Review_Author: Michele Booth Kreisman
Book_Author: Jay L. Lemke
Book_Title: Talking Science (Language, Learning and Values)
Date: 5/10/99
Time: 8:55:48 AM
Remote Name: 128.175.61.135
mailto:
Lemke's Talking Science is a book about communication. Lemke contends that talking science is not just talking about science, but how we use the specific language of science to make sense of the world. He feels that teaching science is a social process, which involves teaching students the language of science in conjunction with teaching science concepts themselves.
Many classrooms, according to Lemke have an atmosphere in which the teacher knows all of the answers and hence, is charged with relaying that information to students. The teacher must then evaluate the student learning of that information. This popular pattern common in classrooms allows the teacher to have more control over the students. This type of setting however, does not promote talking about science in Lemke's opinion. The unwritten rules we have in schools simply create conflict between teachers and students. When teachers are challenged by students for not knowing all of the answers to their questions, those teachers are quick to revert to a higher authority or theory. This serves to alienate students from true understanding of science concepts because they are not given a common sense explanation.
Lemke feels that the most common activity structure in classrooms is triadic dialogue, which he defines as "a sequence of predictable options for who will say or do what sort of thing next". This pattern tends to dampen the spirit of enthusiasm that should be found in classrooms because students are not encouraged to be active participants in learning when teachers are more focused on classroom control (making sure that students raise hands before speaking, etc.). Lemke feels it is wrong for schools to discourage active discourse between students in the classroom. This sends the message to students that they are unable to learn from one another. This view of learning is individual and ignores the social dimensions. He asks why in education, we value the ability to work in isolation, when a better predictor of success in many work environments is the ability to collaborate.
Lemke gets extremely complex in the next chapter (4) with his discussion of thematic patterns. I would not do his writing justice if I tried to summarize this information. What I did understand in this chapter is that Lemke feels that the most influential in our society are those with the power to determine which theories get published, used and taught most. We must remember, in his opinion, that the world has many different answers to scientific questions. When science is taught however, many teachers tell students "this is the way the world is…..". Lemke asks us to think about those who benefit from a view of science as objective truth and superior to common sense.
Lemke asserts that teaching indeed contributes to the "mystique" of science by deferring to the experts and geniuses. Scientific language is in the typical, academic, ivory tower, passive voice! Teachers tend not to place scientific concepts in concrete forms for students. Ironically, according to research conducted by Lemke, students tend to pay 3 to 4 times more attention to teachers when they speak about science in colloquial language, closer to their human experience. Teachers need to stop presenting science as an unreachable endeavor that finds truth and fact through data and observations. Lemke contends that they should teach science as one view of the world among many, as fallible and as a messy, human business. It is NOT the perfect method for finding truth, in his opinion.
In chapter 6, Lemke points out that many of his points made in earlier chapters of this book can be applied to other subjects in addition to science. He concludes from his studies that mastery of science is mainly a matter of learning how to talk about science (there is no special form of "thinking" required in science. Lemke believes that it is no harder to learn to talk about science than any other subject and that the reason it is perceived as difficult by many is because it is so disconnected from students' normal experience. So why is it so hard to teach science to student understanding you might ask? Well, according to Lemke, the curriculum begins from the needs of practicing scientists who organize, present and teach science from extremely specialized viewpoints. "This does not bring science to the student, it insists that the students come to it".
This book is an excellent read for anyone teaching or studying science. I would like to mention, however that chapter 4 gets a bit technical for the non-educator and chapter 8 (where he describes social semiotics) is probably too philosophical to capture the average practitioner's interest. Chapter 7 provides some wonderful recommendations for improving science teaching and I would recommend that all educators read the views provided in chapter 7. Lemke's recommendation to limit the amount of topics currently taught in American science classrooms is supported by national researchers involved with the famous TIMSS study (The International Math and Science Study). In addition, he provided a wonderful suggestion to teach science in order to prepare students to use science in making value based policy choices. I love the idea of having students discuss important policy questions in order to subsequently use science in analyzing these issues! This is the way science should be used, in my opinion.
Personally, I share Lemke's view when he states "problems in education are rooted in problems of our society". I also agree with him that research alone should never be the basis for recommending changes in educational policy. I concur with his belief that research "only helps us to understand what our choices are and what the consequences of making different choices may be". This statement summarizes the reason that I am pursuing a career in educational research. Although I value research and science, I was slow to develop an affection for this field because of the aloofness present. I still struggle with this as a graduate student and researcher. I don't understand why this field continues to make science into a self-important, elitist enterprise. As educators, should we not be more concerned with assisting individuals in reaching their full potential? Will this not in turn, lead to a more productive society? The elite few must have very fragile egos, otherwise they would be sharing the wealth of this wonderful field in terms easily understandable for students. Fortunately, since 1990 (when this book was published) I have witnessed successful reforms in science education, which place students in the role of researchers. Students are actively and collaboratively engaged in the design and conduction of science experiments and are free to describe their learning in a form that is comfortable for them. Lemke would be pleased with the projects I have witnessed in Delaware, so I believe that we are on the right track, although we still have a long way to go.