Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 355–367 | Cite as

The place of practical wisdom in science education: what can be learned from Aristotelian ethics and a virtue-based theory of knowledge

  • Sara Salloum
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This conceptual paper aims to characterize science teachers’ practical knowledge utilizing a virtue-based theory of knowledge and the Aristotelian notion of phronesis/practical wisdom. The article argues that a greater understanding of the concept of phronesis and its relevance to science education would enrich our understandings of teacher knowledge, its development, and consequently models of teacher education. Views of teacher knowledge presented in this paper are informed by philosophical literature that questions normative views of knowledge and argues for a virtue-based epistemology rather than a belief-based one. The paper first outlines general features of phronesis/practical wisdom. Later, a virtue-based view of knowledge is described. A virtue-based view binds knowledge with moral concepts and suggests that knowledge development is motivated by intellectual virtues such as intellectual sobriety, perseverance, fairness, and humility. A virtue-based theory of knowledge gives prominence to the virtue of phronesis/practical wisdom, whose primary function is to mediate among virtues and theoretical knowledge into a line of action that serves human goods. The role of phronesis and its relevance to teaching science are explained accordingly. I also discuss differences among various characterizations of practical knowledge in science education and a virtue-based characterization. Finally, implications and further questions for teacher education are presented.

Keywords

Teacher knowledge Practical wisdom Teacher education Phronesis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abell, S. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International journal of science education, 30, 1405–1416. doi: 10.1080/09500690802187041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2008). Objectivity: The opiate of the academic? Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3, 581–585. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9126-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alsop, S., Bencze, L., & Pedretti, E. (2004). Analyzing exemplary science teaching. Berkshire, GBR: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle. (1976). The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. J. A. K. Thomson, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle. (2002). The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. J. Sachs, New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  7. Atkins, J. M. (2007). What role for the humanities in science education research? Studies in Science Education, 43, 62–87. doi: 10.1080/03057260708560227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breier, M., & Ralphs, A. (2009). In search of phronesis: Recognizing practical wisdom in the recognition (assessment) of prior learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 479–493. doi: 10.1080/01425690902954646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, D. (2007). Character in teaching. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 369–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00386.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  12. Dunne, J. (1993). Back to the rough ground: ‘Phronesis’ and ‘techne’ in modern philosophy and Aristotle. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the fabric of practice. Pedagogy, Culture, and Society, 13, 367–389. doi: 10.1080/14681360500200234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eikeland, O. (2006). Phronesis, Aristotle, and action research. International Journal of Action Research, 2, 50–53.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, A. (2002). Multiple perspectives for the study of teaching: Knowledge, reason, understanding, and being. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1032–1055. doi: 10.1002/tea.10051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd Rev. ed.) (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans).. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  17. Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18, 417–427. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2010.524745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting life long learning (pp. 111–126). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  20. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916:AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296:AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2008). Computer, change, craft, and complexity: Exploration into science teacher knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 44, 41–62. doi: 10.1080/03057260701828135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Noel, J. (1999). On the varieties of phronesis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31, 273–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.1999.tb00466.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pendlebury, S. (1995). Reason and story in wise practice. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and research (pp. 50–65). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  27. Salloum, S. (2013). Multiple perspectives for the study of teaching: A conceptual framework for characterizing and accessing science teachers’ practical-moral knowledge. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 27–51). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2809-0.ch002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Practical knowledge in teaching: Case studies from physical science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 929–951. doi: 10.1002/tea.20361.Google Scholar
  29. Salloum, S., Jennings, M., Arrabito, N., Schmidt, M., McCall, C., Frederick, T., Cross, U-K, & Benn-Scantlebury, A. (2010, February). Novice urban teachers engaging in practitioner inquiry: Lessons learned, rewards, and challenges. Practitioner Inquiry Group Session presented at Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of Science teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development. Review of Educational Research, 81, 530–565. doi: 10.3102/0034654311423382.Google Scholar
  31. Schwandt, T. A. (2005). On modeling our understanding of the practice fields. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13, 313–332. doi: 10.1080/14681360500200231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwandt, T. A. (2008). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. S. (2007). Response to comments: Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher, 36, 560–563. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09334207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, L., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 396–423. doi: 10.1002/tea.20165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tobin, K. (1996). Issues and trends in the teaching of science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 129–151). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in urban science education. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 313–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18132.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turri, J., & Sosa, E. (2013). Virtue epistemology. In B. Kaldis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy and the social sciences (Vol. 21, pp. 1041–1043). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137:AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zagzebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of BalamandBalamandLebanon

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options