Download - Christian preservice teachers' practical arguments in a science curriculum and instruction course

Christian Preservice Teachers’ Practical Arguments in a Science Curriculum and Instruction Course

JAZLIN V. EBENEZER Department of Curriculum, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Educa- tion, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada

This study portrays Christian elementary preservice teachers’ practical arguments in an attempt to develop a relational view of teaching and learning science in a curriculum and instruction course. The data source consists of personal notes from preservice teachers, reflective comments in class assignments, and transcripts of personal interviews. An analysis of these data implies that science educators must be sensitive to the “practical arguments” that Christian preservice teachers make in their science education classes based on their deeply held religious beliefs and faith. Rather than attempting to change Christian preservice teachers’ practical arguments, it is important to assist them to study the teaching of science from Christian worldviews. 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Some science educators have translated the notion of Kuhnian revolutionary change in science (Kuhn, 1970), not only to the teaching of learners in science (Aguirre, Haggerty, & Linder, 1990; Hewson & Hewson, 1987; Parsons-Chatman, 1990), but also to the study of professional practice (Baird & Mitchell, 1987; Gunstone & Northfield, 1994; Stofflett, 1994). The theoretical argument underpinning all of these studies is the view of conceptual change articulated by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog ( 1982). According to these authors, for conceptual change to take place or for the adoption of a new conception that is intelligible,

Science Education 80(4): 437-456 (1996) 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/96/040437-20

438 EBENEZER

plausible, and fruitful, teachers must first become dissatisfied with their existing conceptions of teaching. In their reconstruction of the conceptual change model, Gunstone and Northfield (1994), however, suggest that “conceptual change rarely involves complete abandonment of one notion in favor of another. Rather it often involves the addition of new notions, retention of existing notions, and the acquisition of a sense of contexts in which the new notion is more appropriate” (pp. 525 and 526).

Stofflett (1994) uses “the literature on scientific conceptual change to develop an intervention that would promote the accommodation of pedagogical preconceptions held by preservice teachers” (p. 807). Stofflett demonstrates in her study that “the theory of conceptual change can be applied to elementary science teacher education and research” (p. 807). The question, however, might be what kinds of preconceptions did Stofflett’s preservice teachers have? Stofflett attributes the preservice teachers’ conceptions to the dominant, didactic paradigm of science teaching and learning. In this study, however, I argue that it is not reasonable to look at all the preconceptions that preservice teachers hold in terms of scientific paradigmatic shift because of the fundamentalist views held by them. Therefore, I turn to Fenstermacher’s (1986) notion of “practical arguments” to interpret my preservice teachers’ beliefs.

Fenstermacher, who has dealt at length with the notion of “practical arguments,” dismisses the usage of a Kuhnian scientific paradigm for the study of teaching. Fenstermacher points out that the discourse in the scientific community (in the Kuhnian sense) about the tasks and aims of science is different from professional practice because in science each community of scholars is committed to its own dominant conceptual framework that guides problems of inquiry. Claims from hu- manities persuade Fenstermacher to argue for the phenomenologies of practitioners in terms of moral virtues rather than in the language of science.

The Christian preservice teachers’ arguments, presented in this article, cannot be viewed from the perspective of a scientific paradigmatic shift because they are based on faith rather than by sight. Their practical arguments appear to be at odds with a constructivist view of the development of knowledge about the physical world. Christian preservice teachers’ practical arguments of science very well may be considered appropriate if based on “beyond our world.” Science is of this world. To bring in another world defeats any scientific purpose.

FENSTERMACHER’S NOTION OF “PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS” FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

The notion of “practical arguments” is based on the ability of teachers to use morally defensible and rationally grounded ways to educate their students. “Teach- ers” in this propositional statement refers not only to school teachers, but also to teacher educators. The questions one may ask are: How do we educate our teachers? How do the teachers that we teach, in turn, educate their students?

For the study of teaching, Fenstermacher borrows Aristotelian ideas of theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Fenstermacher makes a clear distinction between the generation of knowledge (knowledge in theory) or (theoretical wisdom) and the application of knowledge (knowledge in use/action) or (practical wisdom). He states that the argument of knowledge generation concludes in propositions/assertions/

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS 439

claims about events, states, or phenomena, whereas the argument of knowledge application contains empirically testable assertions that terminate in actions.

Adapting Green’s (1983) work, Fenstermacher (1986) argues that the value of educational research for educational practice is the help it provides in “identifying what is required to change the truth value of the premises of the practical argument in the mind of the [teacher], or to complete or modify those premises or to introduce an al- together new premise into the practical argument in the mind of the [teacher]” (p. 43). The change in premises and actions taken must be based on teachers’ moral convictions and beliefs about the nature of teaching. Teachers themselves must determine the change in their practical arguments to accommodate new practices.

The application of new practices based on normative or prescriptive theories in the classroom is trivial. Teachers’ practical arguments (purposive, passionate, intuitive, and moral properties of human action) are necessary to translate empirical findings into classroom practice. The criterion of benefit of the study of teaching is not for improving educational practice, but rather for improving the practical arguments in the minds of teachers. Therefore, the inquirers of teaching might want to frame their problem of inquiry around the practical arguments advanced by teachers. Accord- ingly, research methodology must be appropriate to generate knowledge and understanding of a quality that may be considered valuable by the teacher.

In considering the practical arguments made by the teachers based on their moral convictions, Fenstermacher ( 1986) suggests that we should “supply teachers with the means to structure their experiences in ways that continually enlarge their knowledge, reasoned belief, understanding, autonomy, authenticity, and sense of place” (p. 46). To attain this type of pedagogical competence, Fenstermacher outlines two important steps: ( 1 ) to assist teachers in framing the practical arguments undergirding their teaching practices, of which many are not likely to be consciously known by the teacher; and (2) to assist in the teacher’s appraisal of the premises in the practical argument by having himher presenting evidence that bears on hisher own relevant premises (p. 46). When these steps are carried out on an on-going basis, the teacher learns from hisher own practices. Fenstermacher considers teacher educators who teach in this way are themselves students of teaching and will not simply toss research findings at teachers with the expectation that these findings will show up in practice.

Although Fenstermacher asserts that empirical inquiries would be extremely useful for determining how and why changes take place in teachers’ practical arguments, this study goes only to the extent of identifying preservice teachers’ practical arguments. It does not trace changes in preservice teachers’ thinking.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This article addresses the practical arguments of Christian elementary preservice teachers in my own curriculum and instruction course that has adopted a relational philosophy for teaching and learning science. In the context of this study, relational means to stress that faith is of the spirit whereas science is of the temporal. It has been my experience that Christian preservice teachers with a fundamentalist view experience tension in being confronted with scientific ideas which are of this world.

440 EBENEZER

Tension, in this context, refers to the conceptual conflict that an individual experiences when counter views are presented. The Christian preservice teachers’ practical arguments, therefore, characterize tension.

Although tensions might arise when the learners’ conceptions are explored, this study is in favor of helping preservice teachers frame their own practical arguments and appraise the premises of their practical arguments in light of their moral convictions.

The primary question for this study therefore is: What practical arguments do Christian preservice teachers make as they experience a relational view for science teaching and learning? The secondary questions are: How do Christian preservice teachers’ notion of truth compare with other Christian worldviews? How can these teachers be assisted in studying the teaching of science from Christian worldviews?

RESEARCH CONTEXT AND METHODS

In the last few years, the curriculum and instruction course, through “phenomenography” (Marton, 198 l) , has identified preservice teachers’ practical arguments of the nature of science, teaching, and learning, and has assisted preservice teachers in de- veloping morally defensible practical arguments. It has also provided them with practical settings, experiences, and arguments to develop additional ways of perceiving learning and teaching from the perspectives of science. Thus, the course has been an important site for cultivating attitudes of reflective inquiry.

Phenomenography is an assessment tool that can be used to conceptualize an individual’s practical arguments. A basic principle underlying this assessment tool is the concern for the qualitatively different ways a phenomenon is conceptualized rather than for how many have conceptualized in a particular way. For instance, I did not count or even attempt to find out how many students in my classes were Christian and how many of these students’ practical arguments were affected by what I did in class. This was because, in this study, Christian preservice teachers were not isolated or given any special treatment or intervention. In fact, I do not attempt to identify who are and who are not Christians in my class. However, more than 50% of my students in any given year are Christians because Manitoba is a Canadian province where Christianity has strong roots. Many of these students then experience a tension when confronted with a relational view of science teaching and learning.

Data Source

On-going conversations with preservice teachers about issues of science teaching and learning are part of the curriculum and instruction course. It is usually the philo- sophically inclined preservice teachers that participate in conversations other than course requirements. Many Christian preservice teachers are part of such groups.

Formal interviews with four Christian preservice teachers (Sally, Tom, Mary, and Mark) constitute a major part of my data. The 45-minute to 1-hour interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed.

Various assignments in class called for preservice teachers’ reflective comments. These became part of the data. Pertinent to this study is the background knowledge


of preservice teachers. It has been this prior knowledge and experiences that have formed the practical arguments that they hold.

Preservice Teachers’ Backgrounds

For the purpose of this study, the most important information about the preservice teachers is the aspect of their religious affiliation. All preservice teachers described in this study were in their fourth-year bachelor of education programs and have been identified by pseudonyms. The following paragraphs describe six of these young preservice teachers who are regular church attendees and hold responsible positions in their churches.

Leah, a Mennonite Christian, was very quiet in class. Her assignments revealed her emotions about the large group discussions on relational aspects of science teaching. She talked openly with me about her concern.

Sally, also a Mennonite Christian, expressed unhappiness with what happened in the course at first. She said that I conflicted with her own religious views as well as her peers in class. During the second term, Sally started to engage in conversations with me about science and Christianity.

Tom, a Baptist Christian, received his first degree in theology. Tom expressed that students were unhappy with some of the constructivist principles. Tom chose to write a paper on preservice teachers’ views on constructivism for his second assignment. From time to time, our conversations revolved around Christianity and constructivism.

Mary is a Catholic Christian. Mary separated religion and her science studies. She did not see disparities between constructivism and her Christian beliefs. She therefore did not question philosophical issues of teaching.

Andrew is a Mennonite Christian who is also a profound thinker. Andrew drew parallels between a conceptual change model found in the science education literature to the ones found in the Bible.

Mark is an Evangelical Christian who has completed his bachelor of arts and mas- ter of arts in theology. Mark interpreted science from the perspectives of the “wisdom literature.” From the beginning, Mark was very open to class discussions and shared his views persuasively and broadly.

These Christian preservice teachers’ practical arguments revolve around the notion of truth because in-class knowledge is considered as relational, relative, and contextual. Preservice teachers’ practical arguments about truth are related to Christian literature as well as literature on the philosophy of science.

DATA ANALYSIS

To best analyze the data for this study it is imperative to reiterate the high points of what each Christian preservice teacher believes about truth. It is also important to indicate how their practical arguments that characterize tension may be rationally grounded in Christian worldviews. Preservice teachers have argued about truth in five different ways: (a) man discovers God’s hidden truths; (b) everyone discovers truth in varying degrees; (c) sin distorts man’s ability to get closer to truth; (d) scientists search for the keys in the universe; and (e) reality is worthy of our detailed observations.

442 EBENEZER

Man Discovers God’s Hidden Truths

Leah was the first preservice teacher who made me realize that discussions in class went counter to her Christian beliefs. Leah’s voice (Ebenezer & Hay, 1995, pp. 102, 103) provides the frameworks for the interviews conducted with the rest of the preservice teachers who participated in this study. Consider Leah’s voice:

As a Christian, I believe that God has created the world and given mankind the ability to discover the truths which He has hidden in it. He gave us minds to exercise and imaginations to use. Those are abilities we must not deny our children, either. As a teacher, I believe I must encourage my students to ask questions about the world around them, to seek new ways of finding answers to their questions, and to wisely use the knowledge they gain from their inquiries. While this seems to fit with parts of the constructivist approach to teaching science, I have a difficult time meshing certain aspects of the approach to teaching personal beliefs. For example, I believe that there are truths which God has built into the universe, both scientific and theo- logical. Because I believe that this is so, I also believe that children should be en- couraged to discover those truths. Here is where I find a dilemma with constructivism. Constructivists would say, I think, that people construct their own knowledge based on both their experiences and their understandings of those experiences. This seems to say that there is no universal truth to be discovered, but that truth (scientific or otherwise) is relative to the person considering it. I cannot make a logical connection between these two ideas-that truth is universal and created to be discovered, and that truth is relative. (Leah, from her Personal Philosophy Paper on Teaching Science, March 1992)

Leah believes that God as Creator has given human beings the ability to discover hidden truths that are built into the universe. “Constructivists,” she states, “believe that people construct their own knowledge based on their experiences and their own understandings”; knowledge is therefore relative, not set up as universal truth(s). Leah cannot make a logical connection between the two foregoing ideas. Leah’s personal belief may be defended with statements by Holmes (1983, 1985): If God is our central locus of truth then truth is not relative to changing times but is constant. God has given us power (intelligence and ability) to inquire and to know and invites us to quest for truth. Our imperfect knowledge may vary and is distorted because of our subjectivity and selectivity.

Everyone Discovers Truth in Varying Degrees

conceptions of science. On the first day of classes, Sally and her classmates were asked to write about their

I believe there are ultimately truths about our physical world and its many scientific relationships. Everyone discovers these truths or absolutes to varying degrees. Be- cause of our human limitations, none of us will ever fully understand our science world. (Sally, personal notes on first day of C & I class, September 1992)


Throughout the course, Sally was disturbed. She stated to me privately that she and some of her classmates were upset because their religious beliefs were questioned as a result of discussion about the construction and the validation of science knowledge. In dialogs with her about her concerns I often invited Sally to relate what she was thinking.

The nature of truth according to Sally is that there are ultimate truths in the physical world. She adds that everyone discovers the truth to varying degrees because human limitations prevent us from fully understanding the world.

At my end-of-the-year interview with Sally, she pointed out that humans seek for the understanding of truth in every discipline. Sally noted that although humans seek the understanding of truth, their understanding of truth may not represent truth. She believed that truth is revealed in the Bible and the interpretation of it is by a process of social negotiation; through archaeological and historical evidences, and through personal and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. For Sally, although learning truth is not unlike learning science (curriculum and curricular objectives- ideals), interpretations of the Bible has an extra dimension and that is faith.

When you get into Christian domain you have to take that one step farther because we say, we have this thing called faith, and that’s not always based on 100% knowledge.

Sally’s additional claims are contained in the following interview excerpt. (In each interview, S stands for science teacher educator, and P represents preservice teacher.):

Interview with Sally

S: How do you interpret science?

P: I guess that comes about through research and people trying to understand the world that they see and coming up with theories and hypotheses and testing them. And then there’s a difference. In the Bible, as Christians, we would say there are certain truths that are not negotiable. We believe Jesus came to earth, dying for mankind, dying to redeem man, the resurrection, Jesus coming again -all of those kinds of things we say aren’t negotiable. But even within a Christian church there are all kinds of gray areas that are very open to personal interpretation. Whereas in science, we are one step behind so to speak. Because those truths are negotiable, because they’re sort of, at this point in time (most of them), are our best bet, hypotheses. They are not set in stone. They are open to further research, further investigation. S: Would you consider the truth in the bible as God-given truth?

P: Yes. S: Scientific knowledge as man’s truth? P: Partially, that’s how I’d define it. But I would say that science is trying to understand the world as God created it. So science in a sense is God given. God did not write a science book and hand it to us and here’s how things work, we are trying to understand that.

444 EBENEZER

S: You think science is God given?

P: Yes, and man is trying to understand it. Scientific knowledge I would say that God has created the world in such a way that there is some order to what’s going on. I think that different people have different gifts. They are able to use them differently. Just look at Einstein what a great mind he was given. . . . ” S: Do you have anything else to say?

P: There has been and I have had a lot of discussions with people about constructivism and how that doesn’t fit with Christianity.

S: Really!?

P: Yes, and I guess my response to that is when it comes to religious beliefs there are things that are not negotiable, you cannot reach a consensus about that. You would be hard and fast on these old truths. Whether you accept them or not that’s your personal decision but it doesn’t change the fact that they are true. And understanding those truths and accepting them have eternal consequences and eternal value, whereas in scientific circles when you are talking about understanding the properties of matter we come to some social negotiation about it. It doesn’t really matter if you negotiate it wrong. It doesn’t have eternal consequences. I know I don’t want to say its trivial but in the big picture it is. For me it’s not a real big hang up.

S: Now what do your classmates say about the conflicts between constructivism and their faith?

P: Well, I guess some of the ideas we were mulling around were about seeing the world in terms of black and white and right and wrong. Even in Chris- tianity, there are all sorts of gray areas that we don’t understand and that we try to understand. So I guess I think really in a sense that’s a misinterpretation to say that constructivism does not fit in Christianity because that’s saying that we as Christians all think exactly the same and that we all see everything as on this side of the fence or that side of the fence and we don’t. There’s a lot of diversion.

S: So you think that constructivism fits with Christianity?

P: At this point in time yeah, I would say that I do think that . . . I think that constructivist teaching and Christianity, the two, they mesh quite nicely.

(interview with Sally, May 1993)

Sally makes several comparisons between Christianity and scientific knowledge.

0

0

0

0

0

0

Some Christian truths are nonnegotiable; some are gray areas open to interpretation. Science truths are negotiable because they are hypotheses. Science is God given and has order to its gift. People can choose to believe or not the nonnegotiable beliefs of Christianity but that does not negate that they are true. Science is more open-ended. It does not matter if you negotiate it wrong as it has no eternal consequences. Constructivism is like Christianity in that there is a lot of diversion.


As you begin to analyze Sally’s practical arguments consider how they compare with Tom’s.

Sin Distorts Man’s Ability to Get Closer to Truth

Tom brought to my attention that many of his peers were unhappy about the discussions in class because of how the nature of knowledge was presented. The following is an interview with Tom that shows similarities to Leah’s and Sally’s voices.

Interview with Tom

S: What is scientific knowledge to you?

P: I have been talking about the Bible as the source of truth. Science on the other hand is something we’re trying to get a grasp on and there is constant renewal . . . We get closer and closer to knowing the universe. 1 believe that God has created a certain way and there are things He built into the universe that man can find out. Electricity has recently been discovered. Within a hundred years other things are happening and we’re getting closer and closer to that knowledge of the truth. Things that I believe are absolute truth in the way that things work on earth because I believe that God has created things to run a certain way and man is slowly getting closer and closer to it.

S: So you think that man will finally arrive at God’s truth?

P: He’ll come to a better understanding of it but I don’t think he’ll reach it. In the beginning when God created man and woman, and after they chose to sin-I think that choice to go against what God wants-that sin came into the human race at that time and affected his thoughts and his thinking patterns . . . Man could approach it, obviously he has.

S: Man can approach the truth?

P: Whatever field you want to study there is knowledge in each field and there is a searching for truth. 1 think that points to the existence of God too. There is a search for truth and in my books God is truth or the author of truth. I think God allows people to discover things . . . Everything is planned out as far as God is concerned. He knows what the future holds. He created it and He knows where we are heading, what’s in the future and what’s in the past. What I am saying is that God is not sur- prised at scientific discoveries which find a certain truth.

S: Some science philosophers say that knowledge is relative. Do you have anything to say about it?

P: Yeah. There’s a relative part to truth. But I believe there is absolute truth that we all seek. In a way there is relative truth because people are people and have their opinions and in a sense part of that is filtered through an opinion or philosophy. But I don’t mean relative in the way that i t is not true it is just relative because it’s part of the truth. I think we all discover bits of truth and the more bits of truth that comes to you, the more absolute it becomes . . . I think there is a body of truth that is absolute that God has built into the universe, but its filtered through sinful human beings and it becomes relative.

(Tom, personal interview, May 1993)

446 EBENEZER

For Tom, the nature of truth is that man has the ability to get closer to the knowledge of truth but sin distorts man’s vision of it and the ability to get to it sooner. In search of the Absolute Truth, Tom states that man finds bits and bits of it but because of sin, truth is relative.

Lewis (1967) confirms Sally’s and Tom’s belief that truth exists and God is its Au- thor; universal in scope and absolute. Truth is not a social construction that is deter- mined by its social context, a Christian belief associated with Lewis, not the preservice teachers. According to Lewis, a Christian’s search for absolute truth is complicated because a human has to see it through the darkened lens of sin; a condi- tion of a human’s fallen nature. Furthermore, Lewis asserts that everyone’s different experiences produces knowledge that is partial and selective because of our different social, technological, and linguistic limitations.

Scientists Search for Keys of the Universe

Mary was not spiritually upset. However, Mary carried on a dialog with me fre- quently. Because of the gold cross that she wore around her neck, I assumed that she must be a Catholic Christian. Mary accepted my invitation for an interview. I was cu- rious what Mary had to say about “truth.” She brings her experiences as a lab-techni- cian into our conversation about truth:

Interview with Mary

S: You said that scientists experiment a lot and scientists are always searching for . . . P: They’re always searching for knowledge, for the answer in the universe, for reasons, for the key. They’re looking for the keys to the mystery of life. God has built truths. He’s made it possible for people to explain. Very smart people have re- searched where the earth comes from and we know how life started on the earth, and these are truths.

S: Scientists are searching for these truths?

P: Oh yes, oh yes, scientists do. When I went away to school and when I went to teach laboratory technology in Toronto, they said look this is a red blood cell, yes I believe you. This is a white blood cell. There are different types of blood cells. Yes, this is fine like there was never any question. I accepted it. I memorized it. I believed it. But I do think that the scientists, in general, are looking for universal truth, like they want people to believe them. . . . very logical things like, your sitting here, that’s a truth you’re sitting here and that’s a truth. When they told me that they have so many white blood cells . . . This is a white blood cell, this is a truth. This is a red blood cell, this is a truth. You do a pregnancy test and its positive, that is a truth. You tell the patient you’re pregnant, you’re not a little bit pregnant, you’re pregnant. These are true. Objects are here, the sun is in the sky, that’s a truth, the sun shines every day.

S: Seeing is believing, I suppose. P: Seeing is believing and its there, that’s an absolute truth. Our bodies are made of blood, our blood is made of white blood cells, red blood cells, plasma, serum? Yes


that’s true. We’ve seen all that, we’ve taken all that, there’s nothing to dispute it, that is the truth but these are insignificant like they’re not deep thoughts. They’re just things that are there and I think that when you get into deeper meanings of absolute truth you don’t dispute insignificant things, you dispute like deep thoughts, deep theory, the laws, the things, theologies. I wouldn’t know if there’s any absolute truth there because that’s hard to find like theologies and philosophies, and each person his own, but no, for insignificant things you can certainly say that there are absolute proofs and truths with the proofs.

(interview with Mary, May 1993)

For Mary, truth is primarily the world that she observes directly and knowledge is an accumulation and change of things. Mary suggests that scientists are always searching for the keys to the universe; keys to the mysteries of life. Mary believes that seeing is believing. God has made it possible for people to explain these truths; logical truths, that is, blood cells exist and similar blood cells have similar structures. Accordingly, McDowell and Stewart (1 986) note how the knowledge that there is a God who created and designed an ordered universe prompted men like Newton to search for certain scientific laws to explain this order. It is believed that Newton him- self once wrote that nothing could “rejoice” him more than that his science should demonstrate the existence of a deity (Wertheim, 1994).

Reality Is Worthy of Our Detailed Observations

Mark took part in class discussions without any sign of being disparaged in considering a conflict between Christianity and science worldviews. Mark then was open and actively engaged in class discussions. Throughout the year, Mark carried on an on-going conversation with me about what he referred to as the “wisdom literature.” At the end of the year, one such conversation was audio-taped.

Interview with Mark

S: What is reality?

P: I would say, perception of the material world. And, I think this is a significant question for a Christian. I’ve talked about it in my paper about the result of wisdom literature that says observation is a worthy endeavor. The basis for it is God has made this material world; it is good, it’s worthy of our detailed observation. And by doing so it will help us live more prudently in this world that he has made. And it’s also intelligible. It’s something that as you look at it , it’s real. It’s not something that is illusory. So it assumes this reality, this physical matter as opposed to the eastern philosophy. I think in Judeo-Christianity, revelation makes that possible. . . . The Greek influence had to do with the rationality of the world. That is what’s intelligible, what’s rational. But Plato’s influence, if you remember his cave, was as focused on matter as the Christian, the Christian I see in Solomon, where he’s looking at the natural world and saying hey let’s study this. So I think the influence of Christianity is crucial in terms of my understanding, in terms of Western understanding of the development of scientific inquiry.

448 EBENEZER

S: So in the Western inquiry, are you looking at some kind of reality which is sup- posed to be true? P: Yes! Yes! It’s definitely assuming the existence of the material world and it’s saying what’s truth. In that respect, it is discernible through detailed observation. Now when I say truth I mean, for instance, if you look at the animal, and you observe that it has migration patterns, that’s true. You know, birds fly south during a particular time of the year. This is discernible reality, it is true that this happens.

S: How about things that we don’t discern?

P: You mean like nonsensory perception. Well again this is more abstract. Of course a lot of physics has delved into this. Nonetheless, I think that as I said before, there’s Greek influence which is more of a rationalistic influence in the development of scientific inquiry. And that’s not bad by any means. This is not completely abstract. There is a philosophy in science, but this I don’t think could be maintained. There has to be some sort of evidence, physical evidence for the conclusions that are being reached. S: The conclusions that the scientists reach are the truth that has been built into this world? P: You have to take this into a wider context. We’re all individuals. We all communi- cate using language and we all come from particular cultures. And now, we have a relative uniformity in Western culture and science reflects that it’s absolutely part of western culture. However, language is a variable that we assume. But language is, how can you put it, it’s materials out of which we construct our houses. Those houses become prisons. At the same time, it facilitates communication, it’s restrictive by its very nature. So how can you say something is truth in that sort of context? As far as I know, it conforms to the material world. But of course, we just assume this all the time. So this has to do with the myth of complete objectivity which is one reason why I like what you are saying that science is socially constructed. Because in the past, I would say, particularly since the fifties in our culture, science, “I mean the science” and the scientist with his white smock, was sort of the high priest of our culture. And you know if it comes out of his mouth, I mean look at what he has been able to do giving us all the technology and so forth that has made our lives so much easier. But, that has to be taken in the context of what I have to say about language. We cannot assume that scientific conclusions are absolute truth. Ah, it becomes extremely difficult to talk about absolute scientific truths. Absolute truth is an issue in itself. Although all of our communication assumes absolutes. If I say there are no absolutes, you are saying it’s absolutely true that there are no absolutes. Do you see what I mean?

S: Yeah! You feel that there is some absolute truth?

P: Well, yes it is revealed and I believe this has become a matter of faith. But as a Christian it’s essential that I state that faith for the Christian is not divorced from reality. It never has been. The Bible is very clear that God is stepping into history. His involvement in history is constant. He’s affecting the material world. Faith is grounded in physical acts that have occurred in history. And so there’s the revealed truth. . . . Christianity says, yes there’s absolute truth and particularly this is important. But it’s always on the basis of physical and historical experiences.

S: In previous years some of the preservice teachers have told me that scientists are trying to seek absolute truth and that they are trying to get closer and closer to this truth? What is your opinion about this?.


P: That scientists are . . . well, it comes down to ultimate causes, right? I mean when you are asking about ultimate causes that go beyond time and space then you are moving into the domain of something that cannot be discerned materially. So you get into that abstract aspect of science, and you have to take into account the various views about ultimate causes. Christianity gives an answer to that question. Basically all the material world you know, matter, space, and time, are distinct from God. He is over and above them. That’s why we can give the answer to: What happened before the creation of the world? Well, you know God was still there. Because time is apart and distinct from God. He is over and above that. So, when you’re looking at these sorts of ultimate causes you’re in the area of what a Christian would call revealed truth.

S: Does the aspect of relative truth bother you?

P: No, this is because of the limitations of language. How can we do a whole lot more than come to a conclusion like that? But, functionally, I have to say I believe in absolute truth and I believe that we need to hold on to these things as principles of the sanctity of life. I believe in an absolute truth because we are in God’s image- made in God’s image that goes back to Genesis as well. But again, due to the nature of the limitations of language, everything has to be sort of held to some extent, loosely. Functionally, I don’t know if that makes a difference. Nobody says everything is relative. Everybody functions as absolute truth occurs. You know, it’s absolutely true that the bus is real. We don’t step in front of it unless we want to get killed and then we’re acknowledging the absolute truth. The absolute existence of that bus. Well, things that can be detected in some sense in a sensory fashion. I mean I’m no nuclear astrophysicist or anything like that. And I don’t know the laboratory methods that they are using. You know, when they’re trying to determine ultimate causes. I know that they are looking at the patterns, discernible patterns in terms of the expansion of the solar system and the expansion of the universe. And, that’s what is informing the conclusions they are coming to. So there is still some sensory aspect that informs or forms the basis for the conclusions that they reach.

(interview with Mark, March 1995)

Like Mary, Mark refers to those things that are discernible through detailed observation as “truth.” For Mark, reality is our perception of the material world and observation of it is a worthy endeavor. It makes us want to live more prudently in the world and real things are not illusory. According to Mark what is intelligible is what is rational. Language and culture, however, restrict the objective reality. Mark states that constructing science as a social activity makes sense. Truth is revealed by God. The existence of God is over and above and distinct from the material world. Some things are absolute truth because you can see them and know the consequences if you do not recognize their truth.

DISCUSSION

We notice from the interviews that all five preservice teachers’ appraisal of their own practical arguments, from their own understandings of the scriptures, are some- what consistent. The practical argument that Leah advances is the existence of absolute truth and that truth cannot be relative. Tom and Sally believe in the existence

450 EBENEZER

of truth but relative only as interpreted through sinful human beings. Mary believes in the existence of God’s truth but in terms of the observable, for example, the existence of red blood cells and the existence of the sun. Similarly, Mark speaks about discernible truths and adds that these are affected by our individualities, culture, and language. Like Leah, Mark believes in the existence of absolutes, but only in terms of beyond this material world. Mark refers to these as ultimate causes and revealed truth that has historical evidence. This was also the argument that Sally advanced when she talked about ultimate truth.

In some sense, these Christian preservice teachers seem to describe truth from a widely held Christian perspective. That is, God is the source of truth and because of sinful nature of human beings, the physical world cannot be fully comprehended. Also, because of the observable, they seem to apply the correspondence theory of truth that scientific realism espouses, to say that these evidences (electricity, compo- nents of the blood) are truths that God has built into the universe that human beings attempt to discover them.

Is Development of Scientific Knowledge Getting Closer to God’s Truth?

These Christian preservice teachers seem to interpret the scientists’ interpretations of the physical world as truth, and the evolutionary development of scientific knowledge as getting closer and closer to God’s truth. When Christian preservice teachers do this, they bring God’s eternal truth that transcends human comprehension down to the scientific realm. In the earthly sense, we must discuss the multiplicity of relations not in terms of truth relations to God, but rather reference relations to human estab- lishments. Perhaps, science should not be discussed at all as the “pursuit of truth.” It is the pursuit of knowledge- a decidedly human form.

Some of the preservice teachers’ practical arguments are now considered in more detail. Tom’s idea about getting closer and closer to truth may be likened to “convergent realism” (Goldman, 1986). To a convergent realist, not only the scientific aims, but also scientific successes are reached through historical progress. Scientific success refers to the delineation of fine structuring of the universe. For example, the theory of the electron has changed over a period of time, but the fundamental unit of electricity remains constant. To a convergent realist, a mature theory such as this constant fundamental unit of electricity means getting closer and closer to truth, however, not with respect to God’s absolute truth as Tom has suggested. Rather, it is a world-world relation in terms of a correspondence theory of truth (Goldman, 1986).

For Tom, relative truth is a “bit” of absolute truth. Parts of relative truth form the total absolute truth. Bits of relative truth that are absolute in nature are filtered through sinful human beings and it becomes relative. In a way, Tom has two meanings for relative truth: relative truth as part of absolute truth and absolute truth that becomes relative because of sin. It does not seem right to say that “parts of relative truth form absolute truth.” Here, Tom is assuming that what scientists “discover” in relative forms are parts of God’s absolute truth. However, humans have access only to relative truth and therefore, it is necessary to view the world (Heie & Wolfe, 1987).


Can Humans Experience Absolute Truth?

According to Connor (review of draft, 1995), humans never can experience absolute truth, even in the religious sense. In science, absolutes are also unobtainable. The absolute zero of temperature is unattainable as it would require the expenditure of an infinite amount of energy which we simply do not have. An absolute vacuum cannot exist as it would violate the uncertainty principle. Newton spoke of absolute space and time. We know (if we accept relativity) that neither space nor time can be absolute but only relative and relational. This takes us to scientific truth (with a small “t”) which is only a here and now consensus of informed opinion as to what things are and how they are, an opinion which is liable to change at any time with the ad- vent of new measurements, observations, and ideas. In science there are certain demonstrable facts such as “the charge on the electron is 1.602 189 2 coulombs,” but this is only the best value to date. Soon there will be additional fig- ures that will follow the last two. This is perhaps only an approximate fact for we can never measure anything with infinite precision. According to Connor’s assumptions, the Christian preservice teachers in this study are confusing the spiritual, absolute truth of God with temporal, scientific truth.

In line with the argument on spiritual versus temporal truth, as well as to help us understand a “beyond our world” view, it might be of interest to consider Mircea Eliade’s (1957) work. In his writings, this historian of religion has contrasted sacred worldviews (admitting the reality of a transcendent dimension) with profane worldviews (accepting only sensory data about the physical world). Eliade implies that the claims about the “Sacred” are ultimately about a spiritual dimension outside of space and time, beyond the domain of the human senses.

Eliade, primarily through his interpretation of ethnographic examples, has demon- strated that a “search for the center,” the opening from this world to the transcendent one, was a characteristic of all early people. This search for the center was often manifested among early people by placing the abode of God at the north celestial pole, the visible center of the heavens. Symbols of an axis mundi, a pathway from earth to heaven (with the pathway understood in a symbolic rather than a physical sense), are found among primitive groups in North and South America (sacred poles) and in Siberia (cosmic mountains, world trees, shamanistic rituals), as well as in the early civilizations of the ancient Near East (world trees, world mountains, pyramids, ladders reaching to heaven, etc.). The fact that the ideas about the center are so wide- spread is taken as evidence that they are very ancient, perhaps reaching deep into Pa- leolithic times. The constructions of modem cosmology have destroyed the metaphor of the north celestial pole as the center, the dwelling place of God. But, science has not destroyed the inner yearning of religious man to relate something at the center, beyond the physical world. Throughout the millennia, humans have been convinced that there was something out there beyond knowing.

Christianity, an historical religion, is not unique in this intent. Its foundation, however, in an historical revelation is quite unlike the old mythic worldview which sought to explain observed events (the north celestial pole, for example) by relating them to religious beliefs (God is at the celestial pole, the center).

Christian preservice teachers as well as Christian authors proclaim that ultimately

452 EBENEZER

all knowledge is in the hands of a creator. This historical revelation, accepted by faith rather than by sight, is an appropriate testimony for Christians in a scientific world. Christian statements are, however, often spoken as if they were at odds with a constructivist view of the development of knowledge about the physical world, since these statements refer to something larger than the world we sense which is limited by space and time. Stop and consider that even within a single Christian denomina- tion, people are often at odds over questions about ultimate truth-differences in opinion within church groups about evolution and creation are not uncommon. You may recall that Sally agrees that faith is not based 100% on factual knowledge and science is hypothetical. In fact, all science is metaphorical and consists itself of multiple “versions.”

Goodman’s (1978) writing suggests that there are “versions” of the world. In this sense, there is no world in itself. Goodman speaks of truth not as a fitness of a version to the world but as a fitness of a version to other versions. Christians in this study also believe in the latter argument about versions: versions that best fit with God’s reference points, formulated by a community of fellow believers through a ne- gotiatory process. In her interview with me, Sally alludes to the development of a system of beliefs through a process of social negotiation by which other versions can be judged. Hence, the conditions of truth about the world are set by the cognizing- speaking agents. Goldman ( 1986) states that the things the cognizer-speaker chooses to think or say is a matter of human noetic activity and lexical resources in the speaker’s language. Christian scholars concur with this point, however, they make God as the referent for ultimate truth. Goldman argues that “when (science) truth is portrayed as correspondence, as thought or language mirroring the world, it is im- plied that the world comes precategorized.” Goldman further asserts that it is mis- leading to assign truth or even to be involved in the pursuit of truth. He argues that the domain of scientific theory consists only of predictive power and calculational convenience and not an involvement in a pursuit of truth.

Fischer (1989), a Christian author, contends that authority found in the observation and the interpretation are questionable in the sense that they can never be totally con- vincing and never absolute, as pointed out by Thomas Aquinas and others. Fischer believes that science is the body of knowledge obtained by methodologies based on observation. This is a human activity. Fischer argues that the authority is in nature which is external to scientists (modem scientists would argue against this by saying that they are not external to nature but part of nature) and science. This is an inherent limitation of science. Scientific truth is expressed in the language which again adds another sense of vagueness to the search because words must be interpreted. People have presuppositions, mindsets with a certain amount of vagueness, which may be even subconscious. They explain their results which are then interpreted and is either contradictory to or corroborative of the theory in question. Fischer further argues that the ultimate truth lies in the realm of matter and energy not in its interpretation. Sci- ence’s search for reality presupposes its existence. Truth can be found in scientific knowledge but any statement made is open to refinement and change and therefore is not ultimate in essence.

In the light of Mary’s and Tom’s views about discernible events, consider Camap’s (1988) description of the nature of theories. He states, for the physicist, direct obser-


vations also include any quantitative magnitude that can be measured simply and directly. Measuring weight with a weighing scale, temperature with a thermometer, and frequency of light waves with a spectrometer are direct. However, observations of the path (track) an electron makes in a bubble chamber is indirect.

Let us consider an example that Carnap uses to distinguish between empirical law and theoretical law. When an iron bar is heated, it expands. Upon several trials, we can arrive at an empirical generalization that iron expands when heated. On the other hand, to explain the behavior of molecules in the iron bar when heated (the nonob- servables), we have to use the atomic theory (theoretical) of matter. Perhaps, distin- guishing between empirical (the expansion of the iron bar-a macro-process) and theoretical (the behavior of molecules during the expansion of the iron bar-a micro process) laws is important in order to understand the notion of “scientific truth.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

The philosophy of science teaching and learning that we examined in the C & I course seem to have disturbed the fundamental beliefs of Christian preservice teachers. The data revealed that some Christian preservice teachers’ practical arguments were at odds with what was taught in class. In an analysis of the interviews and sub- sequent discussions in this paper I have related how preservice teachers must be provided with the grounding they need to continue thinking about “truth.”

We should help Christian preservice teachers distinguish between absolute (spiritual) truth and relative (science) truth in order to keep them from fighting “false bat- tles.” Christians themselves do not subscribe to absolute truth for teaching or learning science because they believe that finite human beings cannot fathom God’s truth. This reasoning based on faith may not be in line with non-Christian thinking. But, for the Christian preservice teachers, a practical argument such as the evidence of man’s fallen nature is important. The distinction between world- world relation truth (correspondence to the world) and reference relation truth (versions), as well as the distinction between empirical laws and theoretical laws may be useful to help Christian preservice teachers understand the concept of truth in the earthly sense.

In science teacher education courses, we should be flexible enough to look at our world from many perspectives. When occasions call for drawing relationships between science and preservice teachers’ practical knowledge such, as the examples described next, preservice teachers must be given opportunities to so. Then preservice teachers will see the worth of their practical arguments. Such a view for educating teachers may be compatible with new theories of intelligence itself. In his recent book, Multiple Intelligence, Howard Gardner ( 1993) lists seven intelligences, and posits that moral or spiritual intelligence could serve as a “reasonable candidate for an eight intelligence.” Let me illustrate this point with two preservice teachers’ work in my C & I course.

In a paper that Andrew wrote for class, he compared the conceptual changes that occurred to men and women in biblical times and made an argument that this is a very useful way of looking at children learning in science. Andrew’s oral presenta- tion at our P-STAR Conference (Pre-service Teacher As Researcher Conference) was based on Jesus’s talk with the Samaritan woman at the well. Andrew discussed the

454 EBENEZER

discourse between Jesus and the woman at the well. He brought out the principles of conceptual change very vividly to other Christian preservice teachers using the biblical parable as a source. They found it very stimulating and meaningful to consider science teaching from a conceptual change perspective after attending this session because it was presented to them from the Bible by their peer. Andrew paralleled the biblical conceptual change model to the conceptual change model developed by Posner et al. (1982).

In addition, Mark presented a paper at the P-STAR Conference about the fascina- tion of nature and how its workings provide evidence of both scientific and biblical attitudes and values. He stated that the basic premise of wisdom is human perception. Wisdom writers (biblical ones) examined the patterns of human affairs such as roman- tic love (Song of Solomon), work and aging (Ecclesiasticus and Proverbs), suffering (Job), and nature (Proverbs and Song of Solomon). For instance, the sluggard is di- rected to consider the ways of the ant, which “stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:6- 8). Mark noted that perhaps the best indica- tion of the importance of nature in biblical wisdom is found in its association with Solomon, whom wisdom writers consider to be the wisest man that ever lived. In 1 Kings 4:29-34, which is a summary statement about Solomon’s wisdom, the text states that he described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon (the largest) to the hys- sop that grows out of walls (the smallest). Solomon often used analogies to teach about mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. For Mark, biblical wisdom, with its focus on nature, is thus congruous with science, which is making sense of the natural world.

Another reason for considering preservice teachers’ practical arguments is that, in school science education, the contexts of some elementary students include religious beliefs. For example, children’s conceptions of science topics include: “God made shad- ows”; “God is holding the world”; “You can see what God made, that is, nature.” When preservice teachers are educated to consider “practical arguments,” they indeed recognize children’s statements pertaining to Christian upbringing. Such an approach vali- dates the student’s context, and facilitates authentic common knowledge construction.

Preservice teachers find that inquiries into additional worldviews of science, teaching, and learning, are fascinating when their practical arguments are considered and when they become active collaborative partners with the science educator with whom they work. In this approach to teaching-making practical arguments known- both preservice teachers and the science educator seek genuine opportunities for sus- tained, meaningful, and critical dialog (Erickson, 199 1 ; Erickson, Mayer-Smith, Rodriguez, & Mitchell, 1994). It is for this reason we need to find ways to make preservice teachers question their practical arguments. Tensions and conflicting beliefs are the realities of classroom teachers’ lives but our lack of attention to this reality is a shortcoming of many teacher education programs.

In this regard, we need to understand that even though specific conflicts between faith and teaching approaches may be ameliorated, the “paradox” view means that the preservice teachers’ tension remain with them so long as they maintain their faith and work in the world. Conflicts will still exist because the Christian will see God as primary and, in consequence, will always be in tension with a person who does not. Although this article asserts that faith and science occupy different domains and thus are not in conflict, Christians preservice teachers will not maintain a duality: faith


holds for the unseen world, but other dogmas hold for the visible world, and faith has nothing to say about them. The “paradox” view will be unacceptable to a Christian because he/she will not compartmentalize faith and science, keeping each in its own distinct area.

Although the science teacher education course creates tensions, I have had success with the Christian preservice teachers described in this article as well as with other students. I believe this is so because I do carry on a meaningful conversation with such students and listen to what they have to say. Furthermore, in line with relational and contextual learning, my science curriculum and instruction course is approached from interdisciplinary perspectives and methodologies, heeding to the multivoices in science education (Ebenezer & Connor, in press). In many academic circles, however, religion in general and Christianity in particular is seen to be an impediment to the freedom of thought necessary for the advancement of knowledge. While a Christ- ian perspective may be acceptable as a private belief system, it is often opposed and denigrated whenever it is seen to interfere with academic inquiry.

My own interest and phenomenographical research about Christian preservice teachers’ perspectives began with Leah’s confrontations. In my curriculum and instruction course I listen to preservice teachers’ voices with empathy and it reaches preservice teachers from different walks of life, regardless of culture, ethnicity, and religion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is part of a major study funded by the Faculty of Education Research Development Fund, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. The author thanks Dr. Joel Bass, an elementary science educator at Sam Houston State University, Texas; Dr. Robin Connor, a former dean of the faculty of science at the University of Manitoba; Dr. Dorothy Weal, Ohio Univer- sity; and Pastor H. Heghesan of the British Columbia Seventh-Day Adventist Conference, British Columbia, Canada, for providing additional insights to this article.

NOTE

According to the University of Manitoba Calendar, Curriculum and Instruction refers to “A study of curriculum, instructional approaches, and technology relevant to elementary and early childhood education”-Calendar Description.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, J. , Haggerty, S., & Linder, C. (1990). Student teachers’ conceptions of science teaching and learning: A case study in preservice education. International Journal of Science Ed- ucation, 12, 381 -390.

Baird, J. R. & Mitchell, I. J. (1987). Improving the qualiry of teaching and learning: An Australian case study. The PEEL Project, Melbourne, Victoria: Monash University Printary.

Carnap, R. (1988). The nature of theories. In E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger, & A. D. Kline (Eds.), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 162-177.

Connor, R. (1995). Review of draft. Winnipeg, Manitoba: The University of Manitoba. Ebenezer, J. V. & Connor, S. (in press). Multiworlds in children’s science. Contract with

Merrill Education Group, Ohio.

456 EBENEZER

Ebenezer, J. V. & Hay, A. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meaning-making in science instruction: A case study in Manitoba. The International Journal of Science Education, I7 ,93- 105.

Eliade, M. (1957). The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Erickson, G. (1991). Collaborative inquiry and the development of science teachers. The Jour- nal of Educational Thought, 25,228-245.

Erickson, G., Mayer-Smith, J., Rodriguez, A., & Mitchell, I. (1994). Perspectives on learning to teach science: Insights and dilemmas from a collaborative practicum project. Interna- tional Journal of Science Education, 16, 585-597.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan, pp. 37-49.

Fischer, R. B. (1989). Scientific truth: A case study within the biblical Christian world view. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 43, 130- 136.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gunstone, R. F. & Northfield, J. (1994). Metacognition and learning to teach. International

Heie, H. & Wolfe, D. L. (1987). The reality of Christian learning: Strategies for faith. St.

Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implica-

Holmes, A. F. (1983). Contours of a Christian worldview. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Holmes, A. F. (1985). The making of a Christian mind. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity

Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. Review of

Research in Education, 10, 151 -252. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientifrc revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Lewis, C. S. (1967). Christian rejections. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

co. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography-Describing conceptions of the world around us. In-

structional Science, 10, 177 -200. McDowell, J. & Stewart, D. ( 1986). Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity. Wheaton,

IL: Tyndale House Publishers. Parsons-Chatman, S. (1990, June). Making sense of constructivism in preservice: A case study.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British Columbia.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66.2 1 1-227.

Stofflet, R. T. ( 1994). The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: The application of conceptual change constructs to teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teach- ing, 31,787-810.

Wertheim, M. (1994, October). Science & religion: Blurring the boundaries. Omni, 37-43,

Journal of science education, 16,523-537.

Paul, MN: Christian University Press.

tions for teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 425 -440.

Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Press.

104- 107.

Accepted for publication 22 January 1996

Download - Christian preservice teachers' practical arguments in a science curriculum and instruction course

Top Related