Trust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence

The spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary challenges in recent history. Amidst this global crisis, various controversies have been emerging about how to manage the virus, ranging from whether face masks should be required as a preventive measure to whether hydroxychloroquine is an appropriate treatment. There has been a barrage of contradictory claims related to these issues. However, in many cases, it is not possible for an individual to wait until consensus is reached before deciding on a course of action. Meanwhile, to avoid misplacing trust, trust must be well grounded. Conventional school science largely focuses on the trustworthiness of data and evidence, rather than that of the people making scientific claims. This failure to consider the human factor renders conventional school science inadequate for helping students make informed judgements about granting trust. Drawing on the literature in epistemic practice, this paper highlights four epistemic processes potentially useful for students to ground their trust, including (1) identifying whether recognition from peer reviewers has been obtained; (2) examining the credentials of those who claim expertise; (3) determining the level of expert consensus; and (4) identifying possible sources of bias. Through critical reflection on events related to the Covid-19 pandemic as examples, this paper examines how these epistemic processes inform judgement about the trustworthiness of people in terms of their competence and motives. The discussion highlights the need to develop students' capacity to identify expertise/ credentials, the nature of journals and of organisations when trust is assigned. This paper offers a frame for science educators on guiding students to place trust as a part of their decision-making process. The capability would be relevant to contexts beyond the Covid-19 pandemic.

An analysis of the educational value of low-fidelity anatomy models as external representations

Although high-fidelity digital models of human anatomy based on actual cross-sectional images of the human body have been developed, reports on the use of physical models in anatomy teaching continue to appear. This article aims to examine the common features shared by these physical models and analyze their educational value based on the literature on cognition, learning, and external representations. A literature search on these physical models in three popular anatomy journals published over a 10-year period from 2001 to 2010 found that all of them have low fidelity: they oftentimes do not closely resemble the regions of the human body they are representing. They include only a small number of the structures that exist in these regions of the human body and do not accurately represent the shape and surface details of these structures. However, these models strongly correspond to the human body in the spatial relationship of the represented structures, which is crucial to achieving their educational purpose of teaching three-dimensional comprehension and anatomical reasoning. The educational value of these models includes acting as memory aids, reducing cognitive overload, facilitating problem solving, and arousing students' enthusiasm and participation. Because these models often lack a close resemblance to the human body, their use in anatomy teaching should always be accompanied by adequate explanations to the students to establish the correspondence between the models and the parts of the human body they are representing.