Report on workshop:
"Helping Each Other to Foster Critical Thinking about Biology and Society"
held in the Geological Museum, 24 Oxford St., Cambridge, Mass.,
evening of July 29 to noon on July 31, 2000
hosted by the Program in Critical & Creative Thinking (http://www.cct.umb.edu)
Graduate College of Education, University of Massachusetts, Boston
with support from STEMTEC [1]
Organizer: Peter J. Taylor (peter.taylor@umb.edu)

Sections to follow
Overview
The Program as it Evolved
Participants and their interests
Related Workshops
Finances
Background
Notes

Overview
Note: This report aims to convey the aims of the workshop and create a picture of its process. Readers are invited to speak to the organizer or other participants to learn more about the content and outcomes.

With a focus on the life and environmental sciences, this small workshop (8 participants) met to explore ways that placing developments in science and technology in their social context could enliven and enrich science education, science popularization, and citizen activism. Participants led each other in activities that could be adapted to college classrooms and other contexts, or in other ways shared insights, experience, experiments, struggles, and plans. The guiding principle was that participants benefit more when professional development opportunities allow them to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand [2]. The workshop catalyzed collaborations and networks among the participantsÑafter all, we need not only tools, but continuing support and inspiration as we weave new approaches into our work.
Indeed, directly after the workshop, Steve Fifield initiated a project with Carol Burger and Muriel Lederman to monitor the curriculum development each is undertaking with a view to increasing representation of women and their perspectives in biology. To assess the workshop's longer-term impact, a follow-up survey is planned for summer 2001, which will include questions related to STEMTEC's goal of increasing the quality, diversity, and numbers of K-12 science and math. teachers. Unfortunately, due to the sudden illness of the assistant to the workshop leader, an immediate evaluation, in the form of a "focused conversation" [3] at the end of the workshop, was not recorded. Time constraints eliminated the activity in which we were to write 5 statements/ themes/questions that we were taking away with us.
Due to the same illness just mentioned, extensive notes on the sessions were not kept. The reconstruction from memory that follows is intended to convey a picture of the process of the workshop. Readers are invited to speak to the organizer or other participants to learn more about the content and outcomes.

The Program as it Evolved
Participants were invited to submit session proposals, for either:
1) a 45-90 minute experiential session, in which instead of telling us what you have thought or found out, you will lead other participants to experience the issues and directions you are exploring; or
2) a more conventional 30 minute presentation and discussion session on a pre-circulated paper, manuscript, thought-piece, or reading.
The provisional program based on what three participants volunteered in advance was adjusted as we saw how things unfolded during the two days together. This open-planning was possible because the participants were prepared to experiment in different forms of interaction and group process.

Saturday 29
The workshop began on Saturday evening at 7pm with brief introductions, then continued with longer spoken autobiographies, centered around how each of us connected with the focus of this workshop. Autobiographical statements provide more and different context than formal presentationsÑwe know more than we are usually able to say, and opening this to exploration in subsequent conversations and sessions was an important basis for (inter)connecting our work. Hearing what we happen to mention and omit in telling our own story also serves as a source of insight into our present place and direction. Peter T. began, and in doing so provided some context for the workshop. [4]
At the end of evening, PT led a Guided Freewriting [5] activity: ÒWhat the 'Helping Each Other to Foster Critical Thinking' endeavor looks like to me.Ó This was followed by a Go around, in which each person stated "One thing I hope to have worked on by the end of the workshop."

Sunday 30
Autobiographies continued throughout the morning. After lunch Marcia Heiman led an activity on learning strategies (her specialization is learning from and teaching others the strategies of good learners). We were asked to respond to a set of abstracts or summaries of studies showing a relationship between brain growth and learning. MH also tried to discern the effect of giving half of us broad instructions and the rest specific.
Glenn Adelson led a discussion on the problems inherent in conceptualizing biological diversity. He put forth the idea that the conservation of biological diversity is a topic in which science and social values need to work together for us to arrive at satisfactory solutions. He used slides, natural history case studies, and mathematical models to show how diversity can be conceptualized in many more ways than reported in the standard biological literature. His main premise was that choosing among the various ways of charsacterizing biological diversity is a process dependent on human values and not on science. Participants responded to his presentation with questions and comments both orally and in writing. Their primary reaction was the desire to hear more natural history stories and think about the significance of narrative in science.
After dinner, Peter Taylor coached others in mapping or drawing intersecting strands diagrams to elucidate the intersection of factors affecting the leading edges, not-yet-stable aspects of their work. These maps formed the basis of "pair-share" discussions in which explained our maps to another person.

Monday 31
We began the final morning using Freewriting to reflect on "What is stabilizable and what needs more playing with." PT led us in a go around, in which each of us stated: 1. Something that is stable/ solid/ clear for us; 2. something we're pleased at having sorted out; 3. something we need to chew on more. We broke into two sub-groups so that the people who hadn't presented did so for 40 minutes each, and received feedback on their concerns. To close, PT led a focused conversation [3] that reviewed the workshop experience, which led to the following suggested names for the workshop: "Being in Several Houses," "Respite & Reflection," "Connect & Extend," "Peter's Garden."
-----------------------
Proposed activities we didn't get to
PT's longer pre-planned activity: "How can we address complexity in ways that facilitate conceptual & social change?Ñan issue for environmental studies & other fields"
Identifying connections with the projects of others. Concept maps. Pair-share. Share in the group -- one solid connection; one intriguing connection
Composing 5 statements/ themes/ questions that you are taking away with you (use carbon paper so it can be typed up and circulated)
Bob Lee leading discussion on paying attention to paradigm changers, such as Margulis and complexity theorists

Participants & interests
Glenn Adelson (Conservation Biology educator and author) -- bringing natural history back into biodiversity discourse
Carol Burger (Virginia Tech; K-12 Science gender equity) -- teaching science to women's studies faculty
Steve Fifield (Biology Education, U. Delaware; science and society in biology education) -- overcoming hierarchical dualisms
Marcia Heiman (Learning to Learn) -- learning strategies (how good learners learn)
Muriel Lederman (Biological Sciences Initiative, Virginia Tech) -- how to teach biology from social studies of science vantage point, in ways consonant with feminist pedagogy
Bob Lee (Science education student/policy analyst, former journalist) -- paying attention to paradigm changers, such as Margulis and complexity theorists
Peter Taylor (CCT, UMass Boston) -- stimulating students and researchers to use "critical heuristics" and make (helpful) diagrams of complex intersecting processes
Susan Youmans (Environmental Partnerships) -- moral agency in responding to rapid shifts brought on by technological change

Related workshops
This workshop followed immediately after the third of a series of Friday-Saturday workshops on "New Directions in Science Education" organized by CCT (). This workshop on "Science in its social context" was led by Peter Taylor. A fourth workshop on "Aligning Innovation with Science Education Standards" was be led by Steve Fifield the following weekend (August 4-5).

Finances
STEMTEC, an NSF-funded consortium of colleges in Western Massachusetts promoting student-active science, provided seed money for the workshop in the expectation that future workshops will be self-seeding. The $100 fee for the workshop was intended to cover costs for publicity, xeroxing and refreshments and, most importantly, to equalize the real cost of attendance. CCT is trying to maintain a fund to subsidize travel for long-distance workshop participants and to offer a lower, sliding-scale registration fee for those without institutional support. In this case, the three long-distance attendees had institutional support, so funds were available to cover meals. In light of the awkwardness of the workshop facilitator also collecting the fee, the money side should be handled by someone else in the future.

Background
Hosting this workshop reflects an emergent focus of the Critical & Creative Thinking (CCT) Program on science in its social context. This complements CCT's long-standing emphasis on conceptual discovery and justification in science, and acknowledges the social justice concerns that have motivated the work of many CCT students, faculty, and alums. Of course, the Boston area is rich in scholarly programs on history and philosophy of science, and has been home to important initiatives in citizen activism around scientific developments (e.g., Science for the People, Union of Concerned Scientists, Council for Responsible Genetics). An emphasis, however, on bringing critical thinking about science in its social context to bear on science education represents a distinctive contribution that CCT can make in this setting. [6]
In the spring of 1999, CCT initiated "Changing Life," a working group in the Boston area on fostering critical thinking in the life and environmental sciences. Due to work commitments of the two organizers, this group did not meet over the last year, but the July workshop should help revive it in the coming year.

Peter Taylor 9/00
Notes
[1] STEMTEC stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Teacher Education Collaborative. Its charge from the NSF is to increase the quality, diversity, and numbers of K-12 science and math. teachers. Among other projects, STEMTEC promotes "student-active" science in undergraduate science and math courses. Reference: McNeal, A. P. and C. D'Avanzo (Eds.) (1997). Student-active Science: Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.

[2] The model here was a successful workshop in April 1998 at Swarthmore College on issues of "agency" as addressed in various different fields and institutional settings.

[3] A focused conversation is a series of questions that go in a sequence from concrete things you observed through feelings and associations, to interpretations, and finally to the overall implications. This is not a conventional discussion. Instead of directly addressing what someone has said before you, the idea is to contribute to a pool of responses. We want each person to be heard, so keep your answers to the questions short and pithyÑeven telegraphic. No speeches or disputation. Stanfield, B. (Ed.) (1997). The Art of Focused Conversation. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.

[4] Handout: Themes to chew on concerning our interactions and process as a group:

Peter Taylor, July 2000

1a. We know more than we are able, at first, to acknowledge.
1b. It is important to get to know more about each othersÕ not-yet-stable aspects. And to allow this to happen it helps to not fill up the quiet spaces that occur.

2a. One challenge is to acknowledge our investment in our specific projects while finding ways to stretch what we are doing and to connect with the projects of the others.
2b. The hardest work is to support each other to inquire. (To inquire includes each of us inquiring further on the issues that arise in our own projects and in the projects of others. It also means inquiring into how we support our own work and the work of others.)

3. It is important to reflect at the end of each phase so as to take one concrete product into the next phase.

[5] Guided (topic-based) freewriting
In a freewriting exercise, you should not take your pen off the paper. Keep writing even if you find yourself stating over and over again, "I don't know what to say." What you write won't be seen by anyone else, so don't go back to tidy up sentences, grammar, spelling. You will probably diverge from the topic, at least for a time while you acknowledge other preoccupations. That's OKÑit's one of the purposes of the exercise. However, if you keep writing for seven-ten minutes, you should expose some thoughts about the topic that had been below the surface of your attentionÑthat's another of the aims of the exercise. Reference: Elbow, P. 1981. Writing with Power. New York: Oxford U. P.

[6] Peter Taylor: "It is important for this endeavor that examining science in its social context means more than looking at the applications of science and technologyÑtheir positive and negative implications on workplaces and the economy, on health and the environment, and on social interactions and identities. There is an "upstream" direction as wellÐthe very problems studied, concepts used, technologies designed, and answers accepted also reflect their social contextÑfrom who funds science and technology and whether the public has a voice, to the subtle ways that language and social commitments shape people's thought and creativity. In my own teaching I have found that close examination of concepts and methods within any given area of the life and environmental sciences can stimulate studentsÕ inquiries into the diverse social influences shaping that science. Social contextualization can, in turn, suggest alternative lines of scientific investigation. This two-way interaction or "reciprocal animation" between science and social contextualization of science enlarges significantly the sources of ideas about what else could be or could have been in science and in society. It is this broader vision of critical thinking about science in its social context that motivates the workshop."