Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching pp 1531–1564Cite as

Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

If Lipman’s claim that philosophy is the discipline whose central concern is thinking is true, then any attempt to improve students’ scientific critical thinking ought to have a philosophical edge. This chapter explores that position.

The first section addresses the extent to which critical thinking is general – applicable to all disciplines – or contextually bound, explores some competing accounts of what critical thinking actually is and considers the extent to which scientific thinking builds on, or is quite different from, generic thinking. Evidence that traditional science education does not teach scientific thinking well leads to the conclusion that some different pedagogical approach needs to be added to science curricula.

The second section surveys several approaches to ‘minds-on’ science education, each of which shares an emphasis on the students identifying areas of puzzlement, rigorous discussion of these puzzles, attention to metacognition and opportunities to address thinking across different contexts.

Finally, a summary of the main conclusions is followed by consideration of possible objections and suggestions as to further research that could help to clarify and fine-tune the teaching of good scientific thinking in primary and secondary schools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Ennis (1987), Paul and Elder (2007), Resnick (1987), and Siegel (1990).

  2. 2.

    Some theorists object to the term ‘thinking skills’ (e.g. Hart (1993); see also Lipman (1991, pp. 78–80),where he discusses Hart), as reducing a complex, interwoven human activity to a series of atomistic technical skills. I will not enter into this discussion: in what follows, I will use ‘skills’, ‘capacities’, ‘capabilities’ and so on interchangeably.

  3. 3.

    Huxley (1894) is often quoted giving his opinion that science is ‘nothing but trained and organised common sense’. See also Royer (1987).

  4. 4.

    Wolpert (1992) argues that ‘science involves a special mode of thought and is unnatural for two main reasons … Firstly, the world just is not constructed on a common-sensical basis. This means that ‘natural’ thinking – ordinary, day-to-day common sense – will never give an understanding about the nature of science.… Secondly, doing science requires a conscious awareness of the pitfalls of ‘natural’ thinking. For common sense is prone to error when applied to problems requiring rigorous and quantitative thinking ….’

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Adey et al. (2007), Adey (2006), Bailin (2002), Ennis (1990), Gazzard (1993), McPeck (1990), Norris (1992), Paul and Elder (2007), Perkins and Saloman (1989), Siegel (1989), and Siegel (1991).

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Kuhn et al. (1988), Kuhn and Pearsall (2000), Zimmerman (2000), and Zimmerman (2007). The latter is a recent, comprehensive survey of such work.

  7. 7.

    Many school science texts refer to what I am calling here ‘The Scientific Method’, which takes experimental work with tightly controlled variables as the model for all science (Lederman and Lederman 2004). See further discussion in Sprod (2011, pp. 4, 66).

  8. 8.

    For example, Venville and Dawson (2010) on argumentation and informal reasoning, Settelmaier (2003) on ethical dilemmas, May et al. (2006) on analogical reasoning and Vieira et al. (2011) on conceptual clarification.

  9. 9.

    For example, Balcaen (2008), Cavagnetto et al. (2011), Choi et al. (2010), Dawson (2010), Hand and Choi (2010), Lee and She (2010), Miri et al. (2007), Mitchell (2010), Pithers and Soden (2000), Sadler (2004), She and Liao (2010), Songer et al. (2009), and Sprod (1998). See also note 8.

  10. 10.

    Unfortunately, the survey that follows will, due to my linguistic limitations, be largely limited to work published in English. Certainly, important work has been carried out in other languages – see, for example, Vieira et al. (2010). There are also many projects in science education that include in their aims the improvement of scientific thinking but for which, to my knowledge, no empirical research has been done to test the claims – for example, Aikenhead’s Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology (Aikenhead 1990).

  11. 11.

    ‘Other members of the growing family include CAME (in mathematics for junior secondary), PCAME (mathematics for Years 5 and 6, ages 9–11 years), Let’s Think! (science/general reasoning for Year 1, 5–6 year olds), Let’s Think through Science! (for Years 3 and 4, 7–9 years) – all developed at King’s College, London – and CATE (technology), and ARTS (junior secondary music, drama, and visual arts)’ developed elsewhere (Adey 2005).

  12. 12.

    Adey (1997, 2004, 2005), Adey et al. (2002), Adey and Shayer (1990, 1994), and Shayer and Adey (1993)

  13. 13.

    Of course, each lesson does contain content, so that control of variables might be studied through consideration of the effects of the length, width and material of a pipe on the pitch of the note produced by blowing across it, or probability via flipping coins.

  14. 14.

    There are other programmes, not identified by the CA team, that also share many of these features and have been shown to have positive effects, for example, work by Carol McGuinness and colleagues in Northern Ireland (McGuinness 2006).

  15. 15.

    It is worth noting at this point that the Philosophy for Children field has diversified considerably since Lipman’s model was devised – so much so, in fact, that different theorists and practitioners have suggested broader names, such as philosophy with children (Murris 2008), philosophy in schools (Hand and Winstanley 2009) and dialogical philosophy (Stone 2011). Moreover, there has been an explosion in classroom materials that use many different materials instead of Lipman’s purpose-written novels, such as specially written short stories (e.g. Cam 1997; Worley 2011), picture books (e.g. Murris 1992; Sprod 1993; Wartenberg 2009) and film (e.g. Wartenberg 2007).

  16. 16.

    The discussion that follows draws in part on a much fuller discussion of the community of inquiry in Sprod (2001), Chaps. 7, 8, and 9, especially pp. 183–189.

  17. 17.

    See Sprod (2001), Chap. 3, for a philosophical treatment of this ‘pedagogical action’.

  18. 18.

    For example, Hand and Winstanley (2009), Lipman (1993), Lipman et al. (1980), Matthews (1982, 1994); McCall (2009), Pritchard (1996), Splitter and Sharp (1995), and Sprod (2001).

  19. 19.

    One might also add ethics.

  20. 20.

    Citations for 74 empirical studies can be found at <http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/iapc/research.shtml>.

  21. 21.

    The Lipman novels, with the year group for which they are intended in brackets, are the following: Elfie (1), Kio & Gus (2–3), Pixie (3–4), Nous (4–6), Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery (5–6), Lisa (7–8), Suki (9–10) and Mark (11–12) – full details at ‘http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/iapc/docs/Curriculum_Brochure.pdf’. Each has an accompanying manual. Lipman’s intention was that they be studied consecutively throughout schooling.

  22. 22.

    See note 15 for some examples.

  23. 23.

    However, there are a few articles discussing P4C and science education. See especially Lipman (1988) chapter 7 ‘Philosophy and Science Education at the Elementary School Level’ (pp. 87–99) but also Clark (1994), Liao (1999), Novemsky (2003), Smith (1995), Weinstein (1990a, b, 1992) and the Ed.D. thesis of Ferreira (2004 – to be discussed below).

  24. 24.

    For example, the UK-based website p4c.com, which contains a resource area onto which teachers can upload materials they have developed, contains 20 one-off P4C science lessons. Web searches unveil references to other uses of the CoI in science education, e.g. Ling (2007), Cunningham (2011) and Phillipson and Poad (2010), but I have not been able to see the classroom materials used, beyond the description in the papers cited.

  25. 25.

    Ferreira, now at the Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil, is overseeing several projects developing further P4C-based science education materials and researching their contributions to science education.

  26. 26.

    Gebhard et al. (1997, 2003), Nevers et al. (1997, 2006), Nevers (1999, 2005, 2009). Their work, in part, builds on the work of Helmut Schreier, who has been philosophising with primary school children about nature (among other issues) for many years (see, e.g. Schreier 1997; Schreier and Michalik 2008). None of his stories have, to my knowledge, been published in English.

  27. 27.

    See http://www.ulster.ac.uk/scienceinsociety/pcose.html, where you may read the teacher support material and student handouts, and also Dunlop et al. (2011).

  28. 28.

    See http://www.ulster.ac.uk/scienceinsociety/forwardthinking.html, also Dunlop (2012).

  29. 29.

    Still in development

  30. 30.

    These stories can be read at www.acer.edu.au/discussions-in-science/.

  31. 31.

    Collis et al. (1998), Jones et al. (1997), Sprod (1997b), and Sprod and Jones (1997).

  32. 32.

    They also found that including explicit thinking outcomes in the aims of the course and providing professional development for teachers in the improvement of critical thinking were important factors.

  33. 33.

    Indeed, we should note that, as correlational studies, such research does not show conclusively that improving students’ scientific thinking through dialogue causes better science learning and hence exam results. It is possible that some other factor – such as an improved attitude to science – is at play.

  34. 34.

    Note that this possibility depends on such programmes encouraging generalisation of thinking abilities across contexts – a matter discussed in Sect. 48.2.1 above.

  35. 35.

    See http://www.cognitiveacceleration.co.uk/resources/other_subject_resources.html.

References

  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. (1997). It All Depends on the Context, Doesn't It? Searching for general, educable dragons. Studies in Science Education, 29, 45–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. (2004). Evidence for long-term effects: Promises and pitfalls. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(1-2), 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. (2005). Issues arising from the long-term evaluation of cognitive acceleration programs. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., & Shayer, M. (2007). Can we be intelligent about intelligence?: Why education needs the concept of plastic general ability. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., Robertson, A., & Venville, G. (2002). Effects of a cognitive acceleration programme on Year I pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 267–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., Shayer, M., & Yates, C. (1995). Thinking science: the curriculum materials of the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project. Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. (2006). Thinking in science - thinking in general? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1990). Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology. Toronto: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T. (1997). Minds-on and Hands-on Activity: Improving Instruction in Science for All Students. Presidential Address, 1995. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 10(2), 28-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1998). Metaphysics (H. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, S. (1998). Skills, generalizability and critical thinking. Proceedings from Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain: Conference Papers 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11(4), 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcaen, P. (2008). Developing Critically Thoughtful, Media-Rich Lessons in Science: Process and Product. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(3), 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Museum of Science (2001). Science Thinking Skills: Providing visitors practice in science thinking skills. Retrieved 9 November, 2011 from http://www.mos.org/exhibitdevelopment/skills/index.html

  • California State Department of Education (1990). Science Framework for California Public Schools. Retrieved 9 November, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf

  • Cam, P. (1995). Thinking Together: Philosophical Inquiry for the Classroom. Alexandria, NSW: Hale & Iremonger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam, P. (1997). Thinking Stories 3. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2011). Negotiating the Inquiry Question: A Comparison of Whole Class and Small Group Strategies in Grade Five Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. A. (1994). Bat Milk and Other Life Stories: Philosophy for Children Applied to the Teaching of University Science. Analytic Teaching 15(1), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, K. F., Jones, B. L., Sprod, T., Watson, J. M., & Fraser, S. P. (1998). Mapping Development in Students’ understanding of vision using a cognitive structural model. International journal of science education, 20(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, R. (2011). Deliberative Democracy and Sustainable Design: Why should these be central to a school curriculum for the twenty first century? Proceedings from Education and Citizenship in a Globalising World, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davson-Galle, P. (2004). Philosophy of science, critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 13(6), 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davson-Galle, P. (2008a). Against science education: the aims of science education and their connection to school science curricula, in Education Research Trends, Bertrand, T. & Roux, L. (ed), Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davson-Galle, P. (2008b). Why compulsory science education should not include philosophy of science. Science & Education, 17(7), 677–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. (2010). Measuring the impact of instruction about argumentation and decision-making in high-school genetics. Genomics Education for Decision-making.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bono, E. (1986). Beyond Critical Thinking. Curriculum Review, 25(3), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, L., Humes, G., Clarke, L., & McKelvey-Martin, V. (2011). Developing communities of enquiry: dealing with social and ethical issues in science at key stage 3. School Science Review, 93(342).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, L. (2012). P4C in secondary science. In L. Lewis & N. Chandley (Eds.), Philosophy for Children Through the Secondary Curriculum. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, L., Clarke, L., & McKelvey-Martin, V. (2011). Using communities of enquiry in science. Learning & Teaching Update, 49, 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1990). The Extent to Which Critical Thinking is Subject Specific: Further Clarification. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1987). A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: WH Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, L. B. M. (2004). The Role of a Science Story, Activities and Dialogue Modeled on Philosophy for Children in Teaching Basic Science Process Skills for Fifth Grade, dissertation for Ed.D., Montclair State University (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, L. B. M. (2012). Philosophy for children in the science class: children learning basic science process skills through narrative. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 20(1&2), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Moriyon, F., Rebollo, I., & Colom, R. (2004). Evaluating Philosophy for Children: A meta-analysis. Thinking: The journal of philosophy for children, 17(4), 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. (1996). Inquiry is no mere conversation. Analytic Teaching, 16(2), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzard, A. (1993). Thinking Skills in Science and Philosophy for Children. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking Children and Education (pp. 619–631). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard, U., Billmann-Mahecha, E., & Nevers, P. (1997). Naturphilosophische Gespräche mit Kindern. Ein qualitativer Forschungsansatz. In H. Schreier (Ed.), Mit Kindern über die Natur philosophieren (pp. 130–153). Heinsberg: Dieck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard, U., Nevers, P., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2003). Moralizing trees: Anthropomorphism and identity in children’s relationships to nature. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 91–111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, M., & Winstanley, C. (Eds.). (2009). Philosophy in schools. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, W. A. (1993). Against Skills. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking Children and Education (pp. 632–644). Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausberg, A. (2012). Fressen Katzen Rotklee? Untersuchung kreativer Ausdrucksformen beim Philosophierenmit Kindern und Jugendlichen und ihr Transfer bei der Lösung einer offenen Aufgabe mit biologischem Bezug. PhD. University of Hamburg, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausberg, A., & Calvert, K. (2009). PhiNa: Aspects of Creative Philosophising with Children About Nature. In W. C. Turgeon (Ed.), Creativity and the Child: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 227–236). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, T. H. (1894). On the educational value of the natural history sciences. Retrieved from <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/EdVal.html>

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegede, O. J., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). The Role of Negotiation in a Constructivist-Oriented Hands-On and Minds-On Science Laboratory Classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 17–21 April 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. L., Sprod, T., Collis, K. F., & Watson, J. M. (1997). Singaporean and Australian Students’ Understanding of Vision. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 17(2), 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurd, E. (2004). Are the children thinking. Primary Science Review, 82(3/4), 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Orlando, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1), 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). The nature of science and scientific inquiry. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science (pp. 2–17). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. Q., & She, H. C. (2010). Facilitating Students’ Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning Involving the Unit of Combustion. Research in Science Education, 40, 479–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, B. (1999). Stages of Wonder: A Lesson in Physics. Thinking 14(4), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, Y. (2007). Philosophy in Children (P4C) and Pupils’ Learning in Primary Science in Singapore. Proceedings from Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Upper Montclair, NJ: Institute of the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1986). Kio & Gus. Upper Montclair, NJ: First Mountain Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1988) Philosophy Goes to School Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (Ed.). (1993). Thinking children and education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1995). Caring as thinking. Inquiry: Critical thinking across the disciplines, 15(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. (1975). Philosophical Inquiry: Instruction Manual to Accompany Harry Stottlemeier‘s Discovery. Upper Montclair, NJ: Institute of the Advancement of Philosophy for Children,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1986). Wondering at the World: Instructional Manual to Accompany Kio and Gus. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mant, J., Wilson, H., & Coates, D. (2007). The Effect of Increasing Conceptual Challenge in Primary Science Lessons on Pupils’ Achievement and Engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1707–1719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzano, R. J. (2000). A New Era of School Reform: Going Where the Research Takes Us. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. B. (1982). Philosophy and the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. B. (1994). The philosophy of childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, D. B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, C. C. (2009). Transforming Thinking: Philosophical Inquiry in the Primary and Secondary Classroom (1 ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, C. (2006). Building Thinking Skills in Thinking Classrooms. Teaching and Learning Research Briefing, 18. Retrieved from www.tlrp.org

  • McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in science education, 37(4), 353–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, I. (2010). The Relationship Between Teacher Behaviours and Student Talk in Promoting Quality Learning in Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murris, K. (1992). Teaching philosophy with picture books. London: Infonet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murris, K. S. (2008). Philosophy with Children, the Stingray and the Educative Value of Disequilibrium. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4), 667–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P. (2005). Wozu ist Philosophieren mit Kindern und Jugendlichen im Biologieunterricht gut? In C. M. Hößle, Kerstin (Ed.), Philosophieren mit Kindern und Jugendlichen Didaktische und methodische Grundlagen des Philosophierens (pp. 24–35). Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P. (2009). Transcending the Factual in Biology by Philosophizing with Children. In G. Y. M. Iversen, Gordon & G. Pollard (Eds.), Hovering over the face of the deep: philosophy, theology and children (pp. 147–160). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P. (1999, September 21). How Children and Adolescents Relate to Nature. Proceedings from Center for the Study of Ethics in Society, Kalamazoo MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P., Billmann-Mahecha, E., & Gebhard, U. (2006). Visions of Nature and Value Orientations among German Children and Adolescents. In R. J. G. van den Born, W. T. de Groot, & R. H. J. Lenders (Eds.), Visions of Nature: A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (pp. 109–127). Münster: Lit Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P., Gebhard, U., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (1997). Patterns of Reasoning Exhibited by Children and Adolescents in Response to Moral Dilemmas Involving Plants, Animals and Ecosystems. Journal of Moral Education, 26(2), 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevers, P. (2000). Naturethik und Konfliktbewältigung bei Kindern: Ergebnisse, Fragen und Spekulationen aus einer hermeneutischen Untersuchung. In K. Ott & M. Gorke (Eds.), Spektrum der Umweltethik (pp. 191-213). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. (1992). The Generalisability of Critical Thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2005). Results and implications of a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novemsky, L. (2003). Using a Community of Inquiry for Science Learning, or the Story of ‘It’. Thinking 16(4), 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical. The concept of education, 192–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (1999). Content is Thinking: Thinking is Content. Retrieved 11 November, 2011 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/content-is-thinking-thinking-is-content/958

  • Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). Defining Critical Thinking. Retrieved from www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

  • Pedersen, J. E., & McCurdy, D. W. (1992). The effects of hands-on, minds-on teaching experiences on attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 76(2), 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Saloman, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, N., & Poad, G. (2010). Use of Dramatic Enquiry to explore controversies in science. School Science Review, 92(339), 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, M. S. (1996). Reasonable Children: Moral Education and Moral Learning. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royer, R. (1987). Science Begins with Everyday Thinking. Thinking, 7(2), 46–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, H. (Ed.). (1997). Mit Kindern über die Natur philosophieren. Heinsberg: Dieck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, H., & Michalik, K. (2008). In Pursuit of Intellectual Honesty with Children: Children’s Philosophy in Hamburg’s Elementary Schools Encouraged by Dewey’s Ideas. In Pragmatism, education and children: international philosophical perspectives (pp. 127–141). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settelmaier, E. (2003, March 23-26). Dilemmas with Dilemmas. Exploring the Suitability of Dilemma Stories as a Way of Addressing Ethical Issues in Science Education. Proceedings from Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M. (2002). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. In M. Shayer & P. Adey (Eds.), Learning intelligence: Cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1990). Educating reason. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1991). The Generalizability of Critical Thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23(1), 18–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (1995). Critical Thinking, a Philosophical Community of Inquiry and the Science/Maths Teacher. Analytic Teaching 15(2), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C. (1927). ‘General Intelligence’, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (1997a). ‘Nobody really knows’: the structure and analysis of social constructivist whole class discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 911–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (1997b). Longitudinal research and development: Selley on children, light and vision. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 739–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (1998). “I can change your opinion on that”: Social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 28(4), 463–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T., & Jones, B. L. (1997). The sun can’t bounce off a bird’: Young children and their understanding of vision. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22, 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (1993). Books into Ideas. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (2001). Philosophical discussion in moral education: the community of ethical inquiry. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprod, T. (2011). Discussions in Science. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. (2011). Questioning Education: A Critique of Philosophy for Children. MA dissertation, Institute of Education, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, R. J., Fischer, S. D., & Parks, S. (1998). Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Secondary Science: A Lesson Design Handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: cognitive effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 271–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007b). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for schoolchildren: Cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 787–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007c). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’ interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2004). Philosophy for children: a systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 365–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2006). Collaborative Philosophical Enquiry for School Children: Socio-Emotional Effects at 11 to 12 Years. School Psychology International, 27(5), 599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Australian Education Review, 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T. (2005). Editorial–Longitudinal Studies on Student Learning in Science. Research in science education, 35(1), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2005). A longitudinal study of children’s developing knowledge and reasoning in science. Research in science education, 35(1), 63–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, K. K. (2004). Kreativität: Herausforderung für Schule, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Münster: LIT-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. (2010). Pensamiento crítico y literacia científica [Critical Thinking and Scientific Literacy]. Revista Alambique - Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 65, 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. P. (2011). Critical thinking: Conceptual clarification and its importance in science education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartenberg, T. E. (2007). Thinking on screen: film as philosophy. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartenberg, T. E. (2009). Big ideas for little kids: teaching philosophy through children’s literature. R&L Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. (1990a). Critical Thinking and Scientific Method. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 5(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. (1990b). Towards an Account of Argumentation in Science. Argumentation, 4(3), 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. (1992). Critical Thinking and the Goals of Science Education. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 9(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, Summer, 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H., & Mant, J. (2006). Creativity and excitement in science: Lessons from the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust project. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H., & Mant, J. (2011a). What makes an exemplary teacher of science? The pupils’ perspective. School Science Review, 93(342), 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H., & Mant, J. (2011b). What makes an exemplary teacher of science? The teachers’ perspective. School Science Review, 93(343), 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H., Mant, J., & Coates, D. (2004). There’s Nothing More Exciting Than Science: An AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust Project. Primary Science Review, 83, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science: Why science does not make (common) sense. London: Faber & Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worley, P. (2011). The If Machine: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, C. (2000). The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Philosophy, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Tim Sprod

Authors
  1. Tim Sprod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Sprod .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sprod, T. (2014). Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_48

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation