Abstract
The call for reforms in science education has been ongoing for a century, with new movements and approaches continuously reshaping the identity and values of the discipline. The HPS movement has an equally long history and taken part in the debates defining its purpose and revising curriculum. Its limited success, however, is due not only to competition with alternative visions and paradigms (e.g. STS, multi-culturalism, constructivism, traditionalism) which deadlock implementation, and which have led to conflicting meanings of scientific literacy, but the inability to rise above the debate. At issue is a fundamental problem plaguing science education at the school level, one it shares with education in general. It is my contention that it requires a guiding “metatheory” of education that can appropriately distance itself from the dual dependencies of metatheories in psychology and the demands of socialization—especially as articulated in most common conceptions of scientific literacy tied to citizenship. I offer as a suggestion Egan’s cultural-linguistic theory as a metatheory to help resolve the impasse. I hope to make reformers familiar with his important ideas in general and more specifically, to show how they can complement HPS rationales and reinforce the work of those researchers who have emphasized the value of narrative in learning science. This will be elaborated in Part II of a supplemental paper to the present one. As a prerequisite to presenting Egan’s metatheory I first raise the issue of the need for a conceptual shift back to philosophy of education within the discipline, and thereto, on developing and demarcating true educational theories (essentially neglected since Hirst). In the same vein it is suggested a new research field should be opened with the express purpose of developing a discipline-specific “philosophy of science education” (largely neglected since Dewey) which could in addition serve to reinforce science education’s growing sense of academic autonomy and independence from socio-economic demands.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One can certainly make a good case that the ensuing debate over constructivism, for example, which has preoccupied the community for over two decades, and which some promoters at the onset had described as a “new paradigm” for the discipline, can now be traced to initial unreflective considerations of the various philosophical underpinnings of its many forms (Scerri 2003; Phillips 2000; Geelan 1997).
For example, the concept of learning as defined by computer-based artificial intelligence models in cognitive psychology could be necessarily at odds with what educationalists mean by “learning”. Some still recall the deleterious effects on education resulting from importing ideas of behaviorism (Matthews 1994).
This would include the Bildung tradition which has influenced educational ideas and curriculum in Germany, Central Europe and Scandinavia (Sjøberg 2003); Duit et al. (2007), writing in a recent review of physics education, have commented that the common notion of science literacy in the English-speaking nations is burdened with an overly instrumental conception and generally neglects to emphasize the importance of developing the individual personality, which is vital to the Bildung conception.
Granted, all three expansive goals have accompanied the history of science education for a century or so, each continues to have force and forceful spokespersons, and each has come to the fore for different reasons in the past (Bybee and DeBoer 1994). Matthews (1994, p. 15) has noted, these “curricular orientations” are not necessarily mutually exclusive: “Curricula that stress one, usually include something of the others. What is in contention between the views is the general orientation of the science program, and the goals that it seeks to achieve.” Most importantly, the connotation of “scientific literacy” has shifted accordingly (DeBoer 2000).
This statement in response to one anonymous referee who questioned the relevance of Egan and the nature of the subject matter of this paper in relation to philosophy of education. Surely, with the relatively recent field of study known as “curriculum theory” now having become established at the universities there exists ipso facto overlap.
The cyclical return of such talk does indicate there is still something deeply amiss with ongoing science education and which both periods of so-called reforms—the scientist/discipline-centered curricular reforms of the 1950s/60s and the STS inspired movement of the 1980s—have failed to adequately address and rightly resolve. For a skeptical look at earlier crisis-talk see Klopfer and Champagne (1990).
There are compelling arguments which indicate that the widely accepted correlation between improved secondary science education—and hence assumed improved literacy—and the supposed benefits accrued for either national economic performance or increased critical citizenship are largely illusory (Shamos 1995). In fact studies show the learning or non-learning of secondary science has little if any impact on the future supply of trained scientists or engineers required to maintain either a nation’s technological advantage or economic competitiveness, regardless of claims to the contrary (and as charged against teachers and school science throughout the 1980s). This burden falls primarily to post-secondary pedagogy.
Note the following in America: “More than 4,000 articles and books in the past 30 years have declared some sort of crisis in schools, but these scholars rarely bothered to spell out what cataclysm was imminent. Each episode has also eaten away at public confidence in schools, which fell 38% from 1973 to 1996, according to surveys by the National Opinion Research Center . . . nearly 1000 laws [have] been passed since the 1970 s to force reforms on schools—but have made little change in what students learn” (Gibbs and Fox 1999, p. 87). Surprisingly, a lead investigator of the U.S. National Science Education Standards (NSES) document is quoted as saying (on p. 88) he doubts high scores on TIMSS correlates at all with being scientifically literate—precisely because they focus narrowly on formal content knowledge. Here one clearly notes the contested meaning of the term itself.
Yet despite these disturbing findings researchers in these newer fields of study (including Chemical Education Research, or CER) still struggle uphill for respect and acceptance in their academic departments, where educational studies and research continue to be afforded a low priority (Gilbert et al. 2004; Hestenes 1998).
“We must not forget that curriculum decisions are first and foremost political decisions. Research can inform curriculum decision-making, but the rational, evidence–based findings of research tend to wilt in the presence of ideologies, as curriculum choices are made within specific school jurisdictions, most often favoring the status quo” (Aikenhead 2007, p. 880; original italics).
In this recent important and comprehensive review, Roberts has coined the categories “vision one” and “vision two” to account for two major competing images of science literacy behind several curricular reforms. The former designates those conceptions of science literacy which are “internally oriented”, that is, towards science as a knowledge- and inquiry-based discipline and including the image of science education as heavily influenced by the identity, demands and conceptions of the profession. The latter vision, alternatively, is “outward looking”, towards the application, limitation and critical appraisal of science in society, the image influenced instead by the needs of society and the majority of students not headed for professional science-based careers. Here the question of the “social relevance” of the curriculum is paramount. He maintains that while the second vision can encompass the first the opposite is not true. My contribution, spearheading Egan’s ideas, can be considered a third option for literacy: “vision three”.
As an example of the scope of what has gone on in Physics Education Research (PER) alone over a 20-year period—and moreover to spotlight as evidence for the critique which follows—see McDermott and Reddish (1999). An exception is Kalman (2008). See also the earlier critique by Cushing (1989) of tertiary physics education targeting its ongoing neglect of incorporating important aspects of NoS into curricula.
Because the ongoing perception of science education at the upper levels worldwide is almost exclusively seen as technical pre-professional training rather than a broader conception of education either about science or about science and society, science teacher training along with classrooms at secondary and tertiary levels continue to ignore the epistemology, social practices and histories of science. They are almost universally failing, as others have pointed out, to bring to fruition in students’ minds a more authentic view of science: the development of how scientific ideas change; the nature of scientific reasoning and inquiry (also modeling); the methodologies of science and its epistemology—also termed nature of science (NoS) discourse (Lederman 2007; 1998; Yager 1996; Duschl 1994; Bauer 1992).
Today, with the push from parents and the business community stressing the need for creating a techno-scientific trained workforce for the competitive global “knowledge economy” the external pressures are again impinging upon science education and could possibly drive it towards a new “career focused track” in ways most in the community (whether in traditional, STSE or Bildung circles) may find highly objectionable. Here one is wise to heed Apple’s (1992) concerns about the reduction of educational aims to economic utility. This is an example where internal/external interests could clash. Alternatively, the current concerns about global warming and environmental awareness among the public and business and the desire to transform curricular objectives accordingly, may represent a case where internal/external interests could overlap—as those within our community arguing for literacy as “socio-political action” have stressed (Roth and Barton 2004; Hodson 2003; Jenkins 2000). The most typical case of congruence still continues to be the one between the interests of secondary science teachers and those of the external academic science community, by simple virtue of academic teacher training. The close “ideological” relationship between these two social groups is occasionally bemoaned by some researchers, for example, by Fensham (2002).
In brief: socialization conflicts with the “Platonic” (knowledge-focused) project because the former seeks the conformity to values and beliefs of society while the latter encourages the questioning of these; Socialization also conflicts with the “Rousseauian project” since the latter argues that personal growth must conflict with social norms and needs. It sees growth and hence education in intrinsic terms instead of as utility for other socially defined ends. (Here exists the principal tension between the Bildung tradition and the dominating utility view of education and science literacy of the English-speaking world.) The Platonic and Rousseauian projects conflict because the former assumes an epistemological model of learning and development and the latter a psychological one. In the former ‘mind’ is created and the aim is knowledge, in the latter it develops naturally, requiring only proper guidance, and the aim is self-actualization.
As examples, the authors identify that “throughout the 19th century the goal of personal intellectual development [Rousseau] competed with the goal of learning science facts and information [Plato]” and that this competition “is evident in two curricular models that became popular …” (p. 365). Later, during the “progressive era” (p. 369), “there was considerable lack of agreement on the goals”, whether “the knowledge goals” [Plato] or “application of subject matter to the lives of students” [social utility]. Here the community became “polarized” between extremes and how to organize the curriculum. Needless to say, a surprisingly similar debate flared up again during the 1980s “curricular wars”, and remains with us today.
Walker and Soltis (1986/1997) reach a similar conclusion when assessing these three chief conflicting goals of education which drive curriculum reform efforts.
It is to assume one can apply them as principles while ignoring their underlying theoretical frameworks. “The trouble is, each of them has significant problems separately, and together they do not blend into a coherent curriculum. We are so used to mangled curricula, however, that their fundamental incoherencies are accepted as necessary ‘tensions’ produced by the competition of ‘stakeholders’” (1997, p. 206).
I cite here the example from Bybee and Ben-Zvi (1998, p. 488): “Using the term ‘scientific literacy’ implies a general education approach for the science curriculum. General education suggests that part of a student’s education that emphasizes an orientation towards personal development and citizenship … [it] suggests that one should begin the design of a program by asking what it is that a student ought to know, value, and do as a citizen.” They seem unaware that ‘personal development’ and ‘citizenship’ can seriously conflict. They further appear to assume that instrumentalized education for ‘citizenship’ as both definition and goal does not entail considerably difficulties in its own right. (Here one only need peruse the philosophy of education literature! For example, see Mitchell 2001). They continue: “We contrast this approach to designing a science curriculum with the initial effort in which individuals ask what it is about physics, chemistry, biology … that students should learn.” Here they explicitly devalue the Platonic project. As seen later, “literacy” is here defined in accordance with conceptions beholden to the STS paradigm.
One must tread carefully here. It is helpful to distinguish between “research programmes” (Lakatos 1970) within the science education research community and “paradigms”—often implicit and hidden—that encompass the beliefs, instruction, culture and curricula of practitioners in classrooms. The latter can be influenced by the former community to different degrees. Another distinction should include social groups and their “ideologies” which inhabit either university-driven research programs or classroom communities, although an alliance between the two can certainly exist (e.g. STS researchers and STS teachers). For a useful discussion of social groups and their interests, see Ernest (1991). For a discussion of the dominating community research programmes see Anderson (2007), Tsaparlis (2001) and Erickson (2000).
Namely, as a tradition influenced by key theories, texts and authorities that guide how groups of scholars, scientists or practitioners see evidence, solve problems, perform research and communicate with each other over a time period. His revised term for it as a “disciplinary matrix” serves equally well. But I do not follow him in his strict elaboration of the term defined as a single dominating one for the sciences. Shulman has argued that due to the richness and complexity of such fields like education and the social sciences their “mature stage” of development might instead be characterized by several leading and co-competing paradigms.
This omission does put into serious question my use of the term. No matter in what field where the term is commonly applied it is generally understood that at least one high-level theory characterizes the paradigm of the discipline, although a few may be in competition (e.g. Newton, Einstein in physics; Darwin in evolutionary biology; Skinner, Piaget and Ausubel in psychology; Marx, Weber in sociology, etc.).
See Good and Shymansky (2001) for how statements concerning NoS in both Benchmarks and NSES can be read from opposing modernist or postmodernist perspectives.
It is one thing to say a broader and more authentic science education should include the occasional critical discussion involving the oft neglected nature of ‘frontier science’ and related socio-scientific issues, and that the literacy definition could possibly comprise some aspect of this; it is quite another to demand that the discipline and literacy should be defined by and structured around frontier science, socio-technological issues or even socio-political action exclusively. Such a radical approach, as Shamos has insightfully remarked, usually skirts the core question of how the science itself should be taught and learned. And there is certainly no need here to repeat the earlier and still unresolved debate of the 1980s “curricular wars”, the conflict between two major curriculum models: between those who sought (and still seek) to organize curriculum around STS type-themes and those who resist any such context not heavily tied to the subject disciplines and knowledge structures (see Bybee and DeBoer 1994, pp. 378–80). Besides the fact that this debate looks suspiciously like the older version of the ‘Platonic’ academic programme (i.e. Hirst 1974) versus socialization, it could certainly have used some philosophical-historical insight.
Those within the recent Science-Societal Issues (SSI) approach argue that STS has failed to properly account for an explicit NoS discussion, for scientific argumentation and for ethical and cultural values connected with techno-scientific impact issues, and, more importantly, it lacks a theoretical framework.
This induction does include three sub-purposes as “curriculum emphases”, which Roberts (1982) had identified as the requirement to: (i) build a “solid foundation” (logic of subject topics in succeeding years), (ii) give “correct explanations” (“products”), and (iii) ensure “scientific skill development” (“processes”).
It might be objected that teachers normally attempt to address valid aspects of both paradigms and allow for individual differences and needs. While this may be true in general, it fails to acknowledge that curriculum is prescribed and that traditionalism is by far the status quo—hence there is often little maneuverability between desired and dictated curriculum. Exactly for these reasons Jenkins (2000) has called for a “paradigm shift” in science education. However, as I see it, even if this was successful, the traditionalist paradigm would nonetheless remain behind as an effective competitor. (“Paradigm” is here understood not in the strict Kuhnian sense but, again, according to Shulman 1986).
The paper by Pedretti et al., is revealing on several levels, not least of all what is exposed here about their social group “ideology”, predisposed to the validity of the STSE paradigm (especially among researchers in Canada), as the only legitimate educational game in town.
Where, for example, fundamental goals, criteria for content selection, and critiques of epistemologies, learning theories and instructional methods can be debated, and the focus on developing in-house educational theories—especially how such theories can inform practice—can be nurtured. Also to help clarify the relationship between educational theories and philosophy itself, which has its own concerns, as Hirst (1966) first noted. No such single academic platform currently exists although the listed topics and debates have appeared sporadically over time and for different reasons, and some are scattered across different research journals and handbooks. But because of the ongoing sub-specialization within science education I fear the consideration requisite to such concerns is, and continues to be, lost sight of. Fensham (2000) and Jenkins (2001, 2000) have dropped tantalizing hints in this direction, though not explicitly. Certainly what Kyle et al. (1992) have suggested would move within the orbit of such a sub-discipline (to delineate the field of research inquiry itself), as would an analysis of various “research programmes” of learning theories (Anderson 2007; Erickson 2000). I mention here Roberts and Russell (1975), who earlier argued for the need of philosophical informal analysis for examining common concepts (like “teaching”).
He suggests such a philosophy would need to distinguish and analyze at least four problem-sets (which I have transposed): (1) the nature of science for science education; (2) aims of science education (& science literacy); (3) the nature of science learning; (4) the nature of science teaching and assessment. Thereto, I would add: (5) the nature of language in curriculum, instruction and learning; and (6) the relation of science literacy and education goals to technology education (Layton 1993). He foregrounds a useful analysis of educational “ideologies”, including their connection to five kinds of social groups. (Note Table 6.3, p. 138).
This is not meant to imply there has not been some important research work which has sought to clarify the differences between the two for science educational purposes, although such literature tends to favour conceptual change research, where the “philosophy” in question usually refers to philosophy of science (Duschl and Hamilton 1992; Duschl et al. 1990).
Indeed, there exists little reference to “philosophy of education”, “educational theory” or just plain “philosophy” (Jenkins 2000, 1992; Millar et al. 2000; Hurd 2000; 1994; Shymansky and Kyle 1992). When scanning for the reference of such terms in the community’s established research journals (e.g. Science Education; Journal of Research in Science Teaching) it quickly becomes apparent that when, for example, “philosophy of education” is cited the sense is rarely linked to that discipline and its concerns.
A recent significant contribution in this direction is the paper by Olesko (2006).
A comparison of Egan and Dewey represents a fascinating clash of two contrasting conceptions or philosophies of education, one I cannot address here (see instead Polito 2005; Egan 2002). In passing one can disclose they are as incommensurate as are the fundamental differences which Bruner (1997) has identified between Piaget and Vygotsky in the field of psychology, both of whose developmental ideas have been raided by science educators to augment their learning theories (Duit and Treagust 1998).
This proposal certainly opposes the politically-driven trend in some countries, such as England, to downgrade the value of philosophy of education for teacher training purposes because of a mistaken belief and a myopic concern “insisting on the direct practical relevance of all educational courses” (Hirst 2008b, p. 309).
In Bruning et al. (1995), p. 218 (a standard textbook in teacher preparation courses for the use of cognitive psychology in instruction), the authors explicitly admit that three different kinds of constructivism (‘exogenous’, ‘endogenous’, and ‘dialectical’) are beholden to three different metatheories (mechanical, organismic and contextualist, respectively).
Many of these are characterized by descriptive and prescriptive elements (either implicit or explicit).
It should be noted that Dewey’s aim is among the least predetermined of the others, although it could reasonably be argued that Kant’s ideal is also dynamic in so far as he allows for education’s dual aim, the “perfecting” of man qua man plus the improvement of society and “the human race”. In addition, Frankena (1965, p. 156) also notes that such a dual aim in Dewey could considerably conflict—that the expected growth of the individual and society may clash—in anticipation of Egan’s critique, which claims the clash is inevitable in so far as modern schooling is molded according to progressivist precepts. Alternatively, for Dewey, but also for Aristotle and Kant, such a possible conflict was thought to be reconcilable in principle.
Such questions are actually the purview of what is demanded of an educational theory. Philosophy of education properly understood is a much broader field of inquiry that encompasses an analysis of such theories and questions (Peters 1966), which today usually overlaps with curriculum studies. Frankena seems to have been working with a constricted conception at the level of theory.
Egan asserts in fact that the weight of theory goes all the way down, because “every consideration relating to education—whether the organization of furniture in the classroom or matters of local policy-making, so far as these are educational rather than socializing matters—must be derived from an educational theory. That is, there can be no such thing in education as distinct lower-level theories—whether of classroom design or instruction or motivation or whatever—but only general, comprehensive educational theories with either implications for [such] things or direct claims about such things …” (1983, p.123). Alternatively, Hirst (1966) had argued against the view of education as an autonomous discipline.
A fundamental difference is that such a theory is not empirically testable in practice (at least according to some presently applied research conceptions and methods), which is not to imply it will have no empirical consequences. See here Hirst (1966) and Driver (1997). One may speak loosely, for example, about the “falsifiability” of such a theory if its methods do not contribute in large measure to the aim/ideal sought, however, because of the complexity of educational phenomena even here caveats abound. Again the problem is that as an independent discipline education must spell out a useful notion characteristic of the discipline and not beholden to previously framed conceptions specific and useful in other fields, which are hardly transferable. On the surface the magnitude of this difficulty for education should not be expected to be of the same order, nor create the same dilemmas, as it has for “scientific psychology” which explicitly seeks to emulate the natural sciences. Egan (1983, p. 119) writes: “The study of education is [to be] engaged in so that we may construct better educational programs, and prescribing how to construct such programs is the function of educational theories. Such theories are clearly unlike theories in physics or psychology, and we might well debate whether the differences are so great that the term “theory” should not be used to refer to them.” He goes on to argue that the term serves an important purpose and, in any event, the question should be decided on pragmatic grounds, and hence should be chosen.
Hirst (1966, p. 40) had made this distinction decades earlier, but it bears repeating again: “Educational theory is in the first place to be understood as the essential background to rational educational practice, not as a limited would-be scientific pursuit.” He goes on to criticize those who would “fall back” on their “scientific paradigm maintaining that the theory must be simply a collection of pieces of psychology.” Both Hirst and Egan stress the normative character of such a theory. I should like to emphasize that from an Aristotelean point of view (and I would like to interpret Hirst here accordingly) the fundamental difference lies in the nature of the reasoning involved—phronesis (“practical discourse”) instead of episteme (“knowledge that is organized for the pursuit of knowledge and the understanding of our experience”). Originally I had thought to have discovered an implied recognition of this distinction in his paper but he has admitted of late to having “failed” to acknowledge this in his earlier works (2008a, pp. 119–120).
Norris and Kvernbekk do not seem aware of this, nor is there any reference to philosophy of education.
This would also hold true for conceptual change theory (CCT), which Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2007, p. 190) have pointed out is probably the only original “educational theory” (used in the restricted sense) so far explicitly developed by science educators.
References
Abd-El-Khalick F, Akerson VL (2007) On the role and use of “theory” in science education research: a response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Sci Educ 91(1):187–194. doi:10.1002/sce.20189
Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) (2007) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Aikenhead G (1997) STL and STS: common ground or divergent scenarios? In: Jenkins E (ed) Innovations in scientific and technological education, vol VI. UNESCO, Paris, pp 77–93
Aikenhead G (2007) Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 880–930
Aldridge J, Kuby P, Strevy D (1992) Developing a metatheory of education. Psychol Rep 70:683–687. doi:10.2466/PR0.70.3.683-687
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061. Oxford University Press, New York
Anderson RN (1992) Perspectives on complexity: an essay on curricular reform. J Res Sci Teach 29(8):861–876
Anderson CW (2007) Perspectives on student learning. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3–30
Apple M (1992) Educational reform and educational crisis. J Res Sci Teach 29(8):779–789
Bailin S (2002) Critical thinking and science education. Sci & Educ 11:361–375. doi:10.1023/A:1016042608621
Barrow R, Woods R (1975/2006) An introduction to philosophy of education, 4th edn. Routledge, London
Barton AC, Yang K (2000) The culture of power and science education: learning from Miguel. J Res Sci Teach 37:871–889. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9
Bauer H (1992) Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago
Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E, Matthews M (eds) (2001) Science education and culture: the contribution of history and philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Blake N, Smeyers P, Smith R, Standish P (eds) (2003) ‘Introduction’, the Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. Blackwell, UK, pp 1–17
Boersma K, Goedhart M, De Jong O, Eijkelhof H (eds) (2005) Research and the quality of science education. Springer, Dordrecht
Brickhouse NW, Stanley WB, Whitson JA (1993) Practical reasoning and science education: implications for theory and practice. Sci & Educ 2:363–375. doi:10.1007/BF00488172
Briscoe C (1990) John Dewey’s philosophy of science: its relationship to science education. In: Herget DE (ed) More history and philosophy of science in science teaching. Florida State University Press, Tallahassee, pp 21–27
Bruner J (1997) Celebrating divergence. Piaget and Vygotsky. In: Bruner JS (ed) In search of pedagogy (2006), vol II. The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner. Routledge, London and New York, pp 187–197
Bruning RH, Schraw GJ, Ronning RR (1995) Cognitive psychology and instruction, 2nd edn. Merrill Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Burbules NC, Linn MC (1991) Science education and philosophy of science: congruence or contradiction? Int J Sci Educ 13:227–241. doi:10.1080/0950069910130302
Bybee R, Ben-Zvi N (1998) Science curriculum: transforming goals into practice. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part I. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 487–498
Bybee R, DeBoer GE (1994) Research on goals for the science curriculum. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 357–387
Carlsen WS (2007) Language and science learning. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 57–74
Carson RN (1998) Science and the ideals of liberal education. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part II. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1001–1014
Carson RN (2001) The epic narrative of intellectual culture as a framework for curricular coherence. In: Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E, Matthews M (eds) Science education and culture: the contribution of history and philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 67–82
Claxton G (1997) Science of the times: a 2020 vision of education. In: Levinson R, Thomas J (eds) Science today. Problem or crisis? Routledge, London and New York, pp 71–86
Cole M (1996) Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Council of Ministers of Education Canada (1997) Common framework of science learning outcomes k to 12: pan-canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Council of Ministers, Toronto, ON. [WWW document] URL. http://www.cmec.ca/science/framework/index.htm
Cushing JT (1989) A tough act—history, philosophy and introductory physics (An American perspective). Interchange 20(2):54–59. doi:10.1007/BF01807047
DeBoer GE (1991) History of ideas in science education implications for practice. Teachers College Press, New York and London
DeBoer GE (2000) Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J Res Sci Teach 37(6):582–601. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Dewey J (1916/1944) Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. Free Press, New York
Dewey J (1945) Method in science teaching. Sci Educ 29:119–123. doi:10.1002/sce.3730290303
Donnelly JF (2004) Humanizing science education. Sci Educ 88:762–784. doi:10.1002/sce.20004
Donnelly JF, Jenkins E (2001) Science education. policy, professionalism and change. Paul Chapman Publishing, Ltd, London
Driver R (1997) The application of science education theories: a response to Stephen P. Norris and Tone Kvernbekk. J Res Sci Teach 34(10):1007–1018. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1007::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
Duit R, Treagust D (1998) Learning in science—from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part I. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–26
Duit R, Niedderer H, Schecker H (2007) Teaching Physics. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 599–630
Duschl R (1990) Restructuring science education: the role of theories and their importance. Teachers college press, Columbia University, New York
Duschl R (1994) Research on the history and philosophy of science. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 443–465
Duschl RA, Hamilton RJ (eds) (1992) Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. State University of New York Press, Albany
Duschl RA, Hamilton RJ (1998) Conceptual change in science and in the learning of science. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part II. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1047–1065
Duschl RA, Hamilton R, Grady RE (1990) Psychology and epistemology: match or mismatch when applied to science education? Int J Sci Educ 12(3):230–243. doi:10.1080/0950069900120302
Egan K (1983) Education and psychology. plato, piaget and scientific psychology. Teachers College Press, New York and London
Egan K (1986/89) Teaching as story telling. Routledge, London
Egan K (1997) The educated mind: how cognitive tools shape our understanding? University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Egan K (2002) Getting it wrong from the beginning. Our progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey and Jean Piaget. Yale University Press, New Haven and London
Egan K (2005a) ‘Students’ development in theory and practice: the doubtful role of research’. Harv Educ Rev 75(1):25–42
Egan K (2005b) An imaginative approach to teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Eger M (1993) Hermeneutics as an approach to science: part I. Sci & Educ 2:1–29. doi:10.1007/BF00488169
Erickson G (2000) Research programmes and the student science learning literature. In: Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J (eds) Improving science education the contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp 271–292
Ernest PA (1991) Philosophy of mathematics education. Routledge-Falmer, London
Fensham P (1997) School science and its problems with scientific literacy. In: Levinson R, Thomas J (eds) Science today. Problem or crisis? Routledge, London and New York, pp 119–136
Fensham P (2000) Providing suitable content in the “science for all” curriculum. In: Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J (eds) Improving science education The contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp 147–164
Fensham P (2002) Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ 2(1):9–24
Frankena WK (1965) Three historical philosophies of education. Aristotle, Kant, Dewey. Scott Foresman and Company, Chicago
Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) (1998) International handbook of science education two volumes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London
Gabel D (ed) (1994) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York
Galili I, Hazan A (2001) ‘Experts’ views on using history and philosophy of science in the practice of physics instruction. Sci & Educ 10:345–367. doi:10.1023/A:1011209131446
Geelan D (1997) Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Sci & Educ 6(1–2):15–28. doi:10.1023/A:1017991331853
Gibbs WW, Fox D (1999) The false crisis in science education. Sci Am 281(4):87–92
Gilbert JK, Justi R, Van Driel J, De Jong O, Treagust DF (2004) Securing a future for chemical education. Chem Educ Res Pract 5(1):5–14
Good R, Shymansky J (2001) Nature-of-science literacy in benchmarks and standards: post-modern/relativist or modern/realist? In: Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E, Matthews M (eds) Science education and culture: the contribution of history and philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 53–66
Gunstone R, White R (2000) Goals, methods and achievements of research in science education. In: Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J (eds) Improving science education: the contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp 293–307
Hestenes D (1998) Who needs physics education research? Am J Phys 66:465–467. doi:10.1119/1.18898
Hirst P (1966) Educational theory. In: Tibble JW (ed) The study of education. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, New York, pp 29–58
Hirst P (1974) Knowledge and the curriculum. Routledge, London
Hirst P (2008a) In pursuit of reason. In: Waks LJ (ed) Leaders in philosophy of education intellectual self portraits. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 113–124
Hirst P (2008b) Philosophy of education in the UK. In: Waks LJ (ed) Leaders in philosophy of education intellectual self portraits. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 305–310. Appendix B
Hodson D (2003) Time for action: science education for an alternative future. Int J Sci Educ 25(6):645–670. doi:10.1080/09500690305021
Hurd PD (1994) New minds for a new age: prologue to modernizing the science curriculum. Sci Educ 78(1):103–116. doi:10.1002/sce.3730780107
Hurd PD (2000) Science education for the 21st century. Sch Sci Math 100(6):282–288
Jenkins E (1992) School science education: towards a reconstruction. J Curric Stud 24(3):229–246. doi:10.1080/0022027920240302
Jenkins E (1994) Public understanding of science and science education for action. J Curric Stud 26(6):601–611. doi:10.1080/0022027940260602
Jenkins E (1997) Scientific and technological literacy: meanings and rationales. In: Jenkins E (ed) Innovations in scientific and technological education, vol VI. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 11–39
Jenkins E (2000) “Science for all”: time for a paradigm shift? In: Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J (eds) Improving science education. The contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp 207–226
Jenkins E (2001) Science education as a field of research. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ 1(1):9–21
Jenkins E (ed) (2003) Innovations in scientific and technological education, vol VIII. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
Kalman C (2008) Successful science and engineering teaching theoretical and learning perspectives. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg
Keeves JP, Aikenhead GS (1995) Science curricula in a changing world. In: Fraser BJ, Walberg HJ (eds) Improving science education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 13–45
Kelly GJ (1997) Research traditions in comparative context: a philosophical challenge to radical constructivism. Sci Educ 81:355–375. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199705)81:3<355::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-D
Kitchener R (1992) Piaget’s genetic epistemology: epistemological implications for science education. In: Duschl RA, Hamilton RJ (eds) Philosophy of science cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 116–145
Klassen S (2006) A theoretical frame for the contextual teaching of science. Interchange 37(1/2):31–62. doi:10.1007/s10780-006-8399-8
Klopfer LE, Champagne AB (1990) Ghosts of Crisis Past. Sci Educ 74(2):133–153. doi:10.1002/sce.3730740202
Kozulin A (1998) Psychological tools. A sociocultural approach to education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Kruckeberg R (2006) A Deweyan perspective on science education: constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Sci & Educ 15:1–30. doi:10.1007/s11191-004-4812-9
Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kyle WC Jr, Abell SK, Roth W-M, Gallagher JJ (1992) Toward a mature discipline of science education. J Res Sci Teach 29:1015–1018. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290911
Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos Imre, Musgrave Alan (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 91–196
Laugksch R (2000) Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Sci Educ 84:71–94. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
Layton D (1993) Technology’s challenge to science education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK
Lederman NG (1998) The state of science education: subject matter without context. Electron J Sci Educ 3(2):[WWW document]. URL http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html
Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present and future. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 831–879
Lemke J (1990) Talking science. language, learning, values. Ablex, Norwood, NJ
Levinson R, Thomas J (eds) (1997) Science today. Problem or crisis? Routledge, London
Loving CC (1997) From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: science education’s journey through positivist-postmodern territory. Am Educ Res J 34(3):421–452
Lucas C (1972) Our Western Educational Heritage. Macmillan, New York
Mason CL, Gilbert SW (2004) A science education research organization’s perspective on reform in teaching undergraduate science. In: Sunal DW, Wright EL, Day JB (eds) Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp 301–316
Matthews M (1994) Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge, New York
Matthews M (2000) Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. In: Phillips DC (ed) Constructivism in education. Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues NSSE. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 161–192
McCarty LP (1990) Philosophy, Dewey and Education: The Deweyan perspective. In: Herget DE (ed) More history and philosophy of science in science teaching. Florida State University, Tallahassee, pp 13–20
McComas WF, Olson JK (1998) The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In: McComas WF (ed) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/ Boston/ London, pp 41–52
McDermott LC, Reddish EF (1999) Resource letter. PER-1: physics education research. Am J Phys 67(9):755–767. doi:10.1119/1.19122
Metz D, Klassen S, McMillan B, Clough M, Olson N (2007) Building a foundation for use of historical narratives. Sci & Educ 16:313–334. doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9024-z
Millar R (1997) Science education for democracy: what can the school curriculum achieve? In: Levinson R, Thomas J (eds) Science today. Problem or crisis? Routledge, London and New York, pp 87–101
Millar R, Osborne J (eds) (1998) Beyond 2000: science education for the future. King’s College School of Education, London
Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J (eds) (2000) Improving science education. The contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK
Mitchell K (2001) Education for democratic citizenship: transnationalism, multiculturalism, and the limits of liberalism. Harv Educ Rev 71(1):51–78
Moll LC (ed) (1990) Vygotsky and education instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National science education standards (NSES). National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Niaz M (1993) “Progressive problemshifts” between different research programs in science education: a Lakatosian perspective. J Res Sci Teach 30(7):757–765. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300712
Norris S, Kvernbekk T (1997) The application of science education theories. J Res Sci Teach 34(10):977–1005. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<977::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-L
Norris SP, Guilbert SM, Smith ML, Hakimelahi S, Phillips LM (2005) A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Sci Educ 89:535–563. doi:10.1002/sce.20063
Olesko KM (2006) Science pedagogy as a category of historical analysis: past, present and future. Sci & Educ 15:863–880. doi:10.1007/s11191-005-2014-8
Osborne J (1996) Beyond constructivism. Sci Educ 80(1):53–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199601)80:1<53::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-1
Osborne J, Dillon J (2008) Science education in Europe: critical reflections a report to the nuffield foundation. Kings College, London
Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
Pedretti EG, Bencze L, Hewitt J, Romkey L, Jivraj A (2006) Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: problems of identity and ideology. Sci & Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9060-8
Peters RS (1966) The philosophy of education. In: Tibble JW (ed) The study of education. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, New York, pp 59–90
Phillips DC (ed) (2000) Constructivism in education. Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. NSSE University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Polito T (2005) Educational theory as theory of culture: a Vichian perspective on the educational theories of John Dewey and Kieran Egan. Educ Philos Theory 37(4):475–494. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00136.x
Psillos D, Kariotoglou P, Tselfes V, Hatzikraniotis E, Fassoulopoulos G, Kallery M (eds) (2003) Science education research in the knowledge-based society. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London
Roberts DA (1982) Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Sci Educ 66:243–260. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660209
Roberts DA (2007) Scientific literacy/science literacy. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 729–780
Roberts DA, Russell TL (1975) An alternative approach to science education: drawing from philosophical analysis to examine practice. Curriculum Theory Netw 5(2):107–125. doi:10.2307/1179275
Roth W-M, Barton AC (2004) Rethinking Scientific Literacy. RoutledgeFalmer, NY
Roth W-M, Desautels J (eds) (2002) Science education as/for sociopolitical action. Peter Lang, New York
Rudolph JL (2000) Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. J Curriculum Stud 32(3):403–419. doi:10.1080/002202700182628
Rudolph JL (2002) Portraying epistemology: school science in historical context. Sci Educ 87:64–79
Scerri E (2003) Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. J Chem Educ 80(5):468–494
Scheffler I (1970/1992) Philosophy and the curriculum. Reprinted in Sci & Educ 1(1):71–76
Scott P, Asoko H, Leach J (2007) Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 31–56
Shamos MH (1995) The myth of scientific literacy. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ
Shulman LS (1986) Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In: Wittrock MC (ed) Handbook of research in teaching, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York, pp 3–36
Shymansky J, Kyle WC Jr (1992) Establishing a research agenda: critical issues of science curriculum reform. J Res Sci Teach 29(8):749–778
Siegel H (1989) The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese 80(1):9–32. doi:10.1007/BF00869946
Siegel H (1992) Two perspectives on reason as an educational aim: the rationality of reasonableness. Philos Educ 225–233
Sjøberg S (2003) Science and Technology Education in Europe: Current Challenges and Possible Solutions. In: Jenkins E (ed) Innovations in Scientific and Technological Education, vol VIII. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 201–228
Snively G, MacKinnon A (eds) (1995) Thinking globally about mathematics and science education. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Solomon J (1999) Meta-scientific criticisms, curriculum innovation and the propagation of scientific culture. J Curriculum Stud 31(1):1–15. doi:10.1080/002202799183269
Stenhouse D (1986) Conceptual change in science education: paradigms and language games. Sci Educ 70(4):413–425. doi:10.1002/sce.3730700407
Stinner A (1995) Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: towards a more humanistic science education. Sci Educ 79(5):555–581. doi:10.1002/sce.3730790506
Stinner A, Mcmillan B, Metz D, Jilek JM, Klassen S (2003) The renewal of case studies in science education. Sci & Educ 12:617–643. doi:10.1023/A:1025648616350
Sunal DW, Wright EL, Day J (eds) (2004) Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT
Sutton C (1998) New perspectives on language in science. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part I. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 27–38
Thomas G (1997) What’s the use of theory? Harv Educ Rev 67(1):75–104
Tsaparlis G (2001) Editorial: theories in science education at the threshold of the third millennium. Chem Educ Res Pract Eur 2:1–4
Van den Akker J (1998) The science curriculum: between ideals and outcomes. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education part I. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 421–448
Waks LJ (ed) (2008) Leaders in philosophy of education intellectual self portraits. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam
Walker DF, Soltis JF (1986/1997) Curriculum and aims, 3rd edn. Teachers College Press, New York
Wandersee JH, Mintzes JL, Novak JD (1994) Research on alternative conceptions in science. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 177–210
Wong D, Pugh K, The Dewey Ideas Group (2001) Learning science: the Deweyan perspective. J Res Sci Teach 38(3):317–336. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<317::AID-TEA1008>3.0.CO;2-9
Yager RE (ed) (1996) Science/society/technology as reform in science education. (Suny series in science education). State University Press, New York
Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ 89:357–377. doi:10.1002/sce.20048
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schulz, R.M. Reforming Science Education: Part I. The Search for a Philosophy of Science Education. Sci & Educ 18, 225–249 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9167-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9167-1