The Value of Popular Text in Teaching Science

Popular science articles have been emerging in the field of science. Predominantly, academic genres mainly textbooks and research articles have been the most common forms of teaching science subjects in the university. Science as a concept is a form of knowledge whose foundation is on facts and logic.  The popular scientific articles have been developed over the years with the intention of simplifying the scientific concepts to make it easier for students. Furthermore, the focus of these article has been on the general readers always with the aim of improving the accessibility and understanding of scientific knowledge to the students. However, there has been the fear that the advent of these texts may have compromised the integrity of the scientific knowledge and concepts. Some of the researchers and scholars have argued that the popular science articles can be applied in the higher institutions to complement the use of research articles. Thus, the research paper presents an argument of whether there is value in incorporating the popular texts to teach science at the highest level of education.

Arguments in Favour of Popular Text

Science as a concept involves a lot of technical language and terminologies (Myers, 1991). Myers (1991) emphasizes that there is a lot of information which needs to be presented for the learner to understand and grasp the concept. For the learners to be fully engaged, there is the need for them to be knowledgeable about the different scientific theories. Academic texts are based on facts and the complexity of the information at times makes it difficult for the learners to interpret.  The popular texts have been credited for its simplicity in presenting the scientific knowledge (Myers, 1991). Moreover, education is critical for the reader for three reasons. The experience gives them the ability to separate the strings of similar information in different sentences which is more comfortable in popular texts compared to the academic texts. Furthermore, science makes use of a lot of synonyms; thus, with the simplicity, the reader easily differentiates the synonyms in the different texts when referring to academic texts compared to the academic texts due to the structure of the content (Myers, 1991). Science also makes use of a lot of dominance relations within phrases which are easier to interpret in the famous text hence making teaching more accessible.

The proponents of popular text have also supported the adoption of the texts in teaching science because they offer a basis for scientific debates. (Ridder, 2014) The content of the texts reports on scientific findings before they are endorsed. Ridder (2014) highly summarises the opinions of the authors. Hence, when learners are exposed to such material, they get a basis to engage in the debates to interrogate whether the claims are valid and apply to the modern-day learning.

Arguments Against Popular Text

The principal reason why popular science is limited as a framework of teaching in the universities is that of the ideological concept that it presents to the students (Roth & Scherer, 2016). The tertiary learning level is the highest institution of learning. As a result, there is the need for the students to be challenged intellectually as they learn. Academic genres in the form of research articles and textbooks provide a robust scientific pool of knowledge which students can use to learn and engage intellectually. Moreover, the content of the academic books and research articles always seek to persuade the learners and inform them (McRae, 1993). Thus, they have been the most appropriate tool for teaching science at the highest level of learning compared to popular text. McRae (1993) observed that popular texts present scientific facts without an established front mainly because they are founded on the author’s views. The texts present knowledge from a provisional point of view which acts as a source of debate rather than a score of informing. Thus, the learners who rely so much on the popular text as the basis of teaching may end up developing weak scientific ideologies in the process of learning.

The lexical cohesion about scientific knowledge is critical especially with regards to ensuring that scientific concepts are communicated (Myers, 1991). As a result, the content of the text mainly utilises forms, series, synonyms and oppositions to deliver the information. The forms mostly revolve around the morphological structure of the sentences with the aim of communicating the scientific concepts (Myers, 1991). The series is usually incorporated in the texts together with the use of synonyms to describe different statements. Hence, popular texts do not bring out these aspects of scientific communication undoubtedly as it attempts to simplify the information which may present an interpretation problem about the text. However, the academic texts, whose foundation is knowledge brings out these lexical relations clearly for the learner to comprehend.

Warren (2008) highlights that research articles are the foundation of scientific knowledge; thus they are the principal source and models which the students use as the source of knowledge. Furthermore, from the early stages of education, the learners have been used to research texts as the source of teaching and learning (Rosebery & Warren, 2008). Consequently, a deviation through the introduction of the popular text presents an unfamiliar territory for the students. Moreover, during the early years of tertiary education for most of the science students, there is an emphasis on preparing lab reports. These reports form a majority of their academic work as the learners are developing a theoretical foundation for their education. The presentation and outlook of lab reports have a similarity with research articles. Thus, the use of research articles, which are mainly characterised using technical language and nominalisation presents a strong foundation for the learners to develop their lab reports as opposed to the use of popular text (Braine, 1989). Furthermore, due to the nominalisation, research and articles present a relational process which is more effective in communicating the scientific concepts compared to the popular texts.

Research articles present more objectivity compared to the popular science articles (Parkinson & Andendorff, 2018). The content of the materials is on scientific facts which are backed by thorough research. Moreover, the authors present their findings without incorporating their opinion. Precedence is given to reason and logic as they are the key fundamentals of scientific knowledge. Hence, whenever there is need to present the personal opinion in research textbooks or articles, the aspects of nominalisation downplay any form of bias. Moreover, research articles believe that the reader is powerful. In the scientific community, the readers are the majority compared to the writers (McRae, 1993). Hence, research articles present information without any form of bias for the readers to be able to judge. Popular science texts, on the other hand, have a way of prejudice. The content of the books mainly represents the personal opinions of the author which may be challenged. Moreover, popular science glorifies the individual researcher with an attempt to always present new information. As a result, the objectification of the researcher poses the risk of loss of objectivity based on the information presented.

The content of research articles focuses mainly on exposition, recount and discussions (Braine, 1989). By engaging with the literature, the learners get an opportunity to interrogate the scientific findings being presented by the texts (Parkinson & Andendorff, 2018). As a result, active learning takes place since the learners get an opportunity to compare the scientific findings which they can compare with the knowledge being presented in other texts. However, for popular texts, the sources and content of information revolve around the researcher of the report. As a result, the popular science texts take shape and form of debates between contesting opinions. Consequently, the author of the articles frequently acts as the instrument of presenting the views of other scientists (Roth & Scherer, 2016). Thus, the nature of the popular text is not comprehensive enough to cover the needs of the higher education syllabus which calls for a more in-depth approach, analysis and interrogation of the various scientific disciplines. Thus, the credibility of academic texts is higher than those of popular texts due to fewer human participants as the source of information in academic texts. 

Popular texts have been discredited as a form of teaching in the higher learning institutions mainly because of the structure and arrangement of the language (Parkinson & Andendorff, 2018). Since the content of the texts is based on the opinion of the author, the style of the texts may be informal in some cases. As a result, when used as part of the reference texts, the learners in higher education may be encouraged to use colloquial language when presenting their assignments or scripts which may lead to the compromise of the quality of education. Moreover, since modern texts aim to submit content to students in the simplest way possible, there is the risk of introducing poor scientific models to the students (McRae, 1993). Science as a course is not personal. The foundation of the course is based on facts and logic. Hence, when informal language is introduced, there is a possibility that the quality of the content in the lecture halls may be compromised

The concept of science is presented in the classroom as a permanent and fact. As a result, over the years, academic texts have proven to be relevant in augmenting the fact because they are based on factual findings (Parkinson & Andendorff, 2018). Popular texts have proven to be a valuable addition especially with regards to ensuring that they provide information on the issues that led to the development of science. Thus, they play a role in giving the learners the opportunity to appreciate the historical background of the scientific concepts. However, due to the nature of the content, they are not sufficient with regards to ensuring that the factual information is presented effectively to the learners with the magnitude that research articles do. The findings of popular text are normally provisional and, in some cases, controversial. They can then be applied in the classroom for debates but not as the core basis of developing the syllabus content.

Over the years, science has developed as being very authoritative (McRae, 1993). Popular text presents science as a simpler concept which is easier for the students to understand. However, the challenge comes in the application of the knowledge since popular texts have compromised certain aspects of the knowledge by making them controversial. Hence, when the students attend the lectures, they seek to determine knowledge and establish it with finality. Science differs from history and other humanities due to the little room for debate (Roth & Scherer, 2016). As a result, when popular texts form the foundation of teaching science in the classroom, the authoritative nature of the scientific discipline may be lost or even eroded

Conclusion

In conclusion, the essay has explored popular text and academic texts and their application to the teaching of science in higher learning institutions. Over the years, the teaching of scientific concepts has relied on the use of academic articles and texts. Popular text has been emerging of late with the target audience being non-specialist readers who have a desire to gain scientific knowledge. As a result, popular texts have presented the scientific content in a much simpler way with the aim of ensuring that the audience fully understands the scientific concepts. Moreover, popular text has introduced a new way of presenting information for argumentative purposes. However, a lot of arguments have been advanced on why popular text is not applicable for the teaching of sciences in the university. The application of popular text has been criticised for lacking objectivity which is one of the key foundations of sciences. Their informal structure and language also makes it difficult to teach at the highest level. As a result, the text should be used the audience that is not pursing science at the technical level.

References

Braine, G. (1989). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses. English For Specific Purposes, 8(1). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0889490689900033

Braine, G. (2018). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses. English For Specific Purposes, 8(1), 3-15. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0889490689900033

McRae, M. (1993). The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Scientific Writing (1st ed.). Athens: The University of Georgia Press.

Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 1-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544772

Parkinson, J., & Andendorff, R. (2018). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. Physics Department, Science Faculty, University Of Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa, 1(1), 2-18. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/61801702-The-use-of-popular-science-articles-in-teaching-scientific-literacy.html

Ridder, J. (2014). Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writin. Social Epistemology Review, 3(12), 23-39. Retrieved from https://social-epistemology.com/2014/11/03/science-and-scientism-in-popular-science-writing-jeroen-de-ridder/

Rosebery, A., & Warren, B. (2008). Teaching Science to English Language Learners: Building on Students’ Strengths (1st ed., pp. 58-70). NSTA Press Book.

Roth, D., & Scherer, A. (2016). Science Popularization: Interdiscursivity among Science, Pedagogy, and Journalism. Universidade Federal De Santa Maria, 11(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-457323671