Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 39–49 | Cite as

Metaphors as global markers for teachers' beliefs about the nature of science

  • Catherine Milne
  • Peter Charles Taylor
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we report an analysis of metaphors used by three science teachers in their classroom discourse and consider the implications of this research for the image of science that students are likely to construct. Teacher beliefs about the nature of science are implicit and entrenched and may be contrary to both contemporary philosophies of science and constructivist theory. We argue that the presence of metaphors such ateaching as a journey, knowledge as object andteacher as pathfinder in teachers' classroom discourse signify the implicit existence of a powerful objectivist epistemology that governs teachers' pedagogies. If students are to construct contemporary views of the nature of science and if constuctivist pedagogy is to develop in the science classroom then science teachers need to reflect on their use of these role-determining objectivist metaphors.

Keywords

Science Teacher Science Classroom Classroom Discourse Constructivist Theory Contemporary Philosophy 
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. Baker, D, & Taylor, P. C. S. (in press). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-Western countries.International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  2. Burian, R. M. (1984). Scientific realism and incommensurability: Some criticisms of Kuhn and Feyerabend. In R. S. Cohen & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Methodology, metaphysics and the history of science.Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, 84, 1–31. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Black, M. (1962).Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Cobern, W. (1992). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51–69). Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.Google Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K. (1988). Triangulation. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.),Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 511–513). Sydney: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R. (1988). Theory into practice II: A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 121–149). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R. (1990, April).Constructivist approaches to science teaching. Paper presented at Seminar Series ‘Constructivism in Education’, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view.School Science Review, 67, 443–455.Google Scholar
  10. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science.Science Education, 75, 649–672.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. 119–160). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Feyerabend, P. (1975).Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, P. (1984). Circular motion: Some post-instructional alternative frameworks.Research in Science Education, 14, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, M. (1987).The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician not an inductivist.Mind and Language, 3, 183–195.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. S. (1970).The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980).The metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Larochelle, M. & Désautels, J. (1991). ‘Of course, it's just obvious: Adolescents’ ideas of scientific knowledge.International Journal of Science Education, 13, 373–389.Google Scholar
  19. Mahoney, M. J. (1989). Participatory epistemology and psychology of science. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.),Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 138–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.Google Scholar
  21. Milne, C. E. (1993).The pedagogical implications of teacher personal philosophies of science in the school science classroom: An interpretive study. Unpublished masters thesis, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Nadeau, R. & Désautels, J. (1984).Epistemology and the teaching of science. Ottawa: The Publications Office, Science Council of Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Osborne, R. (1985). Teachers of science as educational researchers: The learning in science project.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 31(2), 14–21.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, D. C. (1992).The social scientist's bestiary: A guide to fabled threats to, and defences of, naturalistic social science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Popper, K. R. (1979).Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education, 66, 211–227.Google Scholar
  28. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor—A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Silverman, M. P. (1989). Two sides of wonder: Philosophical keys to the motivation of science learning.Synthese, 80, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Solomon, J. (1983). Messy, contradictory and obstinately persistent: A study of children's out-of-school ideas about energy.School Science Review, 65, 225–229.Google Scholar
  31. Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils' understanding of science.Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, P. C. S. (1992).An interpretive study of the role of teacher beliefs in the implementation of constructivist theory in a secondary school mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, P. C. S. (1993). The influence of researcher beliefs on constructivist teaching practice. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 267–297). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, P. C. S. (1994, March).Establishing a critical discourse on cultural myths that shape the reality of the science classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Tobin, K. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 29–35.Google Scholar
  36. Tobin, K. (1991).Referents for the science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconson.Google Scholar
  37. Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching.International Journal of Science Education, 15, 241–254.Google Scholar
  38. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.),The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  39. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching.Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–28). Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1995

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations