Problem? Exploring Undergraduate Student Views on the Tentativeness and Trustworthiness of Science
Science includes the fundamental attributes of durability and uncertainty; hence, we teach about the “tentative yet durable” nature of science. Public discourse can be different, where one hears both confidence about “settled science” and doubts about “just theories.” The latter observation gives rise to the possibility that emphasis on learning the tentative nature of science offers some people the actionable option of declining to accept canonical science. Our paper reports the findings from initial and replication exploratory studies involving about 500 preservice, elementary/middle school teacher education students at a large Midwestern public university. Using a survey method that included opportunities for student comments, the study tested hypotheses about confidence in the veracity, durability, tentativeness, and trustworthiness of science. We found that most students embrace noncontroversial science as correct, and that almost all embraced the tentative nature of science regardless of what they thought about controversial topics. However, when asked about the trustworthiness of science, many students were not willing to say that they trust scientific knowledge. Even students strongly supportive of science, including controversial science, responded similarly. And why did they say that science is not trustworthy? The explanation echoed by many students was that scientific knowledge is tentative. Our paper concludes with implications for instruction and research. Our findings suggest that it would be prudent for science educators to increase instructional focus on the relationship between data and evidence that leads to the durability of scientific knowledge. Future research needs to thoroughly investigate the public interpretation of what we teach about the nature and characteristics of science, and for the implications it might have on how scientific knowledge is or is not incorporated in the development and implementation of public policy.
期刊介绍:
Science & Education publishes research informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science and mathematics that seeks to promote better teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics. More particularly Science & Education promotes: The utilization of historical, philosophical and sociological scholarship to clarify and deal with the many intellectual issues facing contemporary science and mathematics education. Collaboration between the communities of scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, science and mathematics educators, and school and college teachers. An understanding of the philosophical, cultural, economic, religious, psychological and ethical dimensions of modern science and the interplay of these factors in the history of science. The inclusion of appropriate history and philosophy of science and mathematics courses in science and mathematics teacher-education programmes. The dissemination of accounts of lessons, units of work, and programmes in science and mathematics, at all levels, that have successfully utilized history and philosophy. Discussion of the philosophy and purposes of science and mathematics education, and their place in, and contribution to, the intellectual and ethical development of individuals and cultures.