Between a Myth and a Hard Place: Situating School Science in a Climate of Critical Cultural Reform

  • Cathrine E. Milne
  • Peter C. Taylor
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 4)


Our experiences as teachers and educational researchers indicate a general enthusiasm amongst science teachers for constructivist-based teaching practices aimed at improving the quality of student learning. However, even when teachers believe that constructivism is an appropriate epistemology (or way of knowing), they struggle to implement and maintain teaching practices informed by constructivist theory (Taylor, 1996; Tobin, Davis, Shaw & Jakubowski, 1991; Vance & Miller, 1995). We believe that the difficulties experienced by science teachers in instituting constructivist-inspired changes in their classrooms can be explained, in large part, if school science is viewed as a cultural activity which is constrained by powerful and ubiquitous cultural myths.


School Science Critical Theory Practical Activity Experimental Report Critical Constructivism 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arbib, M. A., & Hesse, M. B. (1986). The construction of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon, F. (1968). Paraceve/Novum Organum. In J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath (eds.), The works of Francis Bacon. New York: Garrett Press, (Original publication 1620, facsimile reprint of 1870 publication).Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies, A. Lavers (trans.). New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
  5. Biagioli, M. (1992). ‘Scientific revolution, social bricolage, and etiquette’, in R. Porter and M. Teich (eds.), The scientific revolution in national context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, C. A. (1987). The promise of theory: Education and the politics of cultural change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, R. (1965). ‘New experiments physico-mechanical touching the spring of the air, Made for the most part, in a new pneumatical engine’, in T. Birch (ed.), Robert Boyle: The works Vol. 1-6, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim, 1-117. (Original publication 1660, fecsimile reprint of 1744 publication).Google Scholar
  8. Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. (1972). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cantor, G. (1989). The rhetoric of experiment1, in D. Gooding, T. J. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies of experimen-tation in the natural sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–180.Google Scholar
  12. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1994). ‘Personal experience methods’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 413–427.Google Scholar
  13. Crosland, M. (ed) (1976). The emergence of science in Western Europe. New York: Science History Publications, 1–13.Google Scholar
  14. Dear, P. (1991). ‘Narratives, anecdotes and experiments: Turning experience into science in the seventeenth century’, in P. Dear (ed.), The literary structure of scientific argument. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 135–163.Google Scholar
  15. Descartes, R. (1970). ‘Third set of objections and replies containing the controversy between Hobbes and Descartes’, in E. Anscombe and P. T. Geach (eds.), Descartes philosophical writings, Nelson’s University Paperbacks, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, 127–150 (Based on the original published 1642).Google Scholar
  16. Douglas, M. (1967). ‘The meaning of myth’, in E. Leach (ed.), The structural study of myth and totemism. London: Tavistock Publications, 49–69.Google Scholar
  17. Durkheim, E. (1976). The elementary forms of religious life. London: Allan Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, F. (1986). ‘Qualitative methods in research on teaching’, in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 119–159.Google Scholar
  19. Findlen, P. (1993). ‘Controlling the experiment: Rhetoric, court patronage and the experimental method of Francisco Redi’, History of Science, 31, 35–64.Google Scholar
  20. Freud, S. (1965). The interpretation of dreams. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
  21. Gaarder, J. (1995). Sophie’s world, P. Moller (trans). London: Phoenix House.Google Scholar
  22. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1978). Legitimation crisis, T. McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (1984). A theory of communicative action: Vol 1. Reason and the rationalisation of society, T. McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hardy, M. D. & Taylor, P. C. (1997). ‘Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism: A critical review’, Science & Education, 6, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Helu, I. F. (1994). ‘Mythical and scientific thinking: A comparison’, in J. Edwards (ed.), International interdisciplinary perspectives. Victoria: Hawker Brawhlow Education, 66–72.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbes, T. (1970). ‘Third set of objections and replies containing the controversy between Hobbes and Descartes’, in E. Anscombe and P. T. Geach (eds.), Descartes philosophical writings. Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex: Nelson’s University Paperbacks, 127–150. (Based on the original published 1642).Google Scholar
  31. Hooke, R. (1961). Micrographia. New York: Dover Publications, (Facsimile copy of original published 1665).Google Scholar
  32. Hooykaas, R. (1987). ‘The rise of modern science: When and why?’, British Journal for the History of Science, 20, 453–473.Google Scholar
  33. Jung, C. G. (1968) The archetypes and the collective unconscious (2nd. ed.). London: Routledge and Kagan Paul.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Levi-Strauss, C. (1970). The raw and the cooked, J. Weightman and D. Weightman (trans.), Jonathan Cape, London.Google Scholar
  38. Malinowski, B. (1954). Magic, science and religion and other essays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  39. Malinowski, B. (1971). Myth in primative society. Westport, CN: Negro Universities Press.Google Scholar
  40. Matthews, M. R. (1993). ‘Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCarthy, T. (1978). The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Milne, C. (1996). The representation of ‘acid’ in school chemistry: From concept to fact. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference of Chemical Education, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  43. Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). ‘Learning science: A generative process’, Science Education, 67, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polanyi, M. & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas, London: Tavistock.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reddy, M. J. (1979). ‘The conduit metaphor — A case of frame conflict in our language about language’, in A. Ortony (ed), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284–324.Google Scholar
  47. Riley, K. (1991). ‘Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing’, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savory, T. (1967). The language of science. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
  49. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shapin, S. (1984). ‘Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary Technology’, Social Studies of Science, 14, 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slaughter, M. M. (1982). Universal languages and scientific taxonomy in the seventeenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Slotkin, R. (1973). Regeneration through violence: The mythology of the American frontier, 1600-1860. Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Smolicz, J. J. & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: The demythologising of school science, Studies in Science Education, 2, 101–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sprat, T. (1959). History of the Royal Society. St. Louis: Washington University Studies. (Facsimile of original publication 1667).Google Scholar
  56. Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sutton, C. (1994). ‘“Nullius in Verba” and “Nihil in Verbis”: Public understanding of the role of language in science’, British Journal for the History of Science, 27, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, P. C. (1996). ‘Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom’, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor, P. C. (in press). ‘Constructivism: Value added’, in B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, P. C. & Williams, M. C. (1993). ‘Critical Constructivism: Towards a Balanced Rationality in the High School Mathematics Classroom’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  61. Tobin, K., Davis, N., Shaw, K. & Jakubowski, E. (1991). ‘Enhancing science and mathematics teaching’, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vance, K. & Miller, K. (1995). ‘Setting up as a constructivist teacher Examples from a middle secondary ecology unit’, in B. Hand & V. Prain (cds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace, 85–105.Google Scholar
  64. Vandenberg, D. (1990). Education as a human right: A theory of curriculum and pedagogy. Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  65. Vickers, B. (1985). ‘The Royal Society and the English prose style: A reassessment’, in B. Vickers & N. Struever (eds.), Rhetoric and the pursuit of tuth: Language change in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pasadena, CA: Castle Press, 1–76.Google Scholar
  66. Vickers, B. (1987). English science, Bacon to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). ‘Environment and communication’, in L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). ‘An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph 4, 19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathrine E. Milne
  • Peter C. Taylor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations