Recently our attention have been drawn to the lack of interest among our students in science subjects in schools (New Straits Times 12-02-2012, Berita Harian 10-02-2012). This issue perhaps need our elaborated and continued engagement because in the context of the k-economy and Malaysia’s latest developmental policies, it is also common knowledge that science, technology and innovation (STI) is understood to be critical drivers for example. Yet the current data available seems to show that many of our manpower needs in important areas such as engineering, ICT, health and agriculture are still far from being adequate (our unfulfilled needs range from 30-50%). Then how about our needs for science teachers? There are also indicators that highlight the critical need for Malaysia’s Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) to be boosted. According to one source, as an STI funder Malaysia seems to be in the highest rank amongst the OIC countries, lagging only behind Tunisia, Turkey and Morocco in terms of GERD being a percentage of GDP. However, compared to emerging STI powers regionally, the expenditure of Malaysia seems significantly less than China and South Korea and the profile for the country’s STI spending during 1996-2008, shows as remarkable dip in the last 3-4 years.
Even if we were in the group that feels rather lukewarm to the idea or paradigm of thinking of STI as principally being the engine of the economy, there needs to be a clearer picture as to why there should be a serious concern over the decline of interest in science and technology not only in Malaysia, but also all over the world.
In a recent science education international symposium held at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, attended by researchers from all regions of the world, the gravity of the situation of the decline in interest in science was declared in a “statement of concern” which began with the sharing of actual worldwide data confirming the range of interest as being from ‘little’ to active dislike towards science.
As already reported, compared to experiences in other subjects, students see learning science as involving mainly the transmission of facts and contents of little relevance to life as well as science being more “difficult” than most other subjects. Instead of learning more about the scientific procedures through which scientific knowledge is obtained, science education is perceived more often as over-emphasizing the memorization of established scientific knowledge.
Even though researchers in the field of science education (SE) have urged for more attention to be given to how different aspects of nature (which is the object of the study of science to begin with) can be taught, it seems that far too many curricula remains overloaded with content.
In the last 10 years many countries, as in Malaysia, have embarked on efforts at reassessments of how science is being learnt and taught. In carrying out such reassessments it is perhaps pertinent to share some of the observations made at the Uppsala conference that may be of relevance to us is our SE context.
Major shortcomings in SE identified include the following:
1) SE has separated the knowledge from its historical origin and contexts, (the whys and wherefores of science). Students often fail to see the issues and problems of life that formed the basis of research and developments of science and technology to begin with. To quote an example, in the Islamic civilization, the earliest Muslim scientists needed to work out basic needs such as figuring out the times of prayer and the direction of the kiblat. Following the prophet’s hadith (Prophetic saying) of nine to ten doors of rezki (source of income and livelihood) as being from commerce, Muslims saw trading (which stimulated the expansion of the Mathematical Sciences and the market) and explorations via the land and seas as part of their ibadah (religiousness). Likewise another hadith that expounds how Muslims should even go as far as China to seek knowledge, triggered and expanded the early Muslims’ development of the sciences of sailing ships and ship-building, astronomy, geography and related technologies such as the famous astrolabes, very critical computational gadgets during the middle ages and argued by some scholars to be precursors of the modern computer.
Amongst other areas of life both knowledge and commerce are critical duties of Muslims to pursue and such an insight could be used by Muslim students today as a window through which to appreciate STI and excel in it. Such a history of science is easily read through the writings of writers such as Robert Briffault’s Making of Humanity (first written in 1919) that talks about the Islamic Civilisation’s Contribution to the Renaissance and Modern Science. In the same way, there have been tremendously important discoveries of STI in other civilizations as well that young people besides Muslims associated with these civilizations can also draw their deeper sense of appreciation of science and technology more solidly from. Besides stimulating their imaginations and creativity this historical sense can perhaps also help us realize the 6th principle of Vision 2020 that asks Malaysians to develop their own science and technology instead of being mere consumers of others’ science and technology. Such an angle can also help us strengthen our students’ sense of patriotism as there are many areas of science and technology that Malaysia is not only potentially capable of leading, but is already at the front line of. Examples are in the field tropical diseases, rubber and palm oil industry, biodiversity management, alternative medicine and many others that can also contribute to sustainability issues. Our innovative systems can look at the fall-out of the research in these areas, that positively have economic possibilities.
It is important that the existence of human enterprise that makes science possible, is emphasized and that school science need to share the human dramas lying behind the science topics that they are taught.
Recently policies about the knowledge society may have challenged education systems to upgrade students’ competencies in generic skills. In doing so we must not forget that such competencies can not only be indirectly associated with, but can actually be enhanced by subjects like science.
2) SE may not be contributing enough to making students see the critical need to, not only understand, but also address global issues such as feeding the world’s poorest population, ensuring adequate supplies of water, climate change and eradication of diseases in which we all have a role to play and responsibility to fulfill. Students more often that not are not made aware of how the answer to any of these problems will need applications of STI alongside committed social, economic and political action. One can imagine how if their SE is not preparing them to be scientifically literate about the problems being faced and the critical role that STI must play, then there will not be much hope that these issues will get the support and solutions needed.
3) Very critical also is the lack of inputs of values in SE. The famous psychologist William James who wrote much on pragmatism emphasized the critical need for and of values the importance of which he described as follows:
Conceive yourself, if possible, suddenly stripped of all the emotion with which your world now inspires you, and try to imagine it as it exists, … without your favourable or unfavourable, hopeful or apprehensive comment. It will be almost impossible for you to realize such a condition of negativity and deadness. No one portion of the universe would then have importance beyond another; and the whole collection of its things and series of its events would be without significance, character, expression, or perspective. Whatever of value, interest, or meaning our respective worlds may appear endued with are thus pure gifts of the spectator’s mind. (On the Varieties of Religious Experience 1905/1985)
The important message we need to share with students here is that even if we exist in a world that is made up of facts of that are all true, we still have to make choices (of rights and wrongs, set prioritise, “delete”, “put on hold” etc.). For example, when we want to teach chemistry and tell our students all the relevant facts of the lesson, we still need to choose and prioritise the facts related to the topic as it is not possible to cover everything at any one go.
It is these choices that require valuation/evaluation that will make us think which facts are more valuable compared to the others. This leads us to the consciousness much needed today, to the plain fact that actions inevitably require some kind of judgement. This pragmatic insight is called privileging which is considered the heart of learning, for example by the socialcultural researchers today. We need to understand that in any learning situation, the students have to make choices about what and what not to accept, i.e. they have to privilege.
Perhaps it is in the context of choices or privileging too that we can see the point or space where SE actually interfaces with other subjects like art, history, culture and religion. The question is are we creating such a space in our SE?