Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 5–6, pp 749–805 | Cite as

Reflections on 25 Years of Journal Editorship

  • Michael R. Matthews
Article

Abstract

These reflections range over some distinctive features of the journal Science & Education, they acknowledge in a limited way the many individuals who over the past 25 years have contributed to the success and reputation of the journal, they chart the beginnings of the journal, and they dwell on a few central concerns—clear writing and the contribution of HPS to teacher education. The reflections also revisit the much-debated and written-upon philosophical and pedagogical arguments occasioned by the rise and possible demise of constructivism in science education.

Keywords

Science Education Science Teacher Teacher Education Programme Science Education Research Thematic Issue 
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.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.Google Scholar
  2. Aczel, A. D. (2003). Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science. New York: Atria Books.Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Towards a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217–238.Google Scholar
  4. Alder, K. (1995). A revolution to measure: The political economy of the metric system in France. In M. N. Wise (Ed.), The values of precision (pp. 39–71). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alder, K. (2002). The measure of all things: The seven-year odyssey that transformed the world. London: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  6. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS. Also published by Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, W. T. (1996). The Fontana postmodernism reader. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  8. Andrewes, W. J. H. (Ed.). (1998). The quest for longitude: The Proceedings of the longitude symposium, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 46, 1993 (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  9. Ashton, P. T. (1992). Editorial. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 322.Google Scholar
  10. Australian Government. (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Science.Google Scholar
  11. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Some psychological aspects of the structure of knowledge. In S. Elam (Ed.), Education and the structure of knowledge. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  12. Bacon, F. (1620/1960). The new organum and related writings, F.H. Anderson (ed.), New York.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, G. L., & Blackburn, J. A. (2005). The pendulum: A case study in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Barnett, J. E. (1998). Time’s pendulum: From sundials to atomic clocks, the fascinating history of timekeeping and how our discoveries changed the world. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.Google Scholar
  15. Bell, B. F. (1986). The form 1–5 science review—Effecting change. New Zealand Science Teacher, 48, 6–9.Google Scholar
  16. Bell, B. F. (1991). A constructivist view of learning and the draft forms 1–5 science syllabus. SAME Papers, 1991, 154–180.Google Scholar
  17. Bell, B. F. (Ed.). (1993). I know about LISP but how do I put it into practice? Final report of the learning in science project (teacher development). Hamiliton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  18. Berkeley, G. (1710/1962). The principles of human knowledge, G.J. Warnock (ed.). London: Collins.Google Scholar
  19. Berlin, I. (Ed.). (1956). The age of enlightenment: The eighteenth century philosophers. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
  20. Berlin, I. (2000). The power of ideas (H. Hardy ed.). London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  21. Bickhard, M. H. (1997). Constructivism and relativisms: A shopper’s guide. Science & Education, 6(1–2), 29–42.Google Scholar
  22. Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Boulos, P. J. (2006). Newton’s path to universal gravitation: The role of the pendulum. Science & Education, 15(6), 577–595.Google Scholar
  24. Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science: An opinionated guide to the science wars. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Bunge, M. (2011). Knowledge: Genuine and bogus. Science & Education, 20(5–6), 411–438.Google Scholar
  26. Bunge, M. (in press). Between two worlds: Memoirs of a philosopher-scientist. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Carr, M., Barker, M., Bell, B., Biddulph, F., Jones, A., Kirkwood, V., et al. (1994). The constructivist paradigm and some implications for science content and pedagogy. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 147–160). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Carspecken, P. F. (2003). Ocularcentrism, phonocentrism and the counter enlightenment problematic: Clarifying contested terrain in our schools of education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 978–1047.Google Scholar
  29. Chandrasekhar, S. (1995). Newton’s principia for the common reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.Google Scholar
  31. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cohen, I. B. (1995). Science and the founding fathers: Science in the political thought of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison. NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  33. Cohen, R. S., & Wartofsky, M. W. (Eds.). (1985). A portrait of twenty-five years: Boston colloquium for the philosophy of science 1960–1985. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  34. Collins, H. M. (2007). The uses of sociology of science for scientists and educators. Science & Education, 16, 217–230.Google Scholar
  35. Collins, H. M. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1992). The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75, 259–266.Google Scholar
  38. Cooper, D. E. (Ed.). (1986). Education, values and mind: Essays for R.S. Peters. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Cunningham, A., & Jardine, N. (Eds.). (1990). Romanticism and the sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Cuypers, S. E., & Martin, C. (Eds.). (2011). Reading R. S. peters today: Analysis, ethics and the aims of education. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994a). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  42. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Woods-Robinson, V. (1994b). Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Duschl, R. A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science twenty-five, years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 87(7), 541–555.Google Scholar
  44. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Dutton, D. (1999, February 5). Language crimes: A lesson in how not to write, courtesy of the professoriate. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  46. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (Eds.). (1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  50. Feuerbach, L. (1841/1957). The essence of Christianity. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  51. Fishman, Y. I. (2009). Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education, 18(6–7), 813–837.Google Scholar
  52. Fishman, Y. I., & Boudry, M. (2013). Does science presuppose naturalism (or, indeed, anything at all)? Science & Education, 22(5), 921–949.Google Scholar
  53. Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  55. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.). (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Garik, P., Garbayo, L., Benétreau-Dupin, Y., Winrich, C., Duffy, A., Gross, N., & Jariwala, M. (2015). Teaching the conceptual history of physics to physics teachers. Science & Education, 24(4), 387–408.Google Scholar
  57. Garrison, J. W. (1997). An alternative to von Glasersfeld’s subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science & Education, 6(6), 543–554.Google Scholar
  58. Gauch, H. G, Jr. (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Science & Education, 18(6–7), 667–695.Google Scholar
  59. Gaukroger, S. (2001). Francis Bacon and the transformation of early-modern philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Gauld, C. F. (1998). Solutions ot the problem of impact in the 17th and 18th centuries and teaching Newton’s third law today. Science & Education, 7(1), 49–67.Google Scholar
  61. Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision-making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 291–308.Google Scholar
  62. Gauld, C. F. (2006). Newton’s cradle in physics education. Science & Education, 15(6), 597–617.Google Scholar
  63. Gauld, C. F. (2010). Newton’s investigation of the resistance to moving bodies in continuous fluids and the nature of “Frontier Science”. Science & Education, 19(10), 939–961.Google Scholar
  64. Gelfert, A. (2014). A critical introduction to testimony. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  65. Gilbert, J. (1993). Constructivism and critical theory. In B. Bell (Ed.), I know about LISP but how do I put it into practice: Final report of the learning in science project (teacher development). Hamiliton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  66. Golinski, J. (2012). Thomas Kuhn and interdisciplinary conversation: Why historians and philosophers of science stopped talking to one another. In S. Mauskopf & T. Schmaltz (Eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science (pp. 13–28). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? A parent/teacher guide to children’s learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  68. Grandy, R. E. (1997). Constructivism and objectivity: Disentangling metaphysics from pedagogy. Science & Education 6(1–2), 43–53. Reprinted in M. R. Matthews (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp. 113–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Grayling, A. C. (2007). Towards the light: The story of the struggles for liberty & rights that made the modern west. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  70. Gruender, C. D. (1989). Some philosophical reflections on constructivism. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 170–176). Tallahassee: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  71. Gunstone, R. F. (2014). Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0.
  72. Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Schulz, R. M. (2014). Romanticism and romantic science: Their contribution to science education. Science & Education, 23(10), 1963–2006.Google Scholar
  73. Himmelfarb, G. (2004). The roads to modernity. The British, French, and American Enlightenments. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  74. Hirst, P. H. (2008). Philosophy of education in the UK. The institutional context. In L. J. Waks (Ed.), Leaders in philosophy of education. Intellectual self portraits (pp. 305–310). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012). International perspectives on problem-based learning: Contexts, cultures, challenges, and adaptations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(1), 10–17.Google Scholar
  76. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  77. Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Holton, G. (1996). Science education and the sense of self. In P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 551–560). New York: New York Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  79. Hoodbhoy, P. (1991). Islam and science: Religious orthodoxy and the battle for rationality. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  80. Howse, D. (1980). Greenwich time and the discovery of longitude. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.Google Scholar
  82. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions in nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  83. Israel, J. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity 1650–1750. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Kampourakis, K. (Ed.). (2013). The philosophy of biology: A companion for educators. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Kang, N. H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478–498.Google Scholar
  86. Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273–299.Google Scholar
  88. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–96.Google Scholar
  89. Klassen, S., & Froese Klassen, C. (2014). Science teaching with historically based stories: Theoretical and practical perspectives. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1503–1529). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Koch, A. (Ed.). (1965). The American enlightenment: The shaping of the American experiment and a free society, G. Braziller, New York.Google Scholar
  91. Koertge, N. (1969/1996). Towards an integration of content and method in the science curriculum. Curriculum Theory Network, 4, 26–43. Reprinted in Science & Education 1996, 5(4), 391–402 (with afterthoughts).Google Scholar
  92. Koertge, N. (1977). Galileo and the problem of accidents. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38, 389–409.Google Scholar
  93. Koertge, N. (1981). Methodology, ideology and feminist critiques of science. In P. D. Asquith & R. N. Giere (Eds.), Proceedings of the philosophy of science association 1980 (pp. 346–359). Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros.Google Scholar
  94. Kragh, H. (1998). Social constructivism, the gospel of science and the teaching of physics. Science & Education, 7(3), 231–243.Google Scholar
  95. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Kuhn, T. S. (1991/2000). ‘The trouble with historical philosophy of science’, The Robert and Maurine Rothschild lecture, Department of History of Science, Harvard University. In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure: Thomas S. Kuhn (pp. 105–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  97. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  99. Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  100. Loving, C. C., & Cobern, W. A. (2000). Invoking Thomas Kuhn: What citation analysis reveals for science education. Science & Education, 9(1–2), 187–206.Google Scholar
  101. Lövlie, L., & Standish, P. (2002). Bildung and the idea of a liberal education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36, 317–340.Google Scholar
  102. Luke, T. W. (1997). Museum pieces: Politics and knowledge at the American Museum of natural history. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 2, 1–28.Google Scholar
  103. Mackenzie, J., Good, R., & Brown, J. R. (2014). Postmodernism and science education: An appraisal. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1057–1086). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. Maheus, J.-F., Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. (2010). Looking at the observer challenges to the study of conceptions and conceptual change. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: Reuniting sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 201–219). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  105. Mahner, M. (2012). The role of metaphysical naturalism in science. Science & Education, 21(10), 1437–1459.Google Scholar
  106. Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1996). Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education, 5(2), 101–123.Google Scholar
  107. Martin, M. (1972). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. New York: Scott, Foresman & Co. Reprint, University Press of America, 1985.Google Scholar
  108. Martins, R. A. (1993). Huygens’s reaction to Newton’s gravitational theory. In J. V. Field & F. A. J. L. James (Eds.), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (pp. 203–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Matthews, M. R. (1980). Knowledge, action and power. In R. Mackie (Ed.), Literacy and revolution: The pedagogy of Paulo Freire (pp. 82–92). London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  110. Matthews, M. R. (1981). The Marxist theory of schooling: A study in epistemology and education. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  111. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). The scientific background to modern philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  112. Matthews, M. R. (1990a). Galileo and pendulum motion: A case for history and philosophy in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 19, 187–197.Google Scholar
  113. Matthews, M. R. (1990b). History, philosophy and science teaching: What can be done in an undergraduate course? Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10(1), 93–97.Google Scholar
  114. Matthews, M. R. (1992). Constructivism and the empiricist legacy. In M. K. Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science: Volume II relevant research (pp. 183–196). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  115. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359–370.Google Scholar
  116. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  117. Matthews, M. R. (1995). Challenging New Zealand science education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  118. Matthews, M. R. (1997a). Scheffler revisited on the role of history and philosophy of science in science teacher education. In H. Siegel (Ed.), Reason and education: Essays in Honor of Israel Scheffler (pp. 159–173). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  119. Matthews, M. R. (1997b). James T. Robinson’s account of philosophy of science and science teaching: Some lessons for today from the 1960s. Science Education, 81(3), 295–315.Google Scholar
  120. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998a). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  121. Matthews, M. R. (1998b). In defence of modest goals for teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.Google Scholar
  122. Matthews, M. R. (1998c). Opportunities lost: The pendulum in the USA national science education standards. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 203–214.Google Scholar
  123. Matthews, M. R. (2000). Time for science education: How teaching the history and philosophy of pendulum motion can contribute to science literacy. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  124. Matthews, M. R. (2001). Methodology and politics in science: The case of Huygens’ 1673 proposal of the seconds pendulum as an international standard of length and some educational suggestions. Science & Education, 10(1–2), 119–135.Google Scholar
  125. Matthews, M. R. (2004a). Thomas Kuhn and science education: What lessons can be learnt? Science Education, 88(1), 90–118.Google Scholar
  126. Matthews, M. R. (2004b). Idealisation in Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations. Science & Education, 13(7–8), 689–715.Google Scholar
  127. Matthews, M. R. (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  128. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014a). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching, 3 volumes. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  129. Matthews, M. R. (2014b). Introduction: the history, purpose and content of the Springer international handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  130. Matthews, M. R. (2014c). Pendulum motion: A case study in how history and philosophy can contribute to science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 19–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  131. Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science: 20th anniversary revised and enlarged edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  132. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2016). Contemporary research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  133. Matthews, M. R., Bevilacqua, F., & Giannetto, E. (Eds.). (2001). Science education and culture: The role of history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  134. Matthews, M. R., Gauld, C. F., & Stinner, A. (Eds.). (2005). The pendulum: Scientific, historical, philosophical and educational perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  135. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  136. McCarthy, C. L. (2014). Cultural studies in science education: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1927–1964). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  137. McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  138. McGuinness, D. (1997). Why our children can’t read and what we can do about it. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  139. McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction: What science really tells us about how to teach reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  140. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 347–373.Google Scholar
  141. Meli, D. B. (2006). Thinking with objects: The transformation of mechanics in the seventeenth century. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  143. Nanda, M. (1998). the epistemic charity of the social constructivist critics of science and why the third world should refuse the offer. In N. Koertge (Ed.), A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science (pp. 286–311). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Nasr, S. H. (1996). Religion and the order of nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  145. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2007). Preliminary report. Washington, DC: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  146. National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health.Google Scholar
  147. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  148. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  149. National Research Council (NRC). (2002). In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  150. National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  151. National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  152. Neville, A. J. (2009). Problem-based learning and medical education forty years on: A review of its effects on knowledge and clinical performance. Medical Principles and Practice, 18, 1–9.Google Scholar
  153. Niaz, M. (2010). Innovating science teacher education: A history and philosophy of science perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  154. Nicholson, T. (1997). Closing the gap on reading failure: Social class, phonemic awareness and learning to read. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 381–407). NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah.Google Scholar
  155. Nicholson, T. (2000). Reading the writing on the wall: Debates, challenges and opportunities in the teaching of reading. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  156. Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. In R. Davis, C. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 7–18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  157. Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and in science education: A philosophical critique. Science & Education, 6(1–2), 55–83.Google Scholar
  158. Nola, R. (2000). Saving Kuhn from the sociologists of science. Science & Education, 9(1–2), 77–90.Google Scholar
  159. Nola, R. (2003). “Naked before reality; skinless before the absolute”: A critique of the inaccessibility of reality argument in constructivism. Science & Education, 12(2), 131–166.Google Scholar
  160. Nola, R. (2004). Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science & Education, 13(4–5), 349–377.Google Scholar
  161. Nola, R., & Irzik, G. (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  162. Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  163. Orwell, G. (1945). Politics and the English language. In his Shooting an elephant and other essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  164. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  165. Outram, D. (2005). The enlightenment (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  166. Pagden, A. (2013). The enlightenment and why it still matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  167. Palmieri, P. (2011). A history of Galileo’s inclined plane experiment and its philosophical implications. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  168. Papayannakos, D. P. (2008). Philosophical skepticism not relativism is the problem with the strong programme in science studies and with educational constructivism. Science & Education, 17(6), 573–611.Google Scholar
  169. Pearson, N. (2009). Radical hope: Education and equality in Australia. Quarterly Essay, 35. Reprinted in 2011 as a book. Collingwood: Black Inc.Google Scholar
  170. Pearson, N. (2014). Australian of the year. The Australian, January 25, p. 1.Google Scholar
  171. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  172. Phillips, D. C. (1997). Coming to terms with radical social constructivisms. Science & Education, 6(1–2), 85–104.Google Scholar
  173. Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory, two volumes. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  174. Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  175. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  176. Pinch, T. J., & Collins, H. M. (1984). Private science and public knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 14, 521–546.Google Scholar
  177. Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking Person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  178. Popper, K. R. (1953/1963). A note on Berkeley as a precursor of Mach and Einstein. In his Conjectures and refutations (pp. 166–174). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  179. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  180. Porter, R. (2000). The enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  181. Postman, N. (1999). Building a bridge to the 18th century: How the past can improve our future. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  182. Robinson, J. T. (1968). The nature of science and science teaching. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  183. Rocard, M., Osermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., & Walberg-Henniksson, H. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  184. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 589–622.Google Scholar
  185. Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning science: A singular plural perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  186. Roth, M.-W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.Google Scholar
  187. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2007). Introduction: Gendered identities. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), Science, learning, identity. Sociocultural and cultural–historical perspectives (pp. 99–102). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  188. Rutherford, F. J. (2001). Fostering the history of science in American science education: The role of project 2061. Science & Education, 10(6), 569–580.Google Scholar
  189. Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research: Instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching sequences. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 329–342.Google Scholar
  190. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  191. Scheffler, I. (1970). Philosophy and the curriculum. In his Reason and teaching (pp. 31–44). London: Routledge, 1973. Reprinted in Science & Education, 1992, 1(4), 385–394.Google Scholar
  192. Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education: Part I. The search for a philosophy of science education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 225–249.Google Scholar
  193. Scott, P., Asoko, H., Driver, R., & Emberton, J. (1994). Working from children’s ideas: Planning and teaching a chemistry topic from a constructivist perspective. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 201–220). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  194. Shapin, S. (2005). Hyper-professionalism and the crisis of readership in the history of science. Isis, 96(2), 238–243.Google Scholar
  195. Shimony, A. (1997). Presidential address: Some historical and philosophical reflections on science and enlightenment. In L. Darden (Ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 PSA meeting, S1–S14.Google Scholar
  196. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese 80(1), 9–42. Reprinted in M. R. Matthews (Ed.). (1991). History, philosophy and science teaching: Selected readings. New York: OISE Press, Toronto and Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  197. Siegel, H. (1997). Editor’s introduction. In H. Siegel (Ed.), Reason and education: Essays in Honor of Israel scheffler (pp. 1–6). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  198. Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. In search of a common ground. Science Education, 86(6), 803–820.Google Scholar
  199. Slezak, P. (1994a). Sociology of science and science education: Part I. Science & Education, 3(3), 265–294.Google Scholar
  200. Slezak, P. (1994b). Sociology of science and science education. Part 11: Laboratory life under the microscope. Science & Education, 3(4), 329–356.Google Scholar
  201. Slezak, P. (2012). Review of Michael Ruse Science and spirituality: Making room for faith in the age of science. Science & Education, 21, 403–413.Google Scholar
  202. Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I philosophical/epistemological issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 523–538.Google Scholar
  203. Sobel, D. (1995). Longitude: The true story of a lone genius who solved the greatest scientific problem of his time. New York: Walker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  204. Sobel, D. (1999). Galileo’s daughter: A historical memoir of science, faith, and love. New York: Walker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  205. Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46(47), 217–252.Google Scholar
  206. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.Google Scholar
  207. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 259–274.Google Scholar
  208. Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. (2012). Employing the bricolage as critical research in science education. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), International handbook of science education (2nd ed., pp. 1485–1500). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  209. Stenhouse, D. (1985). Active philosophy in education and science: Paradigms and language games. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  210. Stewart, M. (2014). Nature’s god: The heretical origins of the American Republic. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  211. Stinner, A., McMillan, B., Metz, D., Jilek, J., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617–643.Google Scholar
  212. Struik, G. J. (1989). Science syllabus Woolly-Witted says Dr Struik. Nelson Mail, 12–14 June.Google Scholar
  213. Suchting, W. A. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed. Science & Education, 1(3), 223–254. Reprinted in M. R. Matthews (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp. 61–92). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  214. Suchting, W. A. (1994). Notes on the cultural significance of the sciences. Science & Education, 3(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
  215. Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 127–143). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  216. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  217. Tobin, K. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on research in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  218. Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  219. Tobin, K. (2000). Constructivism in science education: Moving on. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education (pp. 227–253). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  220. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Editorial. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  221. Torgerson, C.J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics. Sheffield: Department of Education and Skills (UK).Google Scholar
  222. Turner, M. (1994). Sponsored reading failure. In B. Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 111–127). Clevedon: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  223. Turner, S. C. (2012). Changing images of the inclined plane: A case study of a revolution in American science education. Science & Education, 21(2), 245–270.Google Scholar
  224. Uebel, T. E. (2004). Education, enlightenment and positivism: The Vienna Circle’s scientific world-conception revisited. Science & Education, 13(1–2), 41–66.Google Scholar
  225. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.Google Scholar
  226. Vico, G. (1710/1988). On the most ancient wisdom of the Italians unearthed from the origins of the Italian language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  227. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  228. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  229. Wells, R. (1989). A report on the draft forms 1–5 science syllabus for schools. Wellington: Education Committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
  230. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  231. Westfall, R. S. (1990). Making a world of precision: Newton and the construction of a quantitative physics. In F. Durham & R. D. Purrington (Eds.), Some truer method. Reflections on the heritage of Newton (pp. 59–87). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  232. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  233. Yalaki, Y., & Çakmaci, G. (2010). A conversation with Michael R. Matthews: The contribution of history and philosophy of science to science teaching and research. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, Education, 6(4), 287–309.Google Scholar
  234. Yeany, R. H. (1991). A unifying theme in science education? NARST News, 33(2), 1–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations