Due 04/09 with Marvin Hernandez

Title: COMPARING SCIENTISTS’ VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE WITHIN AND ACROSS
DISCIPLINES, AND LEVELS OF EXPERTISE
Claim: “The goal of science education is to develop scientific literacy, broadly defined as general
understanding of scientific ideas among members of society”.
Data: Students need to understand science literacy and understanding in order to achieve
knowledge and make a difference in the world.
Warrant: The seven aspects of nature of science
Backing: Some people do not understand the basics of scientific education.
Reservation: Some people use different kinds of science methods in order to find a conclusion
in their work.
Conclusion: Students that know the basis of scientific literature and the basics of the scientific
methods can have a better understanding in science.


Title: Visualising knowledge structures in biology: discipline, curriculum and student
understanding
Claim: Concept mapping has its positives and negatives when it is used in biological works as
well as other science field
Data: Over the years students are observed and are shown with concept mapping in their
works.
Warrant: Concept mapping is a great tool to maintain focus on student learning.
Backing: Concept mapping is “big picture thinking” and a constructive learning theory. It
supports planning and lightens the load of information.
Reservation: Some concept mapping is still “instructivist” than “constructivist” in some
classroom and have its negatives. There is doubt with the simple tool.
Conclusion: Concept mapping is used a lot in science field and is a very useful tool to
understand thing in a more orderly simpler way.

Chapter 10

In part three of this assignment, evaluative criteria could be used to help show the main points that were trying to be made by the people interviewed, the articles, and us; the writers.  Using these criteria allows us to clearly state the evidence used to show our main claims about what was said about our field of study, it helps us back up all the claims made with a multitude of evidence. It also helps to make sure any claims that were made were valid and said correctly.  All in all it assures our readers that nothing said is just spun out of thin air, everything that is written has back up and support.

Part 1 Draft

Scientists live their lives always asking questions. They find the answers to their questions by turning these questions into theories and collecting data to prove them. Unlike other fields/disciplines, scientists must remain unbiased and use facts. People working in the science field do not let use other factors of the world to have an effect on their studies. For example religion is something big to avoid in a scientific study because it does not give facts, only beliefs. They want to use actual data, laws, and scientific methods so that they can reach a logical answer to their question. They have different viewpoints, writing styles, and begin a project in a very different way. Scientists get to the point when it comes to figuring out what they are solving. Rather than looking at the beauty of things, they find the reasons of what the mechanism are behind that objects that creates that beauty.

The first member of the faculty that was interviewed was Dr. Mossman. He teaches Biology 181 at Arizona State and also upper division Cancer classes. To say that he is an expert in the field of science is an understatement. He has published many research papers and has ten books that he has contributed in that have been published. Another member of faculty that we interviewed was Dr. Mangone, who is the professor who teaches the section on microbiology for the Genetics 340 class here at ASU, and specializes in transcription termination and research in eukaryotic cells. He is also a credited scientist; he has had many research papers published through the years.

Something that was made apparent through these interviews is just how important being social is when one is a scientist. People in other fields of work may think that people in the science field aren’t very social, but that would be incorrect. How scientists come up with new ideas is usually speaking with their colleagues and bouncing ideas off of each other.

When asked how the questions that scientists come up with are generated, Dr. Mossman made an interesting point. He stated “Well a lot of times answers generate their own questions. But in many instances the questions will come out of debates that you have with people, may not come from purely scientific analysis of the problem.” Dr. Mangone made a similar point, that “science is mostly discussing things.” The two professors both agree that discussing and debating with other experts of their fields is a very important part of the scientific process.

Another important process of scientific discovery is observation and data collecting. It is what makes the questions and answers that are generated verifiable. When asked how important this process was to Dr. Mossman he replied, “Well that’s the basis of drawing any kind of scientific conclusion. You have to have confidence in the observation you’re making, you’ve got to be able to explain any interfering observations.” What he means is that the scientist in question who is doing the experiment must have confidence in his abilities to subjectively interpret the data to the best of their abilities. Dr. Mangone has the same opinion as Dr. Mossman on how important data and observations are in this next statement, “See biological affect have data to detect that and validate that. A major problem in the field is that you need to make sure what you are doing. Observe results without any biased. Need data to do that.”

 Dr. Mossman describes this process best when he stated, “ I have evidence I have to evaluate whether the data are valid or not, if they are valid. How do I interpret the data, and when I interpret the data can I draw a sound conclusion regard to whatever question it was.”

Dr. Mangone made an excellent point when he compared what kind of evidence is acceptable in science. It can be compared to a recipe, where it has to be precise, strict and have many controls. If a chef at a restaurant was always changing how he made his food, then he would not be considered a good chef, just like if a scientist is not precise and strict with the data then he wouldn’t be considered a good scientist.

It seemed that both the professors, while interviewed separately still came up with answers that typically paralleled each other. That’s because there are some things in science that are just strictly protocol, and no matter what the scientists study, they all stick to similar protocol.

They also both believe that what they do unquestionably helps society. With Dr. Mossman he is to put it in his own words, “addressing a problem of allocating scarce economic and social resources to solve a public health problem that may or may not exist, depending on who you ask. My work potentially can save billions, let me put it to you that way.” That is no easy feat and surely comes with a lot of work in order to try and do what he does. Dr. Mangone also agrees, stating that, “science is all important.” Even though people in society may not see what is done in research labs, what scientists do help people all over the world everyday.

A lot of work is put into getting the questions and answers that scientists are looking for, and it is clearly no easy feat to convince others that what you have found means something. That’s why scientists have to be passionate about what they do, because without passion the time spent going through all the processes that are required would be strenuous.