Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Science teaching in science education

  • Forum
  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62–89. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 36–49. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n6.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2013). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, S. (1986). Curriculum theorizing: Beyond reproduction theory. Victoria: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J., & Nempster, N. (Eds.). (2009). Connecting leadership and learning. Principles for practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. (2003). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT University Press. (2nd revised edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (2003). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Madrid: Tecnos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Dopico.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9703-7

Keywords

Navigation