Critic Paper: The Contribution of Ethnobiology to the Construction of a Dialogue Between Ways of Knowing: A Case Study
By Geilsa Costa Santos Baptista and Charbel Niño El-Hani
Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Science and Education (2009) 18:503-520
Published online: 25 February 2009
SUMMARY
This case study investigated the role of ethnobiological research in relating science education to traditional knowledge in a multicultural classroom in Brazil. It focused on the efficacy test of the didactic material and learning sequence designed to promote discussion between scientific and traditional knowledge in the context of biology teaching. The material was based on interviews from farmer students and was internally validated by biology teachers. Seventy-two high school students were the subjects of the two-phase intervention composing of a group work surveying their previous knowledge on local crops, and construction of the ‘table of comparative cognition’ grounded from the didactic material. The intervention was reported to have created possibilities of discussing in the classroom the similarities and differences between scientific and traditional knowledge and their specific applications. However, challenges on multicultural science education were identified like lack of teacher training and students’ prejudices to cultural differences, among others.
CRITIC
Ethnography, as a qualitative method of research, has been conceptually discussed in various research books but this is the first time that I was able to review such an investigation.
There are three things that caught my attention in the article: the way multicultural environment is defined; the role of traditional knowledge in understanding science; and the importance of observing research ethics.
According to the article, each and every science classroom can be regarded as a multicultural setting regardless of geographical location and class composition. This is explained by the authors in the context of students who do not share the cultural backgrounds needed to understand a scientific concept. They would fall beyond the assumptions of the Western Modern Science about the universal understanding of the universe as opposed to their cultural impressions of reality. I subscribe to this concept of multicultural setting because I believe that before there was science, the influence of culture in understanding reality and establishing knowledge was already on work.
In my experience as a college instructor of biology, I’ve met students who had provided culturally-based explanations in some of the concepts discussed in the class which enabled me to realize the vital role of traditional knowledge in understanding science. Coincidentally, most of my encounters were also concepts in botany.
For instance, a student asked if whether or not peanut is a root crop. Acknowledging my own misconception as a science generalist, I threw the question back to the class. And here’s one working student who insisted that it is NOT, instead he muttered, “It’s a fruit!” The class burst into laughter. Then I asked him to substantiate his answer. He said that his family was cultivating a peanut farm. He observed that when peanut flowers grew into fruits, the stems bent to the ground and the fruits touched the soil. Eventually, the fruits would penetrate into the soil which is why peanuts are mistaken as root crops. He even drew on the board the process. The class was caught in half-belief waiting for my confirmation. To mediate that information with science, I immediately googled how peanut is classified and posted it on my blog . I shared it with them the following meeting. I noticed that because of that incident, the student earned the respect of his classmates. He became confident with his ideas and manifested more interest in the subject.
There are still other entries in my blog that are based on the traditional knowledge students brought in my class which I used as springboards to initiate discourses between traditional and scientific information such as the reproduction of onion, coconut embryo and the like .
What has been presented in the fifth paragraph is a characteristic typical of a teacher with sound pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) posited by Shulman (1986) . It is important that teachers should consider the learners’ cultural background to effectively translate a concept within their social and cultural milieu. I think this is what we need in the country right now. Agri-technicians are coming to the field full of scientific knowledge but failed to translate it into consumable information losing the essential connection with the farmers. Likewise, academicians are missing the mark by using conceptual terms so abstract to be contained by an ordinary teacher or student. Context must be factored into the equation of generating knowledge.
On top of these, what really grabbed my attention was the authors’ observance of research ethics evidenced by the informed consent given by the school administration, teacher collaborator, each student participant and in case of minors, their parents. In my exposure to various research activities for the last five years, I seldom observe such a stringent adherence to research ethics, despite the presence of many a legal provision. I must also say that several researches in the country would fall short of this requirement as about 50 percent of research institutions in the country have functional Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee. That’s why I admired the patience and efficiency of the first author in keeping a field diary to take notes of the event that happened during the intervention as courtesy to the teacher who refused to be recorded with a video camera or a tape recorder.
Although the findings of the study are limited to the subjects investigated, I appreciated the research method used in determining the role of students’ cultural background in science teaching and discovering the challenges that go with it.
Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Science and Education (2009) 18:503-520
Published online: 25 February 2009
SUMMARY
This case study investigated the role of ethnobiological research in relating science education to traditional knowledge in a multicultural classroom in Brazil. It focused on the efficacy test of the didactic material and learning sequence designed to promote discussion between scientific and traditional knowledge in the context of biology teaching. The material was based on interviews from farmer students and was internally validated by biology teachers. Seventy-two high school students were the subjects of the two-phase intervention composing of a group work surveying their previous knowledge on local crops, and construction of the ‘table of comparative cognition’ grounded from the didactic material. The intervention was reported to have created possibilities of discussing in the classroom the similarities and differences between scientific and traditional knowledge and their specific applications. However, challenges on multicultural science education were identified like lack of teacher training and students’ prejudices to cultural differences, among others.
CRITIC
Ethnography, as a qualitative method of research, has been conceptually discussed in various research books but this is the first time that I was able to review such an investigation.
There are three things that caught my attention in the article: the way multicultural environment is defined; the role of traditional knowledge in understanding science; and the importance of observing research ethics.
According to the article, each and every science classroom can be regarded as a multicultural setting regardless of geographical location and class composition. This is explained by the authors in the context of students who do not share the cultural backgrounds needed to understand a scientific concept. They would fall beyond the assumptions of the Western Modern Science about the universal understanding of the universe as opposed to their cultural impressions of reality. I subscribe to this concept of multicultural setting because I believe that before there was science, the influence of culture in understanding reality and establishing knowledge was already on work.
In my experience as a college instructor of biology, I’ve met students who had provided culturally-based explanations in some of the concepts discussed in the class which enabled me to realize the vital role of traditional knowledge in understanding science. Coincidentally, most of my encounters were also concepts in botany.
For instance, a student asked if whether or not peanut is a root crop. Acknowledging my own misconception as a science generalist, I threw the question back to the class. And here’s one working student who insisted that it is NOT, instead he muttered, “It’s a fruit!” The class burst into laughter. Then I asked him to substantiate his answer. He said that his family was cultivating a peanut farm. He observed that when peanut flowers grew into fruits, the stems bent to the ground and the fruits touched the soil. Eventually, the fruits would penetrate into the soil which is why peanuts are mistaken as root crops. He even drew on the board the process. The class was caught in half-belief waiting for my confirmation. To mediate that information with science, I immediately googled how peanut is classified and posted it on my blog . I shared it with them the following meeting. I noticed that because of that incident, the student earned the respect of his classmates. He became confident with his ideas and manifested more interest in the subject.
There are still other entries in my blog that are based on the traditional knowledge students brought in my class which I used as springboards to initiate discourses between traditional and scientific information such as the reproduction of onion, coconut embryo and the like .
What has been presented in the fifth paragraph is a characteristic typical of a teacher with sound pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) posited by Shulman (1986) . It is important that teachers should consider the learners’ cultural background to effectively translate a concept within their social and cultural milieu. I think this is what we need in the country right now. Agri-technicians are coming to the field full of scientific knowledge but failed to translate it into consumable information losing the essential connection with the farmers. Likewise, academicians are missing the mark by using conceptual terms so abstract to be contained by an ordinary teacher or student. Context must be factored into the equation of generating knowledge.
On top of these, what really grabbed my attention was the authors’ observance of research ethics evidenced by the informed consent given by the school administration, teacher collaborator, each student participant and in case of minors, their parents. In my exposure to various research activities for the last five years, I seldom observe such a stringent adherence to research ethics, despite the presence of many a legal provision. I must also say that several researches in the country would fall short of this requirement as about 50 percent of research institutions in the country have functional Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee. That’s why I admired the patience and efficiency of the first author in keeping a field diary to take notes of the event that happened during the intervention as courtesy to the teacher who refused to be recorded with a video camera or a tape recorder.
Although the findings of the study are limited to the subjects investigated, I appreciated the research method used in determining the role of students’ cultural background in science teaching and discovering the challenges that go with it.
Comments