Summary of results
The first part of the study tried to establish the causes of the resistance among humanities students and whether these are rooted in the belief of a “two cultures” problem or something else. Part of this survey was also a test of the knowledge about some core concepts used in environmental history teaching as an indication of science literacy.
The second part of the study involved the experimentation with a different teaching strategy involving the use of narrative as vehicle of science.
Roots of resistance to science
The survey among 300 humanities students at university level showed that resistance to science is caused by a combination of the belief in the "two cultures" divide as well as the institutional organisation of the education system and pressures from society. It is striking that roughly a quarter to a third studied one or more science subjects at A-level. Although this seems much better than twenty years ago the fact that so many humanities students drop science at A-level is largely due to curricular and institutional barriers and include:
- Students are locked in disciplinary structures from GCSE level which limits the development of interdisciplinary thinking and perspectives.
- Specialization and separation of disciplines in different faculties and departments at university level (see also Klein, 1998).
- The organisation of education at secondary and tertiary level results in disjoint programmes with separate streams for humanities and science students.
- Benchmark statements exclude interdisciplinary perspectives and focus on core elements of a particular discipline.
- Funding for students provided by separated humanities, science and social science funding bodies.
Student attitudes to science
Student attitudes and knowledge towards science is in part the result of the way it is taught and the failure to make it relevant to every day life and contemporary problems. This is partially visible in the survey results among the 300 students:
- A fifth of students perceived science as difficult.
- The combined responses "Dull", "Not Interesting", "Did not enjoy it" and "science does not allow discussion" accounted for 50% of the students. Science is not necessarily difficult but perceived as dull, uninteresting and not worthwhile pursuing.
- Some students indicated, "in science all the answers are known" which suggests a poor understanding of the principles of science. Science is distinguished from other subjects by its concern with "right and wrong" answers and its lack of opportunity of forming a personal opinion (see also Osborne, 2001).
- Science is principally valued for its instrumental value to solve a problem.
These results suggest that science has an image problem caused by the way it is presented, and examined at secondary school level. The most serious problem seems that science does not connect to the daily experiences of students because it is dehumanization well as dehistorisized by a focus on mathematics, formulas and the laws of physics. Present day science curricula do not include mechanisms to connect contemporary social, environmental and ethical issues with an understanding of science and technology (Strube, 1994: 314; Millar, 2007: 69). Thas is problematic in a society that increasingly relies on science and technology. Another problem observed is that teaching does often not include critical thinking combined with a result driven culture in which the answers matter (the Wikipedia culture), not the methodology. Therefore the exam culture does not require answers with analysis or critique resulting in shallow interpretation of facts and no understanding of complex issues. This results in students' dislike of probability because it does not provide them with ready made answers that can be readily understood and used. Ready made unambiguous answers are easier to understand and use.
Concepts
To get better grips on the understanding of science among students they were confronted with a list of science concepts used in the teaching of environmental history. The first three concepts are large overarching hybrid concepts that connect a whole host of other ideas and concepts. The second group were singular concepts or related to numeracy . The results of the test suggests that students struggle with providing qualitative descriptions of large overarching concepts such as global warming and ecosystems. Presenting large complex scientific ideas as singular concepts without providing any context makes it difficult for students to grasp what it means. To overcome this problem science can be embedded in narratives to provide a context.
Narrative
At present humanities curricula lack a recognised mechanism to integrate science and link it to social, ethical and environmental issues that out society is facing at present. It has been suggested that narrative can provide such an integrative mechanism, providing a structure that allows scientific concepts to be more easily integrated in conceptual understanding (Strube, 1994: 313). To put it differently, narratives seem to play a central role in memory by providing an organising structure for new experiences and knowledge (Mandler, 1984). A narrative can be defined as the telling of a series of events in a time sequence and in a way that it portrays a meaningful coherent whole. Narrative places specific humanities and science knowledge in contexts so that it is no longer compartmentalised but integrated. Narrative is an adhesive force, that adds coherence and meaning to diverse and abstract ideas and concepts.
From a pedagogic point of view using narrative to integrate science in a humanities context has the following advantages:
- It places concepts in context that makes it memorable and connected with other knowledge contexts.
- Narrative reflects the way the human mind organises the world. Narrative forms an organising principle linking abstract science to the "real world", i.e. every day experience.
- It provides opportunities to teach students critical thinking. This is the recognition that there are no wrong answers, only valid questions and that there are many rival views in all areas of knowledge. Narrative often revolves around different views and seemingly opposite conclusions.
The bottom-line is that in a humanities course, science has to be humanised in order to connect it to the “real world problems” humanities students are interested in.
Contextualizing is a method of embedding people, artefacts, places, animals, etc. in the fabric of time, culture and space. It is a vehicle for humanizing knowledge in a humanities type inquiry. The humanities can form an interface for interdisciplinary enquiry, e.g. environmental history uses time, space, culture, environment and history as vehicles of integration (history and environment as context) and crosses over into the realm of science.
Science conceptualizes physical data by abstracting it to its mathematical or other formalised form or empirical core and linking this to general underlying patterns and processes, sometimes referred to as laws or principles.
Conceptualizing strips real world events and processes from its context that humans need to understand the world they live in and to give it meaning (Nikitina, 2002).
Conclusion: Science can be humanised by stripping concepts of mathematics and abstract notions and transform them into narratives which makes it possible to integrate into humanistic discourse.
Suggestions for future work
Two issues need further and more indepth consideration in future work on the problem of teaching science at university level:
- The first is student's dislike of probability and their preference for ready made unambiguous answers. The question is if this is the result of unimaginative, non-multidisciplinary secondary education in a society that is result driven. What is the impact of set curricula, benchmark statements and the result driven culture on science education?
- Longitudinal study of humanities students interests and their backgrounds to get better grips on science knowledge and the school background of univeristy studetns. In addition this research must be put in historical perspective to either prove or disprove that humanities studetns avoid the sciences. The survey results presented here sugggest that this is not entirely the case and that more humanities students combine arts and humanities subjects with science.