Science Courses for Non-Science Majors: A Roundtable held at Innovation in Honors Education, a Penn State Conference for University Honors Programs, June 1999 Leader: Harold M. Hastings, Hofstra University Email: mathmh@hofstra.edu Reporter/Editor: Rich Stoller Email: rjs27@psu.edu Abstract The design, construction and delivery of Science Honors Courses poses challenges not found in the design, construction and delivery of Honors courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Honors students enter with widely varying mathematical backgrounds and laboratory experience. Original materials are frequently difficult to read, and many journal articles in the sciences are virtually incomprehensible to the non-specialist. In addition, there may be conflicts between two worthy goals: teaching science literacy and teaching scientific methods. While not reaching definitive conclusions, this workshop explored key issues and provided examples of accepted best practices. (Workshop held June 1999; abstract added later). Freeform notes Harold's introduction: Hofstra had a classically-oriented Honors Program, until a science-for-humanists course was added for the jr. year, about connections between science and music, art, architecture, etc. But Science doesn't seem to have played a major role in Honors education, by and large. We expect all of our students to be literate in the humanities, but we don't expect equivalent literacy in math/science...even though that may well be more accessible, at an introductory level than, for example, literary analysis. Carmen: Everyone, regardless of major, should have a scientific grounding, because of the ubiquity of science discourse, in the media and so on. The paradox is that science professors are subject specialists, but if they teach to non-science majors with that approach, the students will be bored or uncomprehending; science for non-science students requires a relational, holistic approach, which many faculty are not familiar/comfortable with. Harold: It's important to choose topics that are "intrinsically interesting," but which are key to the scientific discipline...DNA is a good example. Observation of a lunar eclipse is another good example-it's widely accessible, social events can be programmed around it, and it really is illustrative of important scientific concepts. Lynn: That approach permits "intellectual play," which is very important. Non-science majors often don't have a sense of what genuine Ph.D. specialists in a math/science field actually do-for instance, what do mathematicians actually do? Non-specialists see those fields as so opaque...e.g. why does that equation/constant hold true, why does "e" exist, etc... So the core beauty of it isn't clear to non-majors, the way things are usually taught. Alec: There's lots of information taught but not a lot of principles...so the whole esthetic attraction of these fields isn't conveyed. For instance, if you teach the physics of the wheel, you're getting at the esthetically attractive heart of physics, and it's actually key info for lots of important design issues.... it's "like going to the museum every day." Harold: (draws a geometric proof of the Pythagorean theorem on the worksheet) It's a math exercise (i.e. calculate the area in the triangles, etc), but there's also a profound esthetic angle.... Carmen: But you can't present this problem out of the blue...it requires some mathematical background, if only the assignment before. Lynn: The narrative element is key for non-science majors....the double helix story (i.e. of how it was figured out) is a drama, it's what is attractive to non-science majors. But it's essential that students understand connections with their previous knowledge as they go along, and it's essential that instructors have not just the right philosophy of how to teach this way, but also the actual ability to do it in a non-boring way. Harold: There are actually closer connections between expressive work in the arts (composing music, painting) and scientific work, than between expressive work in the arts and, say, music history or art history. Doing math/science is creative/expressive work. On the issue of "prior knowledge," it's harder in math/science to find non-spurious examples than, say religion...where you can invoke Star Wars, or other pop-culture referents. Lynn: When I sat in on biology/chemistry courses as part of a program a few years ago, it seemed that students couldn't differentiate between key and non-key info...the professor's distillation of an ocean of info down to a trickle of the essentials wasn't grasped by the students. Also, professors often only brought in the interesting relevance of the science until the very last class, after students had suffered through the boring specialist stuff all semester...and they said "now you tell us!" Carmen: Make students express their prior knowledge at the start of a course, by doing concept maps...misconceptions/errors and all. And/or: start the class by presenting the Big Picture, and the course can proceed from the general to the particular. Lynn: Professors misinterpret the student question "Is this going to be on the test?" as a mercenary question; often, it's just a way of finding out what's genuinely the most important stuff, in a "meaningful learning" model. Harold: How about the example of Continental Drift...how the theory emerged, how it was combated, and how it became accepted....would we teach this emphasizing its falsifiability and alternative formulations, or should we teach it as the truth? Carmen: Lay out the evidence, in its complexity and contradictions...what would be a consistent interpretation of the evidence? It's interesting to see how often and how badly scientists could ignore evidence that might seem to clearly point in a certain direction to us today. Rich: We can lay out all the evidence (as above) for students to come up with a theory ex-nihilo; then we can teach the actual history-of-science of the topic, to show how things developed in the real world of science...a lot of false steps, incremental additions to the evidence, base careerism (making a case because it will advance your career), etc...how does all that messy stuff make "scientific progress" in the real world? Lynn: The "what happened to the dinosaurs?" question is a good one to use, because it hasn't been settled yet...we thought it was meteors, now it might be a virus, etc.... Carmen: To show that the process is as important as the result...science is both, maybe the first more than the second. Tom: What about the recent French notion that Egypt's ancient monuments were actually cast in clay by a long-forgotten technique, and not carved in stone? There's another out-of-left-field thing that would be a good case study...at what point is an idea not just innovative, but just wrong? Carmen: Science vs. pseudo-science! Harold: OK, so we have: 1) asking yet-unsolved questions; 2) establishing the truth of scientific claims (Lynn: Getting students to become "intelligent consumers" of science); .. Lynn: Little kids have such a curiosity about science...where does it all go? A lot of it might be the emphasis on authority...it's inaccessible, scientists are heroic figures you can't be, etc. Rich: In the NY Review of Books a while ago, someone asked "What if we taught baseball the way we teach science?" Kids would read about baseball for years, wouldn't be able to touch a baseball until college, and wouldn't be able to play a game until grad school! Harold: Teaching is frequently driven by what is easily and consistently assessable...what can produce grades that seem sensible. Alec: We teach knowledge, but not skills, when it comes to science...they may learn what's going on, but they can't make it happen. Harold: When we ask students to solve practical problems (with imprecise answers) by using math skills, they often produce silly answers which they know to be silly...answers they'd never produce if you just asked them to answer it based on life-skills...e.g. how long might it take to drive from here to Washington? Rich: How about a postmodernist "critique of science" approach in teaching science to non-majors? Engage the comparative advantage of non-scientists, to get into science by critiquing it...of course, there might be a shortage of science faculty who want to teach that way! Carmen: It comes back to the original idea of an integrated class...that teaches science, the context, the critical perspectives. Lynn: There's a tension between big-picture integration and the practical need to give students time on-task to do actual science work. Carmen: But if it's for non-majors, we could do away with that stuff altogether. Rich: There are two philosophies here: in Lynn's view, science for non-science should require at least some science work (i.e. what scientists do), whereas in Carmen's view, we can do away with that altogether, and focus solely on the big picture. Tom: How many universities require lab science for non-majors? What changes would be necessary to liberate those people so they can take some other type of science? Rich: What should be the science requirement for non-majors...the typical lab science course, or the holistic one? We should have thought about that first! Harold: I think they should all have lab science...i.e. what scientists do. Alec: There's no unique answer to that question...it depends on the course...I can imagine a total ly non-experimental physics course that does what we want to do for/with non-majors. There are lots of mechanisms for active participation that are not lab-based. Harold: I'm still not convinced that we have a good substitute for genuine experimental, or at least observational, "doing science"...if only a little bit of that. Alec: How about a counterfactual approach: what if F didn't equal MA? How would the world be different? Harold: There's a computer game where you can tinker slightly with the laws of gravity...that would be a good approach. Lynn: Now we're getting into the uses of new technologies...which new students are now accustomed to. Alec: There are two approaches even for non-majors: the "history of great ideas" vs. the holistic/integrative approach. Lynn: There's preliminary evidence that even for non-science majors, studying one science discipline more produces better scientific thinking than looking at multiple disciplines. To cite other evidence, if you do a lot of French, it's easier to learn Italian...rather than trying to learn them both at once. I. Best Practices 1. Major results or problems that motivate the discipline should be presented at the beginning. A long period of work on the foundations is detrimental to student interest. 2. Science should be presented as an evidence-based field, in which the laboratory is the source of confirmation. 3. Students should see accepted truths may be challenged by new evidence, and may ultimately be replaced by other truths if the evidence becomes overwhelming. Examples include the theory of continental drift and the current explanation that a bacterium causes ulcers. 4. Science should be presented in a history of ideas context, including the role of values, the role of cultures, etc. Also, one can discuss the lives and motivations of scientists. 5. Technology should be integrated where appropriate, but cannot replace understanding. II. Unresolved Questions/ Perennial Issues/ Agenda for Innovation 1. Many panelists felt that laboratory experience was essential in all science courses, while some felt that a history of ideas course need not include laboratory experiences. (Unresolved Questions/ Perennial Issues) 2. Although the panel felt uniformly that more science education was essential, there was disagreement about whether students should take a sequence of courses in a single science ("depth first"), or should take courses in a variety of areas ("breadth first"). (Unresolved Questions/ Perennial Issues) 3. How can science faculty be better motivated to develop and teach innovative honors courses ? (Perennial Issues/ Agenda for Innovation) 4. Technology needs to be better integrated for both simulations and analysis. (Agenda for Innovation) 5. Balancing the big picture with the details (Perennial Issues) III. Essence of the Roundtable It was generally felt that a liberal education needs to include the sciences for many reasons, including (i) the need for an educated citizenry to make intelligent decisions about issues such as global warming and pollution, (ii) the role of science as a mode of thought, and (iii) the history of science as a force in history and culture. There appeared to be many approaches to providing high-quality science honors courses for non-science majors; however all stressed the need for students to "do science". The role of technology is clearly important, but time limits prevented us from adequately addressing it.