Research in Science Education

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 111–126 | Cite as

Who writes the recipes in science? Possibilities from four years of action research with students and their scientific literacy

  • John Willison


This paper presents an action research study on student scientific literacy, which is analysed by two metaphors of learning, introduced by Sfard (1998), and adapted to fit the context. These metaphors are students working in science as if they follow recipes and students working in science as if they devise recipes. By looking at the relationship between the metaphors in each of four vignettes that represent the research, possibilities are considered for the usefulness of the metaphors as a framework that provides common ground for otherwise divergent views about scientific literacy. Issues of how to represent and legitimate some action research, and considerations for the need to tightly integrate reading, writing, conversing and experimenting tasks to facilitate scientific literacy are also prominent.


Scientific Literacy Radical Constructivism Tight Integration Educational Situation Action Research Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agin, M. (1974). Education for scientific literacy: A conceptual frame of reference and some applications.Science Education, 58(3), 403–415.Google Scholar
  2. Atwater, M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingle, W., & Gaskell, P. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge.Science Education, 78(2), 185–201.Google Scholar
  4. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Devlin, K. (1998). Rather than scientific literacy, colleges should teach scientific awareness.American Association of Physics Teachers, 66(7), 559–60.Google Scholar
  6. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Mariom, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination.American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fosnot, C. (1989).Inquiring teachers, inquiring learners. New York: Teachers' College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism.American Education Research Journal, 32(4), 716–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Hanrahan, M., Cooper, T. J., & Russell, A. L. (1997, June, 1997).Science for all: Action researching literacy difficulties in a year 8 science class. Paper presented at Convergence in Knowledge, Space and Time World Congress, Cartagena, Colombia.Google Scholar
  11. Hawking, S. (1989).A brief history of time. Toronto: Bantom.Google Scholar
  12. Holliday, W. G., Yore, I. D., & Alverman, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 887–893.Google Scholar
  13. Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., Yan, P., & Yeung, E. (1996). Developing curricula to encourage students to write reflective journals.Educative Action Research, 3(3), 73–92.Google Scholar
  14. McNiff, J. (1993).Teaching as learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373–385.Google Scholar
  16. Olorundare, S. (1988). Scientific literacy in Nigeria: The role of science education programmes.International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 151–58.Google Scholar
  17. Pedretti, E. (1996). Facilitating action research in science, technology and society (STS) education: An experience in reflective practice.Educational Action Research, 4(3), 463–485.Google Scholar
  18. Ratmo, C. (1998). Scientific literacy or scientific awareness?American Journal of Physics, 66(9), 752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shamos, M., (1984). Exposure to science vs. scientific literacy.Journal of College Science Teaching, 13(5), 333, 393.Google Scholar
  21. Sumara, D. J., & Davis, B., (1997). Enactivist theory and community learning: Toward a complexified understanding of action research.Educational Action Research, 5(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, P. (1997, March).Telling tales that show the brushstrokes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  23. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 3–21). Washington: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  24. Toomey, R. (1997). Transformative action research.Educational Action Research, 5(5), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Maanen, J. (1988).Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education, (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Waldrip, B., & Giddings, G. (1993).Students motivational patterns at Righschool. Technical report to staff at Righschool by the Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Perth.Google Scholar
  28. White, R. (1998). Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom practice: Examples and issues.Studies in Science Education, 31, 55–70.Google Scholar
  29. Willison, J. (1996). HoWRU: Integrating hands-on, writing and reading for understanding into your students' science learning?Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 8–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations