Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.468
Emily Lahr
Laboratory exercises are a vital part of science learning and allow students to develop practical skills, connect content to real-world applications, and serve as the foundation for further knowledge beyond the classroom. Blended laboratories are a method that incorporates technology and science content to create an experience for learners to still engage with information allowing students to immerse themselves in the content. Blended learning laboratory lessons can be designed in multiple ways such as data-driven, partner-driven, and image-driven. This article looks to provide practitioners with a foundation to design and implement blended learning laboratories through the example of the author’s classroom.
{"title":"Blended Laboratory Environments for Increased Learning","authors":"Emily Lahr","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.468","url":null,"abstract":"Laboratory exercises are a vital part of science learning and allow students to develop practical skills, connect content to real-world applications, and serve as the foundation for further knowledge beyond the classroom. Blended laboratories are a method that incorporates technology and science content to create an experience for learners to still engage with information allowing students to immerse themselves in the content. Blended learning laboratory lessons can be designed in multiple ways such as data-driven, partner-driven, and image-driven. This article looks to provide practitioners with a foundation to design and implement blended learning laboratories through the example of the author’s classroom.","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135705696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.464
Vikash Morar
In all fields of biology, understanding technical terminology is a challenge for students. In many cases, this may distract them from focusing on fundamental processes and concepts. Across the biology subfields, much of the vernacular shares similar etymology and morphology. However, students lack the exposure necessary to identify these key features, which often explain the meaning of terms without requiring any context at all. Therefore, instead of encouraging students to memorize many terms independently, it could be more beneficial to show them how words are constructed. Here, I propose an activity designed to help students recognize terms that may be connected, understand how vocabulary is often constructed to reflect its idea, and develop comfortability using these terms themselves in discussions. Through a guided group activity, students will have a chance to break down terms they have previously encountered and to draw connections between novel words. If students are capable of relating words to each other before even knowing what they mean, they may learn more effectively. Without being intimidated by enigmatic vocabulary, they can focus on broader concepts. In addition, when students understand how biological terminology is constructed, they may even dissect new words without needing the context surrounding them. This activity is applicable to courses in any specialty of biology, as various molecules, tissues, and processes follow general naming principles.
{"title":"Simplifying Biology Vocabulary via Morphology","authors":"Vikash Morar","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.464","url":null,"abstract":"In all fields of biology, understanding technical terminology is a challenge for students. In many cases, this may distract them from focusing on fundamental processes and concepts. Across the biology subfields, much of the vernacular shares similar etymology and morphology. However, students lack the exposure necessary to identify these key features, which often explain the meaning of terms without requiring any context at all. Therefore, instead of encouraging students to memorize many terms independently, it could be more beneficial to show them how words are constructed. Here, I propose an activity designed to help students recognize terms that may be connected, understand how vocabulary is often constructed to reflect its idea, and develop comfortability using these terms themselves in discussions. Through a guided group activity, students will have a chance to break down terms they have previously encountered and to draw connections between novel words. If students are capable of relating words to each other before even knowing what they mean, they may learn more effectively. Without being intimidated by enigmatic vocabulary, they can focus on broader concepts. In addition, when students understand how biological terminology is constructed, they may even dissect new words without needing the context surrounding them. This activity is applicable to courses in any specialty of biology, as various molecules, tissues, and processes follow general naming principles.","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135705686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423
John L. Rudolph
Editorial| October 01 2023 The “Moonshot” American Science Instruction Really Needs John L. Rudolph John L. Rudolph JOHN L. RUDOLPH is the Vilas Distinguished Professor of Science Education at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His new book is Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should). john.rudolph@wisc.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar john.rudolph@wisc.edu The American Biology Teacher (2023) 85 (8): 423. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John L. Rudolph; The “Moonshot” American Science Instruction Really Needs. The American Biology Teacher 1 October 2023; 85 (8): 423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search In December 2022, former astronaut and current U.S. senator Mark Kelly kicked off the Department of Education’s YOU Belong in STEM conference in Washington, DC. In his opening remarks, Kelly made the familiar case that training more science and technology professionals is crucial to growing the economy and strengthening national security. It was the NASA Apollo missions to the moon, Kelly explained, that inspired him to pursue a career in science. He said every child should be inspired in some way to do the same. All this seems sensible enough: Science is the engine of technological innovation, which drives economic growth, and schools are not producing enough scientists ready to enter the STEM-career pipeline. The problem is, that isn’t true. And neither is another prominent reason we place a high social value on science education: that science knowledge provides a foundation for everyday decision making. We need to move the... You do not currently have access to this content.
{"title":"The “Moonshot” American Science Instruction Really Needs","authors":"John L. Rudolph","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423","url":null,"abstract":"Editorial| October 01 2023 The “Moonshot” American Science Instruction Really Needs John L. Rudolph John L. Rudolph JOHN L. RUDOLPH is the Vilas Distinguished Professor of Science Education at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His new book is Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should). john.rudolph@wisc.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar john.rudolph@wisc.edu The American Biology Teacher (2023) 85 (8): 423. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John L. Rudolph; The “Moonshot” American Science Instruction Really Needs. The American Biology Teacher 1 October 2023; 85 (8): 423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.8.423 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search In December 2022, former astronaut and current U.S. senator Mark Kelly kicked off the Department of Education’s YOU Belong in STEM conference in Washington, DC. In his opening remarks, Kelly made the familiar case that training more science and technology professionals is crucial to growing the economy and strengthening national security. It was the NASA Apollo missions to the moon, Kelly explained, that inspired him to pursue a career in science. He said every child should be inspired in some way to do the same. All this seems sensible enough: Science is the engine of technological innovation, which drives economic growth, and schools are not producing enough scientists ready to enter the STEM-career pipeline. The problem is, that isn’t true. And neither is another prominent reason we place a high social value on science education: that science knowledge provides a foundation for everyday decision making. We need to move the... You do not currently have access to this content.","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"187 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135705689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.7.410
Kirstin Milks, Frank Brown Cloud, Mark Terry
{"title":"Quirks of Human Anatomy: An Evo-Devo Look at the Human Body; How the Snake Lost Its Legs: Curious Tales from the Frontier of Evo-Devo; Deep Homology? Uncanny Similarities of Humans and Flies Uncovered by Evo-Devo and Animal Anomalies: What Abnormal Anatomies Reveal about Normal Development","authors":"Kirstin Milks, Frank Brown Cloud, Mark Terry","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.7.410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.7.410","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135200619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.5.285
J. Jordan Steel, Marisa J. Romero, Kristi McElmurry
COVID took over the world starting in 2020. Everyone quickly “knew” about the novel coronavirus, but how much do they actually know about the virus behind COVID-19? This classroom activity gives students real-world practice in evaluating actual genetic sequences from SARS-CoV-2 and working with genome alignments to identify mutations and cluster different emergence patterns. This activity works through alignments, mutations/variants, protein folding, structure and function, and medical/immunology implications of the different variants. There are seven parts to this activity, and each one can be incorporated alone into a lesson or collectively used for a lab, case study, or other supplemental activity to strengthen learning objectives in genetics, biology, immunology, and public health. This learning activity is scalable to different levels and has successfully been incorporated into K–12 education as well as college and graduate education.
{"title":"Alpha, Delta, Omicron—Oh My! A SARS-CoV-2 Genome Alignment Activity to Understand Mutations and COVID Variants","authors":"J. Jordan Steel, Marisa J. Romero, Kristi McElmurry","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.5.285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.5.285","url":null,"abstract":"COVID took over the world starting in 2020. Everyone quickly “knew” about the novel coronavirus, but how much do they actually know about the virus behind COVID-19? This classroom activity gives students real-world practice in evaluating actual genetic sequences from SARS-CoV-2 and working with genome alignments to identify mutations and cluster different emergence patterns. This activity works through alignments, mutations/variants, protein folding, structure and function, and medical/immunology implications of the different variants. There are seven parts to this activity, and each one can be incorporated alone into a lesson or collectively used for a lab, case study, or other supplemental activity to strengthen learning objectives in genetics, biology, immunology, and public health. This learning activity is scalable to different levels and has successfully been incorporated into K–12 education as well as college and graduate education.","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134903459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.2.122
Douglas Allchin
What if the legendary character Don Quixote had been a scientist? Surely his quest would have been the noble pursuit of objectivity. Scientists endeavor to transcend mere opinion or individual interpretation. They strive for publicly confirmable facts. Accordingly, scientists appeal to empirical evidence, measurements, and observations—regarded as the bedrock for factual claims.Yet, at the same time, ordinary humans can be fallible observers. Their interpretations can be skewed by prior expectations or personal desires. Historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science thus now typically contend that observations are “theory laden”—easily reflecting the researchers’ assumptions. In the past, the ideal of science was expressed in the simple motto “I’ll believe it when I see it!” Now, some cynics contend, an honest scientist might admit the ironic converse: “I’ll see it when I believe it.”Are we inevitable puppets to our beliefs? To what degree are observations in science trustworthy? How else would we defend scientific claims? (How else would we resolve contentious facts in our society?) Most teachers, I think, endorse the conventional view—that scientists and their observations are inherently objective. And that this makes science privileged. Here I explore this revered view (this month’s “Sacred Bovine”). Ultimately, I maintain, we are not as perfect as in the quixotic image. Yet science has developed tools to accommodate our cognitive flaws and to rescue science’s claim to its much-vaunted objectivity.Objectivity is a hallmark principle of our justice system too. Think of the allegorical figure holding aloft the scales of justice, blindfolded and impartial. Courts need trustworthy evidence to decide whether someone is culpable or innocent. For example, they rely on witnesses.However, cognitive research has shown that observers’ perceptions can be shaped and reshaped by personal experience and prejudices. Memories are vulnerable to suggestion too. Eyewitness testimony is—counterintuitively perhaps—among the least reliable in a courtroom (see the provocative volume by Loftus et al., 2019). That is, witnesses are susceptible to observer bias. We might, therefore, turn to forensic science and physical evidence—fingerprints, blood, DNA—as more secure.But even here, observer bias can intrude. We know this because science has turned on itself, to investigate its own objectivity. Psychologists have tested forensic experts in historical crime scenarios. Their assessment of bullet and shoeprint evidence seemed pretty consistent. But when contextual information about a case was available, it could affect how they interpreted a crime scene, how they matched fingerprints, how they identified individuals from the DNA when a sample mixes DNA from multiple persons, how they interpreted bloodstain patterns, and how they assessed skin injuries, at least. Even what dog handlers believed about possible culprits could influence the behavior of their sniffer dog
如果传奇人物堂吉诃德是个科学家会怎样?当然，他的追求是对客观的崇高追求。科学家努力超越单纯的意见或个人的解释。他们力求公开证实的事实。因此，科学家们求助于经验证据、测量和观察——它们被视为事实主张的基础。然而，与此同时，普通人也可能是容易犯错的观察者。他们的解释可能会被先前的期望或个人欲望所扭曲。因此，科学的历史学家、哲学家和社会学家现在通常认为，观察结果是“充满理论的”——很容易反映出研究人员的假设。过去，科学的理想是用一句简单的格言来表达的:“眼见为实!”现在，一些愤世嫉俗者认为，一个诚实的科学家可能会承认具有讽刺意味的相反:“当我相信它时，我会看到它。”我们是否不可避免地成为自己信念的傀儡?科学观察在多大程度上是可信的?不然我们怎么捍卫科学主张呢?(不然我们该如何解决社会中有争议的事实?)我认为，大多数教师都赞同传统观点，即科学家和他们的观察本质上是客观的。这使得科学享有特权。在这里，我探讨了这个受人尊敬的观点(本月的“圣牛”)。最终，我坚持认为，我们并不像堂吉诃德想象的那样完美。然而，科学已经开发出了一些工具来适应我们的认知缺陷，并挽救了科学对其大肆吹嘘的客观性的主张。客观也是我们司法制度的一个标志性原则。想想那个寓言人物高举正义的天平，蒙着眼睛，不偏不倚。法院需要可靠的证据来判定某人有罪还是无罪。例如，他们依靠证人。然而，认知研究表明，观察者的感知可以被个人经验和偏见塑造和重塑。记忆也容易受到暗示的影响。也许与直觉相反，目击证人的证词是法庭上最不可靠的证词之一(参见洛夫特斯等人2019年出版的挑衅性著作)。也就是说，目击者容易受到观察者偏见的影响。因此，我们可能会求助于法医科学和物证——指纹、血液、dna——因为它们更安全。但即使在这里，观察者的偏见也会侵入。我们知道这一点，因为科学已经开始研究自己的客观性。心理学家在历史犯罪场景中对法医专家进行了测试。他们对子弹和鞋印证据的评估似乎相当一致。但是，当案件的背景信息可用时，它可能会影响他们如何解释犯罪现场，如何匹配指纹，如何从DNA中识别来自多个人的DNA样本，如何解释血迹模式，以及如何评估皮肤损伤，至少。甚至训犬员对可能的罪魁祸首的看法也会影响他们的嗅探犬的行为(Colloff, 2018;Cooper & Meterko, 2019)。我们能做些什么来确保正义?在现代医学研究中，处理观察者偏见是标准的。为了防止对病人病情的判断被影射，医生们被蒙上了眼睛。他们不知道谁在接受新药或治疗，谁在服用无效的安慰剂。偏见是不可能的，即使是无意识的。这种做法出现在一个多世纪以前。Adolf Bingel于1912-1913年在德国不伦瑞克市总医院进行了一项具有里程碑意义的研究(Tröhler, 2011)。几十年来，白喉一直是欧洲的一大祸害。血清疗法(1901年获得第一届诺贝尔生理学或医学奖)无疑改善了这种状况。宾格尔承认它的功效，但质疑它是否起作用是因为血清中有一种特殊的抗毒素。血清本身——任何血清——是否同样有效?到这个时候，控制实验比较的概念得到了广泛的认可(Sacred Bovines, 2020年3月)。因此，宾格尔建立了两个小组。一些患者接受了常规的“抗毒素”血清，另一些接受了普通的马血清。为了避免无意中使样本产生偏差，他有条不紊地将所有其他住院患者分配到另一组。宾格尔意识到，鉴于他的想法具有争议性，医生们的先入之见构成了一种特殊的危险。他提醒他的读者，“评估治疗对疾病的影响是非常困难的，除非这些影响是显而易见的，例如，外科手术的成功，或者用汞或萨尔瓦桑治愈梅毒。”治疗乐观主义者很容易看到改善，而怀疑论者什么也看不到。”因此，他希望“获得客观的全面评估”，而不是医生非正式的、可能带有偏见的“印象”。 因此，“为了使试验尽可能客观，”他解释说，“我没有单独依靠自己的判断，而是寻求了白喉病房(至少六名)助理医生的意见，而没有告知他们被测试血清(即普通马血清)的性质。”因此，他们的判断完全没有偏见。我渴望看到我的观察得到独立的检验，并且最热烈地推荐这种‘盲’方法”(Bingel, 1918, p. 288)。在这里，宾格尔使用了今天仍然很常见的术语:致盲。这种方法使宾格尔有争议的结论更加可信:这位诺贝尔奖得主的理论主张是错误的。任何血清都有效。记录观察者偏见的具体实例可能很困难。然而，人们可以通过盲法和非盲法观察的大量比较来衡量一般问题的严重程度。其中一项分析着眼于一系列医学治疗的临床研究，从心脏病到伤口再到精神疾病(Hróbjartsson et al.， 2013;Hróbjartsson et al.， 2014)。在非盲法研究中，即存在观察者偏见的研究中，结论(平均而言)更加引人注目。受益的可能性提高了36%。效应量增加了68%。甚至在动物模型的实验室研究中也发现了类似的差异(Bello et al.， 2014)。总的来说，盲法研究似乎得出了更温和的结果。即使在有大量随机样本的临床试验中，不必要的观察者偏见也可能侵入并产生误导性的结果。人们可以很好地想象，观察者偏见将仅限于科学研究，在科学研究中，判断是至关重要的，在科学研究中，先验信念是很强的。不是这样的。这种比较盲法和非盲法研究的方法帮助我们探索了这个假设(本月《神圣的牛》的进一步表达——人们可能默认认为科学家的观察不受这种影响)。例如，蚂蚁能认出它们的近亲(它们的基因近亲)吗?根据亲缘选择理论，个体的行为应该倾向于使其最亲近的遗传亲属受益。所以，这个关于昆虫行为的看似简单的问题对于理解进化生物学有着重要的意义。衡量这种亲缘取向行为的标准方法是观察来自同一群体和不同群体的蚂蚁相遇，并统计它们之间各种类型的相遇。他们对亲属(配偶)或“其他人”表现出多大程度的攻击行为?事实证明，即使对相关行为有了明确的定义，这些评估也可能是微妙的。例如，在触觉接触中识别“下颌张开”或“后坐力”的实例需要一些实验者的判断。在最近的一项荟荟性分析中，研究人员发现了156项关于配偶与非亲属行为的实验(van Wilgenburg & Elgar, 2013)。其中53例符合观察者偏倚分析标准。其中15个使用了盲法行为分析。与临床研究的情况一样，非盲法研究的结果倾向于为主导理论提供更有力的证据。首先，“在盲法实验中，同伴之间的攻击行为被报道的可能性是非盲法实验的三倍。”其次，“在非盲实验中，效应大小——即同巢动物和非同巢动物之间的攻击性水平差异——是盲实验的两倍。”在这里，盲法实验似乎逃脱了理论预期的偏见。另一个不太可能引起观测误差的话题可能是植物的食草性:也就是说，昆虫消耗了多少树叶?人们可能会设想一个相当简单的任务，即对叶子进行采样并测量损失量——扫描它们的表面积，称重，或计算受损叶子的比例。或者从整棵树的照片中直观地估计落叶(并与一些直接抽样交叉检查这种方法)。简单的测量——即使是入门的学生也能做到?基于巴西42篇关于昆虫食草性的出版物(Kozlov et al.， 2014)，也对这一主题进行了研究，以寻找观察者偏倚的证据。再一次，对盲法和非盲法研究进行了比较。根据使用的方法不同，对植物的伤害有5到10倍之差。非盲法研究报告的损害明显大于盲法研究。也就是说，它们符合普遍的假
{"title":"The Quixotic Quest for Objectivity in Observation","authors":"Douglas Allchin","doi":"10.1525/abt.2023.85.2.122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.2.122","url":null,"abstract":"What if the legendary character Don Quixote had been a scientist? Surely his quest would have been the noble pursuit of objectivity. Scientists endeavor to transcend mere opinion or individual interpretation. They strive for publicly confirmable facts. Accordingly, scientists appeal to empirical evidence, measurements, and observations—regarded as the bedrock for factual claims.Yet, at the same time, ordinary humans can be fallible observers. Their interpretations can be skewed by prior expectations or personal desires. Historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science thus now typically contend that observations are “theory laden”—easily reflecting the researchers’ assumptions. In the past, the ideal of science was expressed in the simple motto “I’ll believe it when I see it!” Now, some cynics contend, an honest scientist might admit the ironic converse: “I’ll see it when I believe it.”Are we inevitable puppets to our beliefs? To what degree are observations in science trustworthy? How else would we defend scientific claims? (How else would we resolve contentious facts in our society?) Most teachers, I think, endorse the conventional view—that scientists and their observations are inherently objective. And that this makes science privileged. Here I explore this revered view (this month’s “Sacred Bovine”). Ultimately, I maintain, we are not as perfect as in the quixotic image. Yet science has developed tools to accommodate our cognitive flaws and to rescue science’s claim to its much-vaunted objectivity.Objectivity is a hallmark principle of our justice system too. Think of the allegorical figure holding aloft the scales of justice, blindfolded and impartial. Courts need trustworthy evidence to decide whether someone is culpable or innocent. For example, they rely on witnesses.However, cognitive research has shown that observers’ perceptions can be shaped and reshaped by personal experience and prejudices. Memories are vulnerable to suggestion too. Eyewitness testimony is—counterintuitively perhaps—among the least reliable in a courtroom (see the provocative volume by Loftus et al., 2019). That is, witnesses are susceptible to observer bias. We might, therefore, turn to forensic science and physical evidence—fingerprints, blood, DNA—as more secure.But even here, observer bias can intrude. We know this because science has turned on itself, to investigate its own objectivity. Psychologists have tested forensic experts in historical crime scenarios. Their assessment of bullet and shoeprint evidence seemed pretty consistent. But when contextual information about a case was available, it could affect how they interpreted a crime scene, how they matched fingerprints, how they identified individuals from the DNA when a sample mixes DNA from multiple persons, how they interpreted bloodstain patterns, and how they assessed skin injuries, at least. Even what dog handlers believed about possible culprits could influence the behavior of their sniffer dog","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136251764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1525/ABT.2020.82.6.423
M. Fisher
{"title":"Intersections of Science and Society","authors":"M. Fisher","doi":"10.1525/ABT.2020.82.6.423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/ABT.2020.82.6.423","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"65 1","pages":"423-424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76094227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1525/ABT.2019.81.9.668
K. H. Chan
Students often bring to biology classrooms ideas that are not in line with scientific thought. Simply telling students that their ideas are wrong does not always help advance their scientific thinking. This article describes a teaching and learning activity that allows secondary biology teachers to elicit, interpret, and address students' misconceptions in a meaningful way. The activity provides a chance for students to discuss their nascent ideas about biology with their peers in a safe and nonthreatening environment. More importantly, the activity engages students in a process of reconsidering their initial ideas through reasoning about why certain ideas are scientifically correct.
{"title":"Using a Post-Box Strategy to Elicit & Address Student Misconceptions in Biology","authors":"K. H. Chan","doi":"10.1525/ABT.2019.81.9.668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/ABT.2019.81.9.668","url":null,"abstract":"Students often bring to biology classrooms ideas that are not in line with scientific thought. Simply telling students that their ideas are wrong does not always help advance their scientific thinking. This article describes a teaching and learning activity that allows secondary biology teachers to elicit, interpret, and address students' misconceptions in a meaningful way. The activity provides a chance for students to discuss their nascent ideas about biology with their peers in a safe and nonthreatening environment. More importantly, the activity engages students in a process of reconsidering their initial ideas through reasoning about why certain ideas are scientifically correct.","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"61 4 1","pages":"668-672"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73262519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-01DOI: 10.1525/ABT.2019.81.3.210
Sara Fox
Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency . By Menachem Fisch. 2017. University of Chicago Press. (ISBN 022651451). 293 pp. Paperback, $37.50. In Creatively Undecided , Menachem Fisch attempts to create a framework to explain how scientific consensus can be shifted, such as when new evidence necessitates the revision or dismissal of a scientific theory. This framework is necessary, Fisch postulates, due to the unfinished work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was a physicist who coined the term paradigm shift , alleging that changes in scientific fields tend to be sudden and monumental, rather than gradual and persistent. Fisch argues that Kuhn developed this idea of the paradigm shift but did not satisfactorily explain the mechanism by …
{"title":"Review: Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency, by Menachem Fisch","authors":"Sara Fox","doi":"10.1525/ABT.2019.81.3.210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/ABT.2019.81.3.210","url":null,"abstract":"Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency . By Menachem Fisch. 2017. University of Chicago Press. (ISBN 022651451). 293 pp. Paperback, $37.50.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000In Creatively Undecided , Menachem Fisch attempts to create a framework to explain how scientific consensus can be shifted, such as when new evidence necessitates the revision or dismissal of a scientific theory. This framework is necessary, Fisch postulates, due to the unfinished work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was a physicist who coined the term paradigm shift , alleging that changes in scientific fields tend to be sudden and monumental, rather than gradual and persistent. Fisch argues that Kuhn developed this idea of the paradigm shift but did not satisfactorily explain the mechanism by …","PeriodicalId":50960,"journal":{"name":"American Biology Teacher","volume":"1 1","pages":"210-210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83003643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：