Réservoir
des gisements en cours d'exploration pour le texte sur
la CST comme idéologie (12 mars 2006) :
Un premier filon de travail est ouvert sur la question de la mini science et éventuellement de son rapport aux "amateurs de science"
- sur la définition des projets expérimentaux comme une activité de "mini science", en clin d'oeil à Derek Price, pour exprimer qu'il ne s'agit pas de big science mais qu'il s'agit d'une expérience fragmentaire qui se trouve isolée de son contexte et dont on peut se dire qu'elle est forcément illusoire, au sens de l'illusion rétrospective. En fait, il faudrait la regarder comme un élément mineur incapable de briser un paradigme (au sens de Kuhn) Cela dit, si elle confirme ce que l'on attendait, une expérience de mini science produit de la redondance, améliorant ainsi l'hyperstaticité des résultats ...
- idem sur le regard de la pertinence des activités de mini science, qui semble reproduire la hiérarchie favorisant la contribution à la recherche et aux problématiques des officiels réputés plutôt que des stratégies de l'hyperstaticité et de la redondance ? cela semble au moins exact du point de vue des "scientifiques amateurs" surtout en astro, où l'univers est le m^me pour tous, ce qui n'est pas le cas pour des sciences qui se déclinent dans des proximités -des terrains- différents à chaque fois () se
- sur la question des amateurs de science, les clubs, le consumérisme des activités, (lien avec Emmanuel Paris et inventaire Afa)
- sur le texte de Perrenoud concernant la pédagogie des projets expérimentaux
- sur la question pédagogique de savoir si la mini-science est qualifiable de cryptodogmatisme ou d'échange de savoirs ?
Un deuxième filon sur "le jour où la science sera en culture..."
- intégration de l'étude de la CSI sur les 85 % des centres d'intéret pour Rencontres de Tours
Un troisième filon sur la sépartation de la 2 et 3ime perspective sur la science
Sans doute faut-il insister sur le message essentiel : la volonté de focaliser l'attention sur l'exercice d'une relation majeure entre les citoyens et le système technoscientifique (la triple hélice pour reprendre l'expression de Etzkowitz et Leydesdorff) masque l'importance de la "science infuse" (diffusée ?) qui devrait percoler dans la culture générale, de façon à développer l'esprit critique et les capacité d'empowerment et d'autodétermination.
Pour cela on peut
construire un tableau comparatif entre les diverses situations de médiation
:
Quelles questions, qui controle, qui décide du temps, qui investigue
les phénomènes ?
Voir aussi Amos Dreyfus, "Science, Technologie et Société : un nouveau domaine d'enseignement" paru dans la Lettre de l’OCIM, n°58, 1998 qui n'identifie que deux perspectives distinctes la 1 (amalgamée à la 2) et la 3 : "Les deux objectifs éducatifs distincts et essentiels de l’AST sont d’ être instruit en science et d’ être capable d’exprimer une opinion sur un sujet scientifique.Ce dernier objectif est de loin le plus ambitieux, car il exige de l’élève une reconnaissance de sa propre capacité de discuter un sujet scientifique." Plus précisément, dans cet article il développe l'idée de l'émergence du courant STS comme alternative à l'enseignement scolastique des sciences. (idem p 3 Ocim ) :
"L’idéal STS est moderne en ce sens qu’il tend à présenter aux élèves une vue actuelle du rôle et des implications de la science et de la technologie dans la société. Il est moderne car il base l’enseignement sur des sujets pertinents de la vie quotidienne de l’élève, au niveau personnel ou social, et sur des problèmes à solutions controversées. Il peut en résulter un engagement et une activation de l’élève qui correspondent bien aux exigences des théories modernes de l’éducation scientifique. De plus, la science présentée n’est plus neutre, mais chargée de valeurs humaines, et l’éducation scientifique ainsi perçue vise souvent à développer des attitudes autant que des connaissances strictement « disciplinaires » [...] Fourez (1995) résume bien les causes de ce mécontentement : les programmes traditionnels ne forment pas les élèves à utiliser la science dans la vie courante, et ceux-ci semblent même éprouver de l’aversion envers ces programmes. Le programme manque de pertinence pour beaucoup d’élèves. Il en résulte un désintérêt pour les carrières scientifiques. Les concepts scientifiques sont mal intériorisés parce qu’ils sont présentés sans aucun rapport avec la vie quotidienne de l’élève (Yager, 1996 b) ..., et son élitisme hautain présente la science comme un outil abstrait pour spécialistes et non comme un outil efficace dans la vie quotidienne (Solomon, 1994). Tous les auteurs reprochent à l’enseignement de se comporter comme si tous les élèves allaient devenir des scientifiques. La technologie est ignorée, ce qui dresse une cloison entre l’invention des instruments et la réflexion sous-jacente de cette invention (Solomon, 1994).
L’évolution
de la science
On ne se propose pas ici de résumer l’histoire de la science pendant
les siècles derniers, mais de mettre l’accent sur certaines caractéristiques
de la science dans le monde actuel qui sont particulièrement pertinentes
pour l’éducation scientifique. La science intervient aujourd’hui
dans la vie quotidienne des gens qui sont appelés à voter et à
exprimer des opinions sur des problèmes et des controverses à
base scientifique (concernant par exemple l’environnement, ou la gestion
de l’énergie et des ressources régionales ou nationales).
Depuis la deuxième guerre mondiale, la
science est devenue une Big science et les budgets consacrés à
la recherche sont devenus énormes sur le plan national et international.
La science est devenue une affaire publique, qui concerne le gouvernement, les
industriels, les militaires, et ceux-ci deviennent les patrons de la science
car ce sont eux qui procurent des budgets à la recherche. [...]
Définitions
L’alphabétisation scientifique et technologique est difficile à
définir avec précision, mais les définitions d’ensemble
donnent une idée assez claire de l’idée générale
: d’après Walberg (1983), il s’agit d’alphabétisation
générale, de connaissances de base, et des habiletés de
communication en science. Klopfer (1991) y inclut la connaissance de faits et
de principes significatifs, les habiletés d’application du savoir
dans la vie quotidienne, une certaine appréhension des caractéristiques
de la science et de ses interactions avec la société, et des attitudes
bien informées. Champagne et
Lovitts (1989) mettent, entre autres, l’accent sur le côté
personnel de l’alphabétisation scientifique : les connaissances
et les capacités intellectuelles nécessaires pour lire et comprendre
des articles publiés dans des journaux, pour entreprendre une discussion
intelligente concernant un problème contemporain, et pour appliquer le
savoir scientifique dans la prise de décision personnelle."
Voir aussi : FOUREZ
G. (1995) Le mouvement sciences, technologie et societe (STS) et l’enseignement
des sciences. Perspectives, n° 25-1, pp. 27-41.
Un quatrième filon sur la question des relations entre "détection des élites" et "science en culture générale"
Analyse du rapport OCDE
"europe needs more scientists"
INCREASING HUMAN RESOURCES FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN EUROPE
présidé par le proesseur José Mariano Gago
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html :
page xiii du rapport un double raccourci assez paradoxal :
"Certain policy-makers
doubt that actions to improve science popularisation and even science
teaching at primary and secondary levels are really helpful in increasing recruitment
into
science careers. They believe that the most important point, on which efforts
should be
concentrated in Europe, is at university level. We do not agree with these views
which, in our
opinion, disregard the social and cultural context of scientific development
in democratic
societies and the need to reinforce and widen the social constituency able to
support scientific
and technological development, namely the very wish to study science and to
pursue science
and technology careers".
________________________________________________________
à voir aussi, le texte intégral parties 6 et 7 du dit rapport
_> page 117 du dit rapport
6 Schooling for science, engineering and technology
6.1 Aims and purpose of SET in schools
School is the only place where students study science and technology in a systematic
way.
They carry out simple scientific investigations, they learn about the concepts
and methods
scientists use, and they also develop some insight into the different fields
in which scientific
competence is needed and where scientific results or activities have an impact
on either their
personal lives or on society as a whole. Children meet science and technology
in many realms
of life. But it is only at school that they are exposed to science in an organised
and explicit
form. It is very likely that the first encounters with scientific thinking will
make lasting
impressions on their perception about the nature of science and on their attitudes
towards it.
While children may forget the formal content in the form of concepts, laws and
theories, they
are likely to remember the more personal and emotional part of their encounter
with science.
They may remember pleasure, joy, success, excitement – or a feeling of
failure, boredom, of
not understanding counter-intuitive concepts and abstract ideas with no relevance
to their
daily lives and a constant struggle to find strategies to arrive at exercise
solutions without
deep thinking or real understanding. School science is also a focal point where
other sources
of information and activities, such as science centres, media or other non-formal
environments, can be explored and discussed, thus linking school with other
contexts. For
many people, school education may be the only time they actually engage with
formal
information and knowledge about the sciences and technology.
As regards the aim of supporting an increase in human resources for SET, two
aspects have to
be regarded as goals for school science teaching:
• School education should assure a good foundation of scientific literacy
for all students.
Looking at the world from a scientific perspective enriches the understanding
and
interaction with phenomena in nature and technology, enables students (and therefore
future adults) to take part in societal discussions and decision-making processes,
and gives
them an additional element from which to form interests and attitudes. These
goals do not
only refer to the students’ personal and individual development: a culture
that is critical but
open-minded for science and technology is the necessary basis for raising students’
interests in scientific careers, as these choices are not only dependent on
their own
impression of competence, but are also influenced by parents, peers and the
media, for
example.
• Teaching and learning about and from school science must also raise
an interest in
scientific or science-related studies, careers and jobs. Studies have shown
that this is not an
easy venture: whereas many people regard science as important for society and
cultural
development, they do not regard it as important for their own daily lives or
for their own
career perspectives. Following this goal of raising interest in science careers,
school
education must therefore also provide students with an authentic view of science-related
careers and a fundamental background of knowledge, competencies and attitudes
about
science that enables further learning and activities in these areas.
Consequently, school education has to solve the problem of creating interest
and a basic level
of expertise for doing science as a career, on the one hand, and stimulating
interest and openmindedness
for dealing with science-based questions and decisions in daily life and in
society, on the other.
Science curricula and teaching processes probably focus too much on the (rather
few) future
scientists. The international discussion about fostering aspects of scientific
literacy in all
students – as an addition rather than a replacement for preparation for
future careers – is a step
towards a more general education about and from science. Alongside this discussion,
a
comparatively significant effort has been undertaken to improve curricula and
standards for
science-related subjects, such as chemistry or physics. A lot of research has
been carried out,
for example to better understand students’ conceptual understanding. Still,
results from
international comparative studies, such as TIMSS or PISA, were rather disappointing
for
many countries. One reason might be that knowledge from science education research
has not
really been implemented yet in curricula and teacher education – there
is a significant gap
between science education research and science teaching practice.
Another worrying finding is the comparatively low interest among students in
taking up
science-related subjects at school, once they get the chance to choose subjects,
which is the
case in upper secondary education in many countries in Europe.
Several consequences might be derived from these concerns:
• curricula should consider and enable science education for all, as well
as preparing future
scientists; they should enhance knowledge, understanding and the development
of
competencies as well as curiosity, attitudes and an open-minded perception of
science;
• the research- and experience-based knowledge about students learning
processes and their
development and support of interest has to be enlarged and implemented in curricula
and
teacher education;
• conditions for teaching and learning about and from science at school
have to be optimised
(e.g. equipment for carrying out experiments);
• teacher education and support will have to be analysed and improved
to enable them to
give students a more realistic insight into science-based careers and the meaning
of science
in society and their personal lives;
• methods of diagnosis and assessment have to be improved to give students
and teachers a
better understanding of their own competencies and of those necessary to deal
with
science;
• curricula structures and teacher training should enable teachers to
deal with diversity, e.g.
as regards differing interests between boys and girls, the social and cultural
background of
students, etc.;
• the influence of informal learning, e.g. through media, and of peer
group attitudes will
have to be analysed and taken into consideration at school; networks with science
centres,
science museums and even research labs, universities and industry should be
built up to
help improve school science (see chapter 7).
Hence, it is important to look beyond school science education as a medium of
instruction and
to study the perception of science (and of science-based technology) developed
by both
younger and older people. Through such studies, we can relate the outcomes –
“What
perceptions of science are developed by students, and by various groups of adults,
such as
teachers, scientists, and non-academics?” – to the inputs –
“What perceptions are promoted by
curriculum materials and by the media?” – in terms of the educational
process – “What do
teaching and learning
entail?”, “What scientific activities do students engage in?”
and “What
kinds of questions do they ask and what questions guide their work?”.
To improve science
teaching and learning at school, we need to clarify its role during the lifespan
of the individual
student as well as that of an educated society in general. Closely related to
these questions is
the matter of teacher education and teacher support which must also be regarded
as a major
task to be addressed.
In the following, we will pick up these questions and discuss:
• what we know about students’ understanding, interests and attitudes,
and what has been
done or could be done to enlarge this knowledge base;
• which influencing factors must be considered to improve the situation;
and
• what conclusions can be drawn to develop measures for short-term and
long-term
improvements.
Research results and ‘good-practice examples’ will be given to support
statements and
conclusions,. However, it is not possible to draw general conclusions and describe
a simple
overall picture because schooling and education conditions and structures are
very diverse
across the different European countries. It will therefore be an important task
for each country
to adapt findings and conclusions to its own system and catalogue of measurements.
The only
thing that can be stated for all countries is that these measures must be coherent
and feasible
for all players, and form a long-term process which should be monitored and
optimised to act
and react to new situations, demands and conditions.
119
117
_> page 155 du dit rapport
7 The cultural context
of recruitment for research careers
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter we will investigate the cultural and social factors which may
influence the
supply of human resources for science and technology in Europe. History illuminates
many of
the key points in the relationship between science and society in Europe, which
goes back to
antiquity. We will make many references to the past. In a recent book125, an
economist, Joel
Mokyr, underlined the importance of intellectual factors in the history of the
European
“miracle”, the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, and subsequent
progress:
“The intellectual origin of the Industrial Revolution and European economic
growth have
been underrated by economic historians and yet are too important to be left
to the historians
of science and technology.”
He shows “the complex ways in which social and cultural factors determine
technological
outcomes” using several examples from the past. Social and cultural factors
are embedded in
public opinion influences, educational trends, propaganda and the style of small
“élites”
which try to promote new ideas, institutions which may be efficient actors (such
as learned
societies, publishers, academies, museums, etc.), the media, and the mood of
politicians.
Technological outcomes depend on the capacity of research and industry to produce
a new
technology economically, but also on its acceptability by people and political
authorities, and
on the recruitment of a human workforce with the necessary capabilities and
willingness.
Increasing human resources in Europe for science and technology is an action
which may
depend on the social historical and philosophical context in present-day Europe.
Some of the
factors at work are briefly summarised below as they are part of a complex web
of influences
which act on each individual and may influence the choice of careers.
At the time of the Enlightenment, “a cultural change took place in which
a growing number
of people were influenced by Bacon’s idea about the function of human
knowledge”. The
scientific method is to be supported by experimentation, assuming that “Nature”
is
intelligible. Fundamental science is at the heart of research and organises
knowledge. But
science is also, in the interest of the state, at the service of commercial
and manufacturing
interests. This is a good description of “a knowledge-based economy”.
“In the seventeenth
century, the practice of science became increasingly permeated by the Baconian
motive of
material progress and constant improvement, attained by the accumulation of
knowledge.”
The distinction between ‘pure knowledge’ and ‘useful knowledge’
oriented towards
applications is already very clear in the mind of people, especially the politicians
who began
to support research and scientists, as suggested by Bacon. For instance, Louis
XIVth’s
powerful ministers, Colbert then Louvois, insisted that the newly created Académie
des
Sciences worked on matters which could “increase the Greatness of the
Monarchy” in
agriculture, commerce, navigation, military warfare ... One of their civil servants
suggested
drawing a firm distinction between “la recherche utile” and “la
recherche curieuse”126.
Diderot, in “La
Grande Encyclopédie”, glorified Bacon (who had been very popular
in France
since the translation of his work127 in 1624) and insisted on opening all knowledge
to all
people, including the secrets of the manufacturing arts.
Because of its obvious historical and economical impact, the diffusion of knowledge
is
traditionally supported in Europe by the scientific community, the educators,
governments,
and by every social, intellectual, commercial, military or political unit which
has an interest
either in the diffusion process itself or in the benefits to be expected from
the knowledge
accumulated by people, especially the workforce.
However, the values of the Enlightenment were contested right from the beginning.
There was
a revolt against the Baconian and Cartesian programmes of taming Nature. Figures
such as
Jean-Jacques Rousseau objected to the development of technologies and even to
extending
education to too many people, whereas the “philosophy of Nature”
was developed on the
wings of the romantic movement (Friedrich Schelling) and created another cultural
reference
in Europe for which Nature, feelings, intuition … are at least as important
as reason, logic and
science. The persistence of those opposite views for more than two centuries
is an important
and unique characteristic of European culture. It influences the image of science
in society
and has political consequences.
This divide is clearly visible today, and resistance to the Baconian view has
been going on for
two centuries (see chapter VI of Mokyr’s book entitled “The political
economy of knowledge:
innovation and resistance in economic history”). As the present difficulties
with youngsters’
interest in science may be linked to the influence of that type of ‘resistance’
in the public
sphere, it is important to investigate the trends today.
Popularisation of science has been supported by governments in Europe, from
the 17th century
to the present day, in the form of gardens, museums, schools, exhibitions, etc.
as part of
forging a climate of confidence in the efficiency of knowledge in society and
in response to
curiosity. In the second part of the 20th century, this trend was exasperated
by competition
between nations, especially after the Sputnik event in 1957. New methods to
improve science
education were tested. Science centres for children flourished. But in the 1980s,
a new wave
of resistance appeared with the development of the ‘green’ movements
and the influence of a
postmodern philosophy sceptical about science and technology being seen as politically
based
“constructions”. Science popularisation was slow to evolve from
a classical “deficit model”
(Public Understanding of Science), in which people are fed information, to a
“dialogue
model” on problems involving science, technology and societal issues,
especially the
development of new technologies. For PUS, one hopes that telling more about
science will
increase sympathy towards science (which is obviously good in this framework),
whereas the
dialogue, or participation, model tries to expose, and eventually overcome,
fears and doubts
through a debate and requests for the participation of scientists and other
professionals.
Governments are now shifting from PUS to the more open dialogue system, as seen
by the
orientation taken by some very large science museums in Europe and the organisation
of
many events where “people meet science”. The growing importance
of the entertainment
industry (TV, movies, best sellers) in shaping public feelings is also an important
component
as many science-based plots are used and can generate emotional reactions. Young
people in
particular are ‘targeted’ by many initiatives, private or public,
in order to increase their
awareness of the importance and utility of science and technology with some
expectations that
such an offer will influence their choice of career.
Some economists
are dubious about the efficiency of those policies for the recruitment of a
workforce for R&D. Jerry Sheehan and Andrew Wyckoff recently wrote the following
sentences128 under the title “Cultivating, attracting and retaining the
high-skilled”:
“At the heart of becoming an innovation-led economy is the need to have
people who
innovate. Policies in this area tend to focus on increasing the scientific and
technical skills of
the public at large through primary and secondary schools, vocational training
facilities and
training. This is an important component but its impact is diffuse, will only
be felt in the long
term and is more likely to result in a better public appreciation and acceptance
of science and
new technologies than it will have in their direct development. In this sense,
policies that are
directed towards increasing the overall SET knowledge of the population rather
than
improving high-level SET skills are less well suited to creating the next generation
of
innovations than to facilitating the diffusion of innovations created elsewhere.
This is the
paradox represented by the US: even though its capability to innovate is high,
its primary and
secondary school system has long been considered inferior to that in many OECD
countries
(NCEE, 1983). It is the country’s tertiary-level education that makes
the difference.”
On the contrary, the connection between scientific culture and “direct
development” is more
or less the thesis in the book by Mokyr. Sheehan and Wyckoff seem to ignore
the problems
generated, in a democracy, by public opinion moods and the actions of “resistance”
from
vested interests which can have a devastating impact on emerging technologies.
They add:
“More important for cultivating highly skilled SET workers, however, are
factors linked to
academic and research opportunities. The key policy implication is the need
to create worldclass
universities that act as a beacon for students around the world who want to
study with
the best and be taught by those at the forefront of the field. Doing so requires
an examination
of the role of universities in the community and their societal mission, especially
in Europe
where most universities are public and where student admissions are less selective
than in the
US.”
7.2 Science and opinion
Ever since Plato129, philosophers have debated whether or not ‘opinion’
necessarily stood in
opposition to ‘true knowledge’. Very early in European history it
also became apparent that
the social situation of the scientist depends on opinion about the interest
of research. The ofttold
story of Thales looking up at the stars and falling into a well is typical.
In literary works,
from classical Greek drama to modern novels, criticism of the scientist as a
person ‘out of this
world’ is extended, quite generally, to the pursuit of knowledge and to
all expressions of
curiosity. The fate of technological innovators such as Icarus or Prometheus,
doomed by a
curse, is another signal. Greek philosophy had a contempt for craftsmen which
is still echoed
by important 20th century philosophers such as Heidegger.
125 Joel Mokyr, “The Gifts of Athena”, Princeton University Press,
2002; we would like to thank Dr Luc Soete
for bringing this book to our attention
126 Académie des Sciences: “Histoire et mémoire de l’Académie
des Sciences”, Lavoisier Tec et Doc, Paris,
1996, pp. 4-13
127 Francis Bacon: The Two Books of Francis Bacon of the Proficiency and Advancement
of Learning Divine
and Human, to the King, London, 1605
128 Jerry Sheehan
and Andrew Wyckoff: “Targeting R&D: Economic and Policy Implications
of Increasing
R&D Spending”, STI Working Papers 2003/8, OECD, Paris, 2003, p. 33
129 Plato: “Opinion is nothing but the power which makes possible to judge
on appearance”, Republic, V, 479d-e