Advertisement

The Centrality of Models for Knowledge Claims in Science Education

  • Keith S. Taber
Chapter

Abstract

There is an extensive research programme in science education which reports on student thinking, knowledge, understanding and learning in science subjects. Research reports in journals commonly present knowledge claims about these important foci, and often in such reports these core notions (thinking, understanding, knowing, learning) are treated as relatively unproblematic - as though they can be ‘taken for granted’ within the discourse of science education, and as if the process of uncovering thinking, understanding, knowing and learning is relatively straightforward given available research techniques. Yet such foci - another’s thinking, knowing, understanding and learning - are not observables, but rather have to be inferred from phenomena that can be observed in research. Indeed, these foci are arguably at the level of theoretical constructs that act as components of explanatory schemes for making sense of people’s behaviours (such as how they respond to research probes). It is argued that researchers need to be more aware of the difficulties in accessing the mental lives of others, and to be more explicit in their reports about the modelling processes involved in developing accounts of the thinking, understanding, knowing and learning of research participants.

Keywords

Research Report Alternative Conception Technical Term Knowledge Claim Student Understanding 
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. Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72(2), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, R. (2006). Science, normal science and science education – Thomas Kuhn and Education. Learning for Democracy, 2(2), 7–20.Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95(4), 700–719. doi: 10.1002/sce.20439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P. J., & Lucas, A. M. (Eds.). (1993b). Children’s informal ideas in science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. British Educational Research Association. (2000). Good practice in educational research writing. Southwell, UK: British Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  11. Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coll, R. K., Lay, M. C., & Taylor, N. (2008). Scientists and scientific thinking: Understanding scientific thinking through an investigation of scientists views about superstitions and religious beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 197–214.Google Scholar
  13. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Studies and fields: Directions of research in science education. Studies in Science Education, 25, 173–197. doi: 10.1080/03057269508560053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glasersfeld, E. v. (1988). The reluctance to change a way of thinking. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 83–90. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/110.pdf Google Scholar
  20. Glasersfeld, E. v. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93. doi: 10.1002/tea.20386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003b). Models, causation, and explanation. In A. J. Sanford (Ed.), The nature and limits of human understanding (pp. 26–46). London: T&T Clark Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. S. (1974/1977). Second thoughts on paradigms. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 293–319). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice 6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, M. R. (1992). Old wine in new bottles: A problem with constructivist epistemology. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 1992. Retrieved from available at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/92_docs/Matthews.HTM
  29. Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, R., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1986). Identification of secondary students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic instrument. Research in Science Education, 16, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy (Corrected version ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Popper, K. R. (1934/1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Ratinen, I. J. (2011). Primary student-teachers’ conceptual understanding of the greenhouse effect: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 1–27. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.587845.
  37. Sjøberg, S. (2010). Constructivism and learning. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 485–490). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taber, K. S. (2006a). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taber, K. S. (2006c). Constructivism’s new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of Chemistry, 8(2), 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Taber, K. S. (2008b). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4.Google Scholar
  42. Taber, K. S. (2009b). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taber, K. S. (2013a). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Taber, K. S. (Forthcoming). Methodological issues in science education research: A perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education. Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Watson, J. B. (1924/1998). Behaviorism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  48. Watson, J. B. (1967). What is behaviourism? In J. A. Dyal (Ed.), Readings in psychology: Understanding human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 7–9). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  49. White, R. T. (1998). Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom practice: Examples and issues. Studies in Science Education, 31, 55–70. doi: 10.1080/03057269808560112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yenilmez, A., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing students’ understanding of photosynthesis and respiration in plant through conceptual change approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 81–87. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0358-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith S. Taber
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations