Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTEOF TECHNOLOGY
The problem of scientific theory: the case for introducing science studies for first-year students– A Discussion Paper by Kristina Chalmain for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning Conference, March 12, 2015
Background:• Experiences from teaching ”Communication in
Engineering Sciences” to first-year computer engineering students for two years (written and oral communication)
• Increased focus on a Theory-section in student reports has left students (and me…) frustrated
• A case of putting the cart before the horse? Students need science studies before practicing science?
• Or (blasphemy!) is a Theory not always necessary? Does this depend on genre? Difference science/technology?
No clear consensus found in guidelines:
5 examples studied:
1. From current coursebook: McMillan, Kathleen; Weyers, Jonathan (2010) Studera smart. Så lyckas du med uppsatser och rapporter. Harlow: Pearson Education.
2. From previous coursebook: Rienecker, Lotte & Stray Jørgensen, Peter (2006) Att skriva en bra uppsats. Malmö: Liber.
3. Easson, William J; Bruce, Tom (1999) Structure of a Technical Report. University Of Edinburgh, School of Mechanical Engineering.
4. Monash University (undated website) Writing technical reports.
5. Molin, Bengt (2011) Tips om hur man skriver en teknisk rapport. Available at KTH Social website (Updated 2011-01-29)
The beginning…Weyers & McMillan Rienecker & Stray
JørgensenEasson & Bruce (Univ. Edinburgh)
Monash University Molin, KTH
Title/Cover sheet Title Title page Cover page
Abstract Abstract Summary Summary Abstract
Foreword Foreword
Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents
Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction
Theory, method, “state of the art”
Theory
Material and method(s) (method see above)
Investigation Experiment Middle sections (i.e., the body of the report)
Main section (analysis, execution, or description)
Results Results Results
Discussion/Conclusions (with a summary)
Discussion Discussion
(see above) SummaryConclusionsRecommendations
Conclusions Conclusions conclusions, and recommendations
…and at the end…
Weyers & McMillan Rienecker & Stray Jørg.
Easson & Bruce (Edinb.)
Monash University Molin, KTH
Abbreviations and glossary
(Index)
Bibliography and additional literature
Bibliography References(as Appendix 1)
References Bibliography
Appendices Appendices Appendix 2 Appendices Appendices
Motivation for these different structures?
• Subject?
• Type of inquiry? (Type of research question?)
• Assumptions? (For instance, assumed to be included in ”middle/main” sections?
The case for ”Theory”:
Probably all trained in ”the” scientific method value the use of theory:
• Explains• Predicts• Enables replication/reproduction
And yet…
Definitions of Scientific theory:
Rienecker & Stray Jørgensen:- Systems of tenets (or assumptions) in a subject area that
can be used to describe, explain and predict the subject’s phenomena, and which forms the framework of understanding for the subject
Encyclopædia Britannica:
- A structure suggested by empirical laws devised to explain them i a scientifically rational manner
Is there a theory for every inquiry?
• ”Grand” theories: Relativity? Evolution?• Examples of ”smaller” theories?• Best practice how to learn/find smaller theories?• Can you write about it before learning it?
Science? What science?
Definitions:
Science – “In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws” (my emphasis).
Technology – “the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment”.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Online)
Note also: basic science, pure science, applied science….
The linear model:
Basic science =
scientific theory
= abstract
Applied science
= Technology
= concrete
N.B: Essences
How does it work?
The steam engine was invented before the scientific theory of thermodynamics was formulated.
(Could not resist it: Phlogiston!)
What is the relationship?
The view that technology is applied science has been challenged from many directions:
1. Scientific knowledge plays relatively little direct role in the development even of many state-of-the-arts technologies.
2. There are technological knowledge traditions that are independent of scientific knowledge traditions
3. To understand the artifacts, one need to understand the technological traditions (not the scientific)
4. But – some argue that science & technology are not sufficiently well defined and distinct for there to be any determinate relationship between them
5. Project Hindsight, US Dept of Defence: 0.3% basic science in the development of new weapons systems
Sismondo (2010)
Difference in argumentation?All the same goal: attempt to prove probable, ”true”• Experience: applied,
practical consequences, repeatable, concrete, particular, the test?
• Theory: prove/disprove: predictability, abstract, general, to be tested?
Inferences – drawing conclusions using different types of arguments
(Simplified)• Deduction – From Theory to particular instances• Induction – From particulars to theory?• Abduction – (Pierce) From particulars to hypothesis to theory?• Probability?• Statistical reasoning?
Do all of these need Theory?
(Where are the philosophers when you need them…;)
Choice of model influences structure of education:
If linear model: students must learn the abstract ”rules” of theory and then try apply them in a concrete, physical, material, setting?
If ”technological” model: students apply first and then hypothesize, attempt to find theory?
A known problem: to have Theory, but not use it• Even at higher levels, students are said to have problems
integrating their theory sections into their arguments/texts.
• This is a sign that they do not use theory to solve their problems – they do not use it to prove their thesis.
• If not integrated: is it not necessary for their chain of arguments?
A flexible approach: identify genre of science rhetoric:
You have to argue differently to prove your thesis depending on the situation. • Do you need to link your findings to a theory of why
something works to convince your reader?• Can you convince your readers with other arguments
(repeated experiments, statistics, formulate ”local” hypotheses? Other?)
A motivating skill for the future?
To raise students’ motivation in learning to write scientifically (whether using theory or not) can we teach scientific argumentation as a model for good argumentation that also works outside the academic setting?
As a useful, even attractive, skill?
Also useful when arguing against something?
An example of ”science in business”:
Jabe Bloom, American entrepreneur and PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon, is one example of someone trying to bring scientific reasoning into the business world, see for instance his lecture “Learn like a Scientist” https://vimeo.com/80132202 (note: 42 min in total)
What it comes down to?
Doing science and writing about it – is not the same thing!
First you ”do” science – then you write your report on what you have done. I.e. writing project memos and notes is a different activity (genre).
Do you agree? If so, what are the implications?
Is CDIO an answer?
Recommended to me, but I have not any information available as to where argumentation/writing skills are involved. Has to be implemented ’program-wide’
Short info from http://www.cdio.org/cdio-vision:
Vision of the CDIO-based education:
An education that stresses the fundamentals, set in the context of Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating systems and products:• A curriculum organised around mutually supporting courses, but with CDIO activities
highly interwoven• Rich with student design-build-test projects• Integrating learning of professional skills such as teamwork and communication• Featuring active and experiential learning• Constantly improved through quality assurance process with higher aims than
accreditation
Suggested topics for discussion:
1. What benefits can be gained in teaching by distinguishing science into the categories of basic/pure science, applied science, technology, and so on?
2. If beneficial, how can these categories best be defined for the purpose of effective teaching?
3. While acknowledging that the categories are not particularly clear-cut, can certain subjects (or schools at KTH) be said to focus more on one of these categories over the others?
4. Can it be productive for the students’ understanding of scientific inquiry to investigate what type of research questions are typical for the different subjects taught at KTH?
Suggested topics for discussion (cont.):
5. Is it correct to assume that a section on “theory” is not always necessary in order to conduct a scientific investigation at student level?
6. What are the benefits of learning “scientific theory”? How can we motivate students to embrace this? How and how soon can it be introduced to our students?
7. What is the best order for introducing science studies, scientific theory and method, and scientific report-writing?
8. Can scientific reasoning be linked with good decision-making in non-scientific settings? What would the arguments look like? Can this be verified in some way?
Thank you!
Kristina Chalmain
Tel: 070-491 55 93
or
@KTH_Kristina
