Week 7&9 - Seeing the Nature of Science (understanding about Science)

LAYER 1:

Using the Nature of Science: Understanding about Science statements below, what have I been seeing / experiencing in my host placement? Where was I when I saw them, what happened, what was I or the scientists doing/saying?

The majority if the following observations fall out of conversations with faculty and students within the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Canterbury. These observations or conversations happened both during 'break times' at university, during laboratory sessions and on field trips.

• Science is based on observation of the natural and physical world around us.

Geologists do this ALL THE TIME - including visual observations during field trips, examining photographic records of sites and also seismographic measurements.

• Scientists critique other scientists methods and ideas.

I have seen less of this - most work is ongoing, and critique seems to be more active during review than on a day to day basis - PhD students decide on a methodology, it is critiqued at various points during their research, particularly during the submission/ defense stage.

• Many people from all cultures have developed understandings about how the world works based 

on careful observations.

Modern understandings of geological processes are very much the result of work from a global community of scientists from many different cultures. There is a growing understanding of Maori perspectives within the field, however this is not something that the majority of academics learned during their own education and training and as such represents new learning for most.

• Scientists ask lots of questions - they are curious, persistent, sometimes repetitive.

In the geology that I have observed or taken part in, the question frequently seems to be 'what am I looking at and what happened to make it this way' (many 'normal' high school students that I have taken on field trips are satisfied with "it's rock"). Curiosity about the what/ how/ why is foundational to geology (and science more broadly). Often when looking at rock formations that are millions of years old the answers are not immediately obvious - a lot of tenacity and persistence is needed to uncover the possibilities. Having come up with some ideas, they then test and retest their ideas to see how robust they are.  

• Scientists think creatively as well as critically.

When trying to understand what process have shaped modern landscapes and when these process have had effects is inherently a creative process Geologists also have to visualise subsurface processes and structures that cannot be directly observed or measured (at least yet). They are constantly trying to develop new tools to try to visual, measure and test their ideas.

• Integrity and honesty are valued in science.

Not a frequent topic of conversation, as it is so central to how they operate. There are mechanisms built into the processes at university - such as checking, supervision and peer review - to try to ensure integrity and honesty.

• Scientists are open to changing their minds if new evidence comes to light and 

are open to reassessing existing ideas.

Theories of the geological history of Horomaka Banks Peninsula have developed considerably over the last 20 years as more evidence and better understanding of processes have emerged. Many of the tourist information panels in the area (and local tour guides) have yet to catch up with these new ideas.

• Scientists use a variety of investigation methods to gather evidence and make claims. They take time to develop these methods so that they can gather reliable data.

In addition to direct observations, geologists are making increasing use of physical and computer modeling to support their work. Many of these approaches have been developed over several decades and are frequently checked against real-world observations to ensure that they are reliable. There is also increasing use of machine learning to try to make predictions of imminent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

• What science gets done depends on funding (and who is funding).

Something of a 'hot topic' in the School of Earth and Environment. There is a growing focus on tangible economic benefits - for example extracting geothermal energy is getting funded. There is less money for 'pure research' where outcomes are unclear or do not have any immediate financial benefit. There is also considerable concern at the potential impacts of foreign governmental changes on international collaboration and research programmes

LAYER 2:

Thinking about the range and extent of the NoS noted personally from my time in my host placement and connecting it to my classroom practice - what are some ways that students could have opportunities to experience and develop these things?
(a sentence or two about these opportunities.)

My primary observation is the need for more observations! New Zealand offers so many opportunities for  student to make direct observations of the natural world. Virtual/ digital trips are a useful addition, but not an equal substitute for students interacting physically with their environment. More Education Outside The Classroom is definitely on the agenda for future classes!