Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 317–336 | Cite as

Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: Reflecting on initial difficulties

  • Vaille M. Dawson
  • Peter C. Taylor
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a reflective account of a science teacher’s endeavours to use the referent of critical constructivism to transform her pedagogical practices. The context of her action research was a Year 10 Bioethics unit taught at an independent girls’ school in Perth, Western Australia. Students were provided with opportunities to engage in open and critical discourses; many did, but a few were unwilling to participate in accordance with the teacher’s intentions. We illustrate the disruptive influence of these “dissident” students and explore the reasons for their unwillingness to suspend their disbelief in a new way of knowing (and of being) that involves a radical change in the role of language in the classroom. We conclude with recommendations for epistemological pluralism and the careful use of critical discourse for re-negotiating teaching and learning roles and creating conditions for open discourse to flourish.

Keywords

Learning Environment Science Teacher Teaching Strategy Classroom Environment Critical Discourse 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge.Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briscoe, C. (1996). The teacher as learner: Interpretations from a case study of teacher change.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(3), 315–329.Google Scholar
  3. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413–427). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dadds, M. (1995).Passionate enquiry and school development: A story about teacher action research. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson, V. (1994).The development and implementation of a Year 11 bioethics unit based on a constructivist epistemology. Unpublished Masters dissertation, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, V. M. (1996a). A constructivist approach to teaching transplantation technology in science.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 15–20.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, V. M. (1996b). The (R)Evolution of my epistemology: My experience as a postgraduate student.Educational Action Research, 4((3), 363–374Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K. (1988). Triangulation. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.),Educational research methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 511–513). Sydney, NSW: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994).The handbook of qualitative research in education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R. (1990, April).Constructivist approaches to science teaching. Paper presented at Constructivism in Education Seminar, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–159) New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Glasersfeld, E. von (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching.Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Hand, B., & Vance, K. (1995). Implementation of constructivist approaches within the science classroom.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(4), 37–44.Google Scholar
  15. Hand, B., Lovejoy, C., & Balaam, G. (1991). Teachers’ reaction to a change to a constructivist teaching/learning strategy.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37(1), 20–24.Google Scholar
  16. Holly, M. (1992).Keeping a personal-professional journal. Geelong Vic: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988).The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kries, H. (1992). Reflections of the ethics of organ transplantation.European College of Transplantation Newsletter, 1(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  19. Lemke, J. L. (1995).Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Macer, D. (1994).Introduction to Bioethics: Supplementary Bioethics teaching notes. Ibaraki, Japan: Eubios Ethics Institute.Google Scholar
  21. McNiff, J. (1993).Teaching as learning: An action research approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Merriam, S. (1988).Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Mertens, T., & Hendrix, J. (1990). The popular press, scientific literacy in human genetics and bioethical decision making.School Science and Mathematics, 90(4), 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milne, C. E., & Taylor, P. C. (1998). Between a myth and a hard place: Situating school science in a climate of critical cultural reform. In W. W. Cobern (Ed.),Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: An international dialogue (pp. 25–48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Noddings, N. (1984).Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism.Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975).Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Roth. M. (1997, March).Computers and cognition: Toward a phenomenology of learning in the presence of computers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (in press). Complexities of graphical representations during ecology lectures: A phenomenological approach.Learning and Instruction.Google Scholar
  30. Schön, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Skamp, K. (1986). Biomedical technology, ethics and the science curriculum.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 31(4), 51–62.Google Scholar
  32. Stanbridge, B. (1990). A constructivist model of learning used in the teaching of junior science.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 20–28.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, P. C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, P. C. (1998). Constructivism: Value added. In B. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.),International handbook of science education (pp. 1111–1123), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor, P., & Campbell-Williams, M. (1993). Discourse toward balanced rationality in the high school mathematics classroom: Ideas from Habermas’s critical theory. In J. Malone & P. C. S. Taylor (Eds.),Constructivist interpretations of teaching and learning mathematics Proceedings of Topic Group 10 at the Seventh International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 135–148). Perth, Australia: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, P. C., & Dawson, V. M. (1998). Critical reflections on a problematic student-supervisor relationship. In J. Malone, W. Atweh, & J. Northfield (Eds.),Research and supervision in mathematics and science education (pp. 105–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, P. C. Dawson, V. M., & Fraser, B. J. (1995, April).Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments.International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. R. (1994, April).The revised CLES: A questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  40. The Australian Kidney Foundation and The Science Teachers Association of Victoria. (1992).Transplantation: The issues. Parkville, Victoria: Australian Kidney Foundation and Science Teachers Association of Victoria.Google Scholar
  41. Tobin, K. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 29–35.Google Scholar
  42. Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993).The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Tobin, K. (1997). Alternative perspectives on authentic learning environments in elementary science.International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Manen, M. (1990).Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Science Research Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Key Centre for School Science and MathematicsCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations