Earlier this week, I gave an overview of the new Writing Workshop: Environmental Writing course that Peyten Dobbs and I are teaching this semester. Today I want to address a pointed concern about our methodology as expressed by a colleague from our Science Department and then echoed by a commenter on my last post. They raise some terrific questions, and indeed we’ve had some of the same questions ourselves.
Physics teacher (and award-winning edublogger) John Burk first pushed back when Peyten tweeted the first writing prompt we used with the kids:
He was quick to point out that scientific understanding isn’t a matter of “belief” but a matter of evidence and investigation:
Soon afterward he expanded on his reservations in an email:
I find what you guys are doing to be very interesting, and it really sounds like one of the most exciting courses in the school. But I also would love to learn more about the decision to show both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle. The self-righteous and professionally trained scientist in me doesn’t think that the facts of GW are something that really has two sides . . . I just worry about the the idea of trying to teach about global warming by pulling out two controversial films staked at opposite sides of the spectrum, since this might heighten the “controversy” students perceive, which might be counterproductive for developing a deep understanding of the subject.
Science journalist and blogger James Hrynyshyn chimed in with more of the same after my last post:
Academics and the media have for far too long given climate denial far too much credit. The simple facts are that 98% of climatologists agree with the basic science of anthropogenic climate change. We’re long past the point where that’s a subject of legitimate debate, so why imply otherwise to your students?
Indeed, when climate science gets taught at our school within our Science Department, there is no “equal time” given to perspectives not supported by the scientific consensus. So why are we going this route in Writing Workshop? Are we doing our students a disservice?
My initial response to these questions is that we’re not teaching a science course but a writing course, and so an understanding of the political debate and the public confusion around the issue is a part of better knowing both the issue and the audience. Moreover, experiencing and understanding and working through this confusion is great fodder for writing and thinking.
As I responded to Hrynyshyn earlier, this is in some ways as much a course in practical epistemology as anything else, as can be seen in the list of “Guiding Questions” that we’re asking the students to continually think about through their writing:
- What do I understand about the sustainability debate? What do I have certainty about? Where do I still have questions? What would it take to change my mind about my current stance?
- How do I know what I know? How do I know this? What are my sources of information? How do scientific facts and cultural values influence my opinion? How do I know who to listen to?
- What are the personal implications of this knowledge?
Moreover, the list of “Essential Learnings” that we will use to assess our students has language describing their developing skills in writing, research, discussion, collaboration, and presentation—but no expectations for scientific understanding or environmental ethics. We took this stance partly to diffuse potential criticism; we’re not science teachers, after all, and we can’t weigh in as authorities on a politicized subject. But we also don’t presuppose outcomes of scientific understanding because we want to allow space for authentic “uncoverage” (to borrow a term from Grant Wiggins and Jay Mctighe) precisely because we do care about our students’ having a better understanding of the issues in question.
We won’t simply be showing the two films and then turning the kids loose to go with whatever opinions they may have at that point. Wiggins and McTighe propose five steps toward discovering depth, and that’s the journey that we want to attempt together:
- unearth it
- analyze it
- question it
- prove it
- generalize it
When Hrynyshyn asks “why expose students to [sources that dishonestly portray the science], unless you have the resources to fairly critique them?” I have to point out that they do, indeed, have all the resources they need. In today’s world, we all do, anywhere that we have an internet connection. As our students try to sort out the claims and counterclaims of the two films, they can email actual climate scientists for clarification! The problem today isn’t that we don’t have access to information but that we don’t know how (or don’t have the inclination) to dig and filter and sift and evaluate. In this respect, the most precious resource that we’ll be making available to them is time. Our role is not to teach them about environmental issues. It’s the (sometimes long, sometimes messy) process of writing and researching and thinking and discussing that will help them learn.
If we presume to predefine the destination, then we shortchange the process. We’re hoping, by starting with controversy, to supercharge it. But it is, admittedly, a little scary to set a ball in motion without having certainty as to which way it will roll.
Well, if you are going to encourage your students to talk to climatologist, then I tentatively withdraw my objections. I would only add that the availability of the internet isn’t in itself enough to provide the necessary resources to understand climate science. I went back to school for three years because I didn’t think I had the resources as a journalist, even with the internet at my disposal, to do report on the subject well enough.
Figuring out whom to trust and how to interpret what they say is a lot harder than I though it would be when I began reporting professionally, and I still skeptical of dilettante research, for lack of a better phrase.
Still, I like where you’re going. I just hope that how you’re getting there doesn’t lead to more confusion. Good luck, and again, if I can be of any help, just ask.
Clark,
First, I totally appreciate the spirit and aims of the course you and Peyten are creating—but maybe my thought is that this could be even more ambitious. What if your class were paired with a science class that could explore some of this science?
My larger concern—both for your class and the world, is just how hard it is to build a real understanding of even the most basic scientific ideas. This video does a great job of explaining just how hard it is for students to create real understanding of science even from videos that look like totally simple presentations of facts and procedures like Khan Academy.
So I think it’s asking a lot to try to get 8th graders, most of whom are Aristotelean in their thinking to be able to discern the difference in the science presented by climate scientists on sites like RealClimate.org, and the pseudo-science, intentionally confusing, but slickly produced stuff designed to raise doubt by GGWS and their ilk. I just don’t think they can tell the difference in truth vs friction with ease when set loose on the internet, and it risks turning into a debate where students simply try to marshall the “facts” that support their preconceptions together and develop a self satisfying narrative to explain their beliefs that involves no real understanding of science.
John, I agree that a course like this ideally calls out for an interdisciplinary/integrated studies set-up–maybe someday? If we can address issues of scheduling and curricular coverage that might present barriers?
As it is, we’ll be bringing in you and some other science folks to represent the discipline of science (the kids don’t know squat about research and peer-review, for instance), and we’ve got Bo, I think, to talk about topics in environmental economics like tragedy of the commons and negative externalities. Moreover, either Tina or Lydia will join us to speak about faith and moral perspectives. These are just drop-in visits, however. Do you have any thoughts for what a “pairing up” with a science class might look like?
I will say this, however, about how difficult it is for the average Joe (particularly the 8th grade Joe) to truly understand the science and be able to to distinguish it from all the pseudoscience and misinformation that’s out there: you are absolutely damn right! And yet we average Joes need to learn how to productively engage with important issues like this despite our limitations. Personally, I have a pretty decent layman’s grasp of the science, but I don’t understand anything deeply enough, for instance, to listen to the likes of Lord Monckton and immediately know where he’s misrepresenting things. And so I’ve developed other strategies to help me separate signal from noise:
http://clarkbeast.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/weighing-in-on-climategate-a-simple-question/
I agree that it’s unrealistic that 8th graders might come away from this class with an airtight understanding of the science, but they will come away far more informed than they went in, and they’ll be better equipped to think about the ways that they receive information and form opinions, about the sources they trust and the avenues they take to pursue more information. Personally, I think epistemic closure is a far greater barrier than lack of scientific understanding in our culture, and that’s a battleground that we English teachers are pretty comfortable with.
But we’ll see how this goes. I definitely understand your worries. It is all a bit of an experiment. I know you’ll be a useful watchdog/advisory voice for us, particularly when the students start posting to our public blog (start of next week), and you might involve your global physics department in the conversation as well.
FYI: We start TGGWS today.
Clark -
I’ve been floating out here following your conversation. I think what you and Peyten are doing sounds so interesting! I completely agree with you in what you say about the need for ‘averages Joes’ to be able to critically analyze the information and the science they’re presented with every day. If we can’t all be scientists, we all desperately need to be able to analyze the presentation of material as real science and look for bias, for inconsistency, and for skewed interpretation of ‘real’ science. Particularly now, as politicians and the media throw around their own version of science as the absolute truth without any true understanding of the material.
I like John’s idea of a pairing with a science class to truly understand the science behind climate change. But I also appreciate what you’re doing as an english teacher in an english writing class. While I love that your topic for discussion is environmentally based, I also understand that your main objective for a course like this (or at least, what I think it is) is to help your students develop the tools to analyze the information they come upon every day in the news, in the media, on the internet, in movies, on TV, etc. By taking them through this process, you’re modeling for them how to think critically, how to analyze a resource for its bias, how to ask good questions, dig deeper, and hopefully inspiring them to not just take a movie at face value but to establish an understanding for themselves. As science continues to grow and change (particularly the field of environmental science), it is just as important that our students be able to analyze, adapt, and grow in their understanding as well. I do think that this will take a lot of work on your part and on Peyten’s in helping your students identify valid scientific websites and in explaining things like a peer-reviewed journal (to use your example).
I’d love to talk to you and Peyten about how we could potentially do something with your class and my environmental science class together.
Yes, Chelsea, let’s talk about it!