Sciences and AI between Disdain and Myth: Towards a more authentic STEAM education
Resource type
Roundtable Session
Status
Accepted
Recommended form of citation (APA)
Steinbach, A., & Buser, C., Sciences and AI between Disdain and Myth: Towards a more authentic STEAM education [Conference Paper]. Roundtable at EAPRIL 2025, November 25–27, Valletta (Malta)
Author(s)
PHSG Organisation name
License Condition
All rights reserved
Proforis OA-status
metadata only (bibliographisch)
Topic PHSG
Mathematische, Naturwissenschaftliche und Technische Bildung
Fields of Science and Technology (OECD)
Natural sciences
Abstract
This roundtable session examines the polarized views of science and artificial intelligence (AI) and their influence on education and public perception. Scientific disciplines and their results are often caught between rejection and recognition, between contempt and idealization [1]. On the one hand, anthropogenic climate change and COVID-19 deniers, conspiracy theorists and purveyors of alternative facts reject scientific consensus and fuel distrust. On the other hand, scientists, communicators and activists strive to defend science – often presenting an idealized science image that praises a monolithic truth.
These tensions also permeate schools and universities, probably shaping STEAM education. The authors increasingly encounter a distorted understanding of science – less outright rejection but more unrealistic expectations of what science is and can achieve.
For establishing an authentic science education, we want to uncover these distortions using questionnaires that are designed around a selection of statements we will open up for dialogue in this roundtable session. Main research questions are:
• How many biases and beliefs about science exist among science educators and students?
• How can vibrating STEAM education effectively address and counteract these distortions?
We will critically scrutinize several statements in the light of real-world connectedness as well as disciplinary and personal authenticity [2].
These tensions also permeate schools and universities, probably shaping STEAM education. The authors increasingly encounter a distorted understanding of science – less outright rejection but more unrealistic expectations of what science is and can achieve.
For establishing an authentic science education, we want to uncover these distortions using questionnaires that are designed around a selection of statements we will open up for dialogue in this roundtable session. Main research questions are:
• How many biases and beliefs about science exist among science educators and students?
• How can vibrating STEAM education effectively address and counteract these distortions?
We will critically scrutinize several statements in the light of real-world connectedness as well as disciplinary and personal authenticity [2].
Additional Information
Contested Sciences
Science and technology shape modern society. Yet, many people in industrialized nations hold surprisingly distorted, somehow impoverished views of the natural sciences. According to the German sociologist Armin Nassehi, society increasingly has an uneasy relationship with science [3]. Today, anything associated with bourgeois elites and expertise – politics, economics, wokeness, the legal system, democracy – is under attack. In defending themselves, the sciences often resort to arguments that rely on claims they are incapable of fulfilling. Two extreme positions dominate the public discourse: the outright rejection of science on the one hand and its idealization on the other, as German epistemologist Frieder Vogelmann [1] and sociologist Armin Nassehi [3] have pointed out. The situation is similar when it comes to the possibilities and threats of artificial intelligence (AI).
Thinking science from the perspective of authentic knowledge production
Our STEAM project «Berzelius» [4] provides an experimental platform beyond rigid learning plans. Our main goal is to ignite students` curiosity about science and empower them to involve in the process of knowledge production. To achieve this, we combine hands-on experiments with high-tech instruments and vibrating multimedia journals. The goal is to cultivate a deeper, more nuanced understanding of science – free from rejection and idealization, free from biases. To achieve this, we draw on Daniela Schriebl`s concept of three-dimensional authenticity [2]:
• Real-world connectedness linking scientific exploration to real-world issues, with a strong emphasis on knowledge production.
• Disciplinary authenticity through our high-tech instruments that allow students to collect and analyze data to give them unfiltered experience of how scientific work works.
• Personal authenticity through the integration of the human factor, sharing and telling real-life stories about the lives of those who drove science forward. Sciences have a strong social component.
The Myth of the Super-Brain and the Magic Box
In our experience, students often expect high-tech instruments that can analyze a wide range of components within a single sample – whether in beverages, soil or cosmetics. They are very often surprised to learn that such a «magic box» is not existing. In reality, also high-tech instruments must be carefully adapted to each specific analysis. Their misconception is likely shaped by TV series like CSI – Crime Scene Investigation, where forensic «super brains» operate futuristic boxes – kind of magic instruments – that identify a sample’s complete composition with just a few clicks. This fosters unrealistic expectations and weakens scientific literacy, as science appears to be a straightforward problem-solving tool rather than a complex process of inquiry. Scientific results take time, involve uncertainty, and require careful interpretation.
Moreover, these unrealistic portrayals influence career choices. Students drawn to forensic science often expect thrilling discoveries but encounter meticulous, repetitive work. Without proper guidance, this disillusionment can diminish their passion for science [5].
For an authentic STEAM education, we must first dismantle these exaggerated expectations. If science were as effortless as portrayed, we would already be living in space (for most of us, a rather dystopic than utopic view). Instead, true scientific progress requires patience, critical thinking, and hands-on engagement with reality – precisely what our project seeks to cultivate.
Key Statements on Science, Knowledge, and Perception
We often cling to our beliefs, even when faced with contradictory information – a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. The list of cognitive biases is long, and we are all aware that our perspective on reality is not inherently accurate. Understanding the extent of these biases among science educators and students is crucial. Therefore, we try to identify potential distorted views of science in ourselves as well as among educators and students. Together with a group of university students, we are currently developing an anonymized questionnaire. In this roundtable session, we will highlight a selection of statements – slogans, opinions, questions – that are at the heart of the questionnaire.
• Science as the only path to truth – Only science allows us to understand reality. All other approaches (e.g., mythological, metaphysical-philosophical, religious) fail to grasp reality and thus the truth. [6]
• Technology as a driver of progress. By applying scientific knowledge through technology, we inevitably make the world a better place. [6]
• «Follow the science!» The slogan of the Fridays for Future movement suggests that science provides objective truths – those who follow it are on the right path. [7]
• «Facts are non-negotiable.» A central slogan of the 2017 March for Science. There is only one reality, defined by facts. Opinions or interpretations do not change them. [3]
• Scientific theories and models are just fiction – Science constructs its own version of reality. It is merely one narrative among many. [8, 9, 10]
• «We live in post factual times!» A statement that points to a crisis of trust, not only in facts themselves, but in the institutions, methods, and narratives through which facts are produced and communicated.
• AI – A revolution in knowledge or a threat to humanity? Artificial intelligence surpasses humans in more and more areas.
• AI changes the practice of science and replaces the experiment with computer simulation. Synthesis paths of first chemical substances have been created by AI.
We invite participants to critically engage with these statements and explore their meaning, implications, and potential contradictions. In doing so, we will also reflect on the extent to which biases about science may shape the views of educators and students – and how a vibrant and authentic STEAM education can address and counteract these distortions. The authors will also present parts and first results of the questionnaire.
Literature
[1] Frieder Vogelmann, Umkämpfte Wissenschaften – Zwischen Idealisierung und Verachtung (2023)
[2] Daniela Schriebl, Andreas Müller, Nicolas Robin, Modelling Authenticity in Science Education, Science & Education, 32, 1021–1048 (2023).
[3] Armin Nassehi, Die Rolle der Wissenschaften in der modernen Welt. Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik, Berlin 02/2027
[4] Novotny, M. und Steinbach A., Projekt Berzelius – Im Hightech-Labor der Naturwissenschaften. c+b, Verein der Schweizer Naturwissenschafts-lehrerinnen und -lehrer, 109. Jahrgang (2024)
[5] Jason M. Chin and Carlos M. Ibaviosa, Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency, Science & Justice, Volume 62 (3), pp 272–283 (2022).
[6] Holm Tetens, Wissenschaftstheorie, Verlag C.H. Beck 2013.
[7] Peter Strohschneider, Wahrheiten und Mehrheiten – Kritik des autoritären Szientismus, C.H. Beck (2024).
[8] Thomas S. Kuhn, Ian Hacking, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
[9] Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press (1979)
[10] Markus Gabriel, The Human Animal – Why We Still Don`t Fit into Nature, John Wiley and Sons Ltd (2024).
| Name of the event | Conference Host | Place of the event | Start date of the event | End date of the event |
EAPRIL 2025 Conference | EARLI - EAPRIL Office, 3000 Leuven, Belgium | University of Malta, Valletta | November 25, 2025 | November 27, 2025 |
PHSG Organisation name
Funder
Access Rights
metadata only (bibliographisch)
License Condition
All rights reserved
Rights Holder
Author(s)