Abstract
Reading the interesting article Discerning selective traditions in science education by Per Sund, which is published in this issue of CSSE, allows us to open the discussion on procedures for teaching science today. Clearly there is overlap between the teaching of science and other areas of knowledge. However, we must constantly develop new methods to teach and differentiate between science education and teaching science in response to the changing needs of our students, and we must analyze what role teachers and teacher educators play in both. We must continually examine the methods and concepts involved in developing pedagogical content knowledge in science teachers. Otherwise, the possibility that these routines, based on subjective traditions, prevent emerging processes of educational innovation. Modern science is an enormous field of knowledge in its own right, which is made more expansive when examined within the context of its place in society. We propose the need to design educative interactions around situations that involve science and society. Science education must provide students with all four dimensions of the cognitive process: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. We can observe in classrooms at all levels of education that students understand the concepts better when they have the opportunity to apply the scientific knowledge in a personally relevant way. When students find value in practical exercises and they are provided opportunities to reinterpret their experiences, greater learning gains are achieved. In this sense, a key aspect of educational innovation is the change in teaching methodology. We need new tools to respond to new problems. A shift in teacher education is needed to realize the rewards of situating science questions in a societal context and opening classroom doors to active methodologies in science education to promote meaningful learning through meaningful teaching.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Apostolou, A., & Koulaidis, V. (2010). Epistemology and science education: A study of epistemological views of teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28, 149–166. doi:10.1080/02635141003750396.
Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative teaching: Final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the EU member states. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287:AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science—From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Great Britain: Kluwer.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62–89. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278186.
Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 36–49. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n6.5.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2013). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Kampylis, P., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2014). Horizon Report Europe—2014 Schools edition. Publication Office of the European Union and the New Media Consortium. doi:10.2791/83258.
Kemmis, S. (1986). Curriculum theorizing: Beyond reproduction theory. Victoria: Deakin University.
Macbeath, J., & Nempster, N. (Eds.). (2009). Connecting leadership and learning. Principles for practice. London: Routledge.
McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Routledge.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035.
Posner, G. (2003). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: Mcgraw Hill.
Reynolds, C., White, R., Brayman, C., & Moore, S. (2008). Women and secondary school principal rotation/succession: A study of the beliefs of decision makers in four provinces. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 32–54. doi:10.2307/20466687.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.
Schaeper, H. (2009). Development of competencies and teaching–learning arrangements in higher education: Findings from Germany. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 677–697. doi:10.1080/03075070802669207.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT University Press. (2nd revised edition).
Wittgenstein, L. (2003). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Madrid: Tecnos.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. In C. Linder, L. Ostam, & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editor: M. Mueller.
This review essay addresses Per Sund’s paper entitled: Discerning selective traditions in science education. doi:10.1007/s11422-015-9703-8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Callahan, B.E., Dopico, E. Science teaching in science education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 11, 411–418 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9703-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9703-7