Best Invension of Science
This part of the paper reports results from the qualitative analysis of curriculum documents and textbooks. The existing science curriculum for students majoring in science has a separate chapter on knowledge about science called the ‘Development of Physical Science’, which includes the development of physical sciences and the “method of science” (National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB), 1996, p. 138). Similarly, existing general science curriculum for humanities and business students has a separate chapter on ideas about science, too. The proposed science curriculum does not include any separate chapter on this topic. However, ‘Ideas about Science’ are embedded in theoretical content and practical activities in all three curricula, which are discussed below.
Nature of scientific knowledge
1. Scientific knowledge is tentative: There was evidence of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge in existing science curriculum materials. For example, the following textbook excerpt shows that ideas about heat have changed over time:
Until the last part of eighteenth century, scientists thought that heat is a fine fluid named caloric. Hot matters contain more caloric and cold matters contain less … In 1778, Count Rumford proved that there is nothing like caloric in reality (Tapan, Hasan, & Choudhury, 2000, p. 155).
Similarly, the development of different concepts about the atom and the limitations of Dalton’s atomic theory and Rutherford’s atomic model, in addition to the evolving development of the periodic table. promotes an acceptance of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge.
There is no explicit statement regarding this aspect in the existing general science curriculum or textbook. No science content in this curriculum is presented as debatable or uncertain. Thus, science has been presented as certain knowledge.
Science knowledge has been portrayed as certain knowledge in most cases in the proposed curriculum. For example, no alternative theory or different perspective has been included in discussion of evolution or environmental pollution. Only in a few cases, the uncertainty of scientific knowledge has been portrayed. In one such case, teachers have been recommended to inform students that “there are atomic models [other than Bohr’s and Rutherford’s] and new ones may be formulated in future” (NCTB, 2004 a, p. 22). However, certainty of science knowledge has been portrayed as a whole in the proposed curriculum.
2. Science is socially and culturally embedded: The historical development of scientific knowledge has been emphasized in the existing science curriculum for science major students. A brief discussion of historical development of science in the first unit of the physics curriculum and textbook includes the development of science in ancient Greek and Indian civilization and in middle age Europe, the impact of industrial revolution on the development of science and the evolution of modern physical science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Moreover, the brief histories of development of important scientific principles or concepts have been presented in some other units of physics, chemistry and biology textbooks. However, no discussion is found on the social and cultural influence on science in the present Bangladeshi or world contexts.
Very little emphasis has been given on the historical development of science in the existing general science curriculum. It has been mentioned that science has a big role in the development of civilization. Other than this, nothing about historical development of science or socio-cultural influence on science has been included in the curriculum or textbook.
No emphasis has been given on historical development or social and cultural embeddedness of science in the proposed science curriculum. There is no explicit content on this aspect. Moreover, the instruction to textbook authors that “there is no need to write history of [inventing the] atom, electron, proton, neutron and atomic models” (NCTB, 2004 b, p. 63) shows that this is not considered as an important idea to be included in the proposed curriculum.
3. Science is empirically based: The empirical basis of science is portrayed in existing science curriculum and textbooks for science students through the emphasis on conducting experiments and reaching conclusions from the experimental data. The textbooks, especially, show this emphasis in the description of the scientific method and in the recipe-like procedures of practical activities. For example, one of the steps of the scientific method, discussed in the physics textbook is, “accepting, rejecting or modifying the hypothesis on the basis of experimental/empirical data” (Tapan et al., 2000, p. 10, emphasis added). The existing general science curriculum portrays this idea about science in a similar way; the textbook emphasizes relying on empirical/experimental data for making decisions in the given examples of the scientific method and procedures of practical activities. The proposed curriculum also emphasizes relying on experimental/empirical data for making decisions in investigations and, thus, portrays the importance of empirical basis of scientific knowledge.
4. Observation and inference: Observation has been shown as an important step of the scientific method, which is discussed in the existing physics textbook, but there is nothing about inference. In the procedure for arecipe-style practical work, in the existing chemistry textbook, possible observation and inference of different qualitative experiments have been given (Hazari, 2000); but consequently, students have limited opportunities to gain inference skills from their observations. Moreover, no distinction is made anywhere in the curriculum between observation and inference. The existing general science textbook presents observation as a step of practical activities. However, nothing is found in the curriculum regarding the difference between observation and inference. The proposed curriculum does not portray the distinction between observation and inference well, though it presents the collection of data as an important step of investigation. There is no discussion on how to make observations and inferences from the observation.
5. Science necessarily involves human inference, imagination and creativity: The existing science curriculum for science major students sends negative messages to students regarding this aspect, as emphasis has been given to testing/experimenting without mentioning creativity or imagination in this process; therefore, students do not see any role of human’s imagination and creativity in the recipe-style practical work. Similarly, through the recipe-style practical work, the existing general science curriculum portrays science as a human independent activity.
The proposed science curriculum has an objective “to understand the nature of science as a human activity” (NCTB, 2004 a, p. 4); and accordingly, it does portray involvement of human inference, imagination and creativity in science by giving students the freedom regarding hypothesizing, planning and conducting experiments, interpreting data and making decisions in open investigations.
Methods of science
1. Different forms of scientific inquiry: The existing physics text book noted that there is no fixed method of doing science, however, scientists’ conduct scientific research in an organized and systematic way, and there is one general ‘scientific method’ of doing science (Tapan et al., 2000). Typical steps of the scientific method and verification type practical works show that the existing science curriculum for science students presents experimental research as the only form of science inquiry; it does not pay any attention to descriptive or correlational research. This curriculum has never mentioned that a single experiment may not be sufficient to establish a knowledge claim. The existing general science textbook describes the scientific method with an example of a farmer who conducts an experiment to know whether giving fertilizer increases the yield of the crops (Hoque, Shafiullah, Uddin, Roy, & Das, 2000). However, there are very few practical activities included in the textbook; and those that are included are recipe-style procedures; moreover, these practical activities are not to be assessed in the all-important public examination at the end of year 10. Therefore, scientific inquiry has little importance in this curriculum. The proposed curriculum does not portray different forms of scientific inquiry explicitly. However, the proposed curriculum promotes diversity in scientific thinking by introducing open investigations. There is no suggested single/fixed procedure given for the investigations. Students are supposed to identify problems, identify variables, formulate a hypothesis, plan and conduct an experiment, collect, analyze and interpret data in order to reach conclusions. It is likely that different students will carry out an investigation in different ways. It is also likely that procedures will be given in new textbooks; in this case, there will certainly be different procedures in different textbooks, because a number of textbooks are supposed to be published by the NCTB and other publishers (NCTB, 2004 b). Moreover, different investigations other than the experimental method have been included in the curriculum; the proposed curriculum, therefore, promotes diversity in doing science.
2. Analysis and interpretation of data: The existing science textbooks curriculum for students in the science track have provided students with the analysis and interpretation of data in details of the procedures of practical works. Therefore, this curriculum provides students limited opportunities to gain skills of analyzing and interpreting data.
The existing general science curriculum has not included analysis and interpretation of data in practical works. Therefore this curriculum too gives students little scope to gain knowledge and skills in analyzing and interpreting data.
The proposed curriculum gives students a good opportunity to acquire skills in analyzing and interpreting data because analyzing and interpreting data is shown as an important step in investigation; however,no procedure is given for this, so students are supposed to analyze and interpret data themselves. Moreover, students are likely to take analyzing and interpreting data seriously because these skills are supposed to be assessed in School Based Assessment.
3. Hypothesis and prediction: The hypothesis has been presented as an important step of the scientific method in the existing science curriculum for the science students, but the textbooks have not included hypothesizing in the given procedure. This may create confusion in students’ minds regarding the importance of hypothesizing in science. The existing general science curriculum also shows hypothesizing as an important step of scientific method, but does not include it in the practical work. The proposed curriculum presents hypothesizing as an important element of the investigation or practical work, and this aspect is recommended to be assessed in the examination. Therefore, the proposed curriculum emphasizes hypothesizing as an important aspect of doing science.
Institutions and social practices in Science
1. Co-operation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge: This idea about science has been portrayed negatively in the existing science student curriculum. The curriculum and the textbooks presented contributions of individual scientists in physical science and biology; this may portray science as an individual’s endeavor. Group work, which could have portrayed science as a collaborative endeavor, has not been promoted. The existing curriculum and the textbooks for science students do not show that scientists work in groups, and they cooperate and collaborate in doing science.
The existing general science curriculum for humanities and business students gives students an impression that science is an individual’s endeavor by mentioning individual scientist’s inventions. Moreover, working as a group has not been promoted anywhere. On the other hand, the proposed curriculum has emphasized cooperation and collaboration in science by suggesting students’ work in groups for investigations. Unlike the existing two curricula, the curriculum does not emphasize individual scientist’s work.
Sciencedaily