Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curricula in quicksand?

Scientific thought and the nature of science have been perennial concerns of science teachers and science curriculum developers. That is, the development of students' scientific thinking patterns and understandings of science as a way of knowing have been formally identified as desired outcomes of science instruction since the beginning of this century, and arguably earlier (Lederman 1992). Our desire to help students develop scientific thinking skills and an adequate understanding of the nature of science continues to this day, as is evidenced by the various contemporary reforms in science education (AAAS 1993; National Research Council 1994). Wallis Suchting's comprehensive search for a definition of the nature of scientific thought (Suchting 1995) has significant implications for the aforementioned goals of the science education community. Notwithstanding the almost certain disagreements regarding Suchting's analytical methods, his ultimate conclusion that there is no final, ultimate answer to the question of the nature of scientific thought should receive careful consideration as it has significant implications for science instruction, curriculum development, research in science education, and the content and focus of science education reform. In particular, these implications relate specifically to the science education community's current conceptions of science process, nature of science, and multiculturalism in science.     

Thought Experiments: Determining Their Meaning

This paper considers thought experiment as a special scientific tool that mediates between theory and experiment by mental simulation. To clarify the meaning of thought experiment, as required in teaching science, we followed the relevant episodes throughout the history of science paying attention to the epistemological status of the performed activity. A definition of thought experiment is suggested and its meaning is analyzed using two-dimensional conceptual variation. This method allows one to represent thought experiment in comparison with the congenerous conceptual constructs also defined. A similar approach is used to classify the uses of thought experiments, mainly for the purpose of science curriculum.

---

Tools for Reflection: Video-Based Reflection Within a Preservice Community of Practice

Current reform in science education calls for teachers to understand student thinking within a lesson to effectively address students’ needs (NRC in A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2012; NRC in Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015). This study investigates how to scaffold preservice teachers with learning to attend to students’ thinking for the purpose of guiding curricular decisions. The study focuses on one team teaching a science unit during their early field experience. We sought to understand how participants’ thoughts and abilities changed through participation in a moderated community of practice using video of their own teaching as a reflective tool. We examined how these changes affected both their classroom practice and their decision-making for future lessons. Evidence shows growth in participants’ ability to identify opportunities to elicit, assess, and use students’ thinking to guide instructional decisions. Implications for use of the approach used in this study to begin developing novice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching science are discussed.     

Scientism and Scientific Thinking

The move from respecting science to scientism, i.e., the idealization of science and scientific method, is simple: We go from acknowledging the sciences as fruitful human activities to oversimplifying the ways they work, and accepting a fuzzy belief that Science and Scientific Method, will give us a direct pathway to the true making of the world, all included. The idealization of science is partly the reason why we feel we need to impose the so-called scientific terminologies and methodologies to all aspects of our lives, education too. Under this rationale, educational policies today prioritize science, not only in curriculum design, but also as a method for educational practice. One might expect that, under the scientistic rationale, science education would thrive. Contrariwise, I will argue that scientism disallows science education to give an accurate image of the sciences. More importantly, I suggest that scientism prevents one of science education’s most crucial goals: help students think. Many of my arguments will borrow the findings and insights of science education research. In the last part of this paper, I will turn to some of the most influential science education research proposals and comment on their limits. If I am right, and science education today does not satisfy our most important reasons for teaching science, perhaps we should change not just our teaching strategies, but also our scientistic rationale. But that may be a difficult task.     

Teaching and Learning Science in Hungary, 1867–1945: Schools,Personalities, Influences

The article provides an overview of the development of teaching science in Hungary during both the time of the dual monarchy and the newly established independent Hungary after 1920. The integration of Hungary into the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867–1918) strengthened the effect of German speaking European science, the results of which were quickly channelled into the Hungarian school system at all levels. The Hungarian Academy as well as the University of Budapest (today Eötvös Loránd University) played a leading role in the ?nationalization” of European science in the educational system. Scientific developments in Hungary strengthened the position of rational and secular thinking in a highly religious society and contributed to the erosion of the mental power of the church tradition, particularly that of the Roman Catholic Church. Toward World War I, influenced by the Protestant Churches, the Jewish tradition, and agnosticism, the public picture of science became more international, occasionally ready to consider challenges of the accepted world view, and sometimes less dogmatic. Leading Hungarian figures with an international reputation who played a decisive role in making science part of Hungarian thinking included the physicists Baron Loránd Eötvös and Sándor Mikola, the mathematicians László Rácz and George Pólya as well as a host of others in related fields. Emigration, mostly Jewish, after World War I, contributed to the curtailment of efforts to teach science effectively as some of the best people left Hungary for, mostly, Germany, Britain, and the United States. However, the interwar school system, the Hungarian version of the German Gymnasium, continued to disseminate scientific thought in Hungarian education. Much of the information was foreign and appeared simply in translation—but an impressive array of indigeneous scientific results paved the way to a larger educated middle class then in the making.     

“But The Soldier’s Remains Were Gone”: Thought Experiments in Children’s Literature

In this article thought experiments are uncovered as key stimuli of philosophical potential in children’s literature and their presentation and function is examined in a selection of focal texts, including: Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass (1871); Even the Parrot by Dorothy Sayers (1944); Nina Bawden’s Carrie’s War (1974); and A Game of Soldiers (1985) by Jan Needle. The thought experiment is a device common to science and philosophy and has been recognised as an heuristic tool in literature generally, but here children’s literature is drawn into the conversation, revealing that—as a dynamic mechanism of children’s narrative—thought experiments have a long-standing and particular role to play in books for young people. This paper connects with a recent turn in children’s literature discourse toward the conditions of power in books for young readers; it moves on the debate by demonstrating that the apparatus of thought experimentation places the implied child reader in a position of philosophical responsibility and forward thinking. Presenting thought experiments in different ways, formal properties of the thought experiment—such as conversational mode, double engagement and modal positioning—are identified and shown to open up a philosophical space of subsequence in children’s texts.     

Jong-Hsiang Yang: a major promoter of Taiwanese science education

This article reviews the work of Jong-Hsiang Yang in science education and his efforts in creating a research culture in Taiwan. Following in Yang’s footprints, the rebuilding of science education, implementing a new science curriculum, and gaining the academic status of science education, we go through the important years of the development of science education in Taiwan. His leadership in introducing interpretive research methods and expanding international studies catalyzed profound changes to science education research in Taiwan.

Toward the sociopolitical in science education

In this paper, we explore how Jacques Rancière’s (The ignorant schoolmaster: five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991) notions of radical equality and dissensus reveal horizons for activism and sociopolitical engagement in science education theory, research, and practice. Drawing on Rochelle Gutiérrez’ (J Res Math Educ 44(1):37–68, 2013a. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037; J Urban Math Educ 6(2):7–19, b) “sociopolitical turn” for mathematics education, we identify how the field of science education can/is turning from more traditional notions of equity, achievement and access toward issues of systemic oppression, identity and power. Building on the conversation initiated by Lorraine Otoide who draws from French philosopher Jacques Rancière to experiment with a pedagogy of radical equality, we posit that a sociopolitical turn in science education is not only imminent, but necessary to meet twenty-first century crises.     

On the Relationship Between <Emphasis Type="Italic">Belief</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Acceptance</Emphasis> of Evolution as Goals of Evolution Education

The issue of the proper goals of science education and science teacher education have been a focus of the science education and philosophy of science communities in recent years. More particularly, the issue of whether belief/acceptance of evolution and/or understanding are the appropriate goals for evolution educators and the issue of the precise nature of the distinctions among the terms knowledge, understanding, belief, and acceptance have received increasing attention in the 12 years since we first published our views on these subjects. During that time, our own views about these issues have evolved, and this article presents a reconsideration of both these distinctions and the propriety of these goals. In particular, the present paper continues our discussion of the nature of belief as it relates to science education, and more specifically to evolution education. We extend that work to consider the import of the distinction between belief and acceptance.     

Toward re-thinking science education in terms of affective practices: reflections from the field

Rational and operationalized views of science and what it means for teachers and students to know and enact legitimate science practices have dominated science education research for many decades (Fusco and Barton in J Res Sci Teach 38(3):337–354, 2001. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<337::AID-TEA1009>3.0.CO;2-0). Michalinos Zembylas challenges historically prevalent dichotomies of mind/body, reason/emotion, and emotion/affect, calling researchers and educators to move beyond the Cartesian dualisms, which have perpetuated a myth of scientific objectivity devoid of bias, subjectivity and emotions. Zembylas (Crit Stud Teach Learn 1(1):1–21, 2013. doi: 10.14426/cristal.v1i1.2) contends that the role of emotions and affect are best understood as relational and entangled in epistemological, cultural, and historical contexts of education, which represent contested sites of control and resistance. We argue that Zembylas’ work is pivotal since “theoretical frames of reference for doing research in science education…[and] what constitutes knowledge and being within a particular frame” carry material bearings over the enactments of science teaching and learning (Kyle in J Res Sci Teach 31:695–696, 1994, p. 321. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660310703). In this paper, we hold cogen dialogue about how re-thinking notions of emotion and affect affords us, both science educators and researchers, to re-envision science education beyond cognitive and social frames. The framing of our dialogue as cogen builds on Wolff-Michael Roth and Kenneth Tobin’s (At the elbows of another: learning to teach through coteaching. Peter Lang Publishing, New York, 2002) notion of cogenerative dialogue. Holding cogen is an invitation to an openly dialogic and safe area, which serves as a space for a dialogic inquiry that includes radical listening of situated knowledges and learning from similarities as well as differences of experiences (Tobin in Cult Stud Sci Educ, in review, 2015). From our situated experiences reforms, colleges of education, schools, and curriculum place not enough emphasis on affective and bodily dimensions of teaching and learning. Instead, the privilege seems to be given to reason, evidence, and rationalities, which continue to reinforce dominant ways of knowing and experiencing. The separation of mind and body, reason and emotion, effect and affect in teaching and research might bear unintended and negative consequences for many children and teachers who are engaged in bodily and affective forms of learning science. In this forum we wish to expand on the discussion to consider the interdependent nature of learning, experience, and affect by drawing on our work with science teachers and culturally and linguistically diverse students, juxtaposed alongside Zembylas’ reflections, to further theorize the affective turn in science education.     

Decentering: A construct to analyze and explain teacher actions as they relate to student thinking

Mathematics educators and writers of mathematics education policy documents continue to emphasize the importance of teachers focusing on and using student thinking to inform their instructional decisions and interactions with students. In this paper, we characterize the interactions between a teacher and student(s) that exhibit this focus. Specifically, we extend previous work in this area by utilizing Piaget’s construct of decentering (The language and thought of the child. Meridian Books, Cleveland, 1955) to explain teachers’ actions relative to both their thinking and their students’ thinking. In characterizing decentering with respect to a teacher’s focus on student thinking, we use two illustrations that highlight the importance of decentering in making in-the-moment decisions that are based on student thinking. We also discuss the influence of teacher decentering actions on the quality of student–teacher interactions and their influence on student learning. We close by discussing various implications of decentering, including how decentering is related to other research constructs including teachers’ development and enactment of mathematical knowledge for teaching.     

Key contributors: Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism

This article reviews the significance of the contributions of Ernst von Glasersfeld to research in science education, especially through his theoretical contributions on radical constructivism. As a field shaper, Glasersfeld’s subversive ideas catalyzed debate in the science education community and fuelled transformation of many facets including research methods, ways of thinking about teaching and learning, curriculum, and science teacher education. Perturbations emanating from the debates on constructivism forged new pathways that led to the development and use of many of the sociocultural frameworks employed by authors in Cultural Studies of Science Education.

Postcolonial foldings of space and identity in science education: limits, transformations, prospects

The four essays reviewed here constitute a worthwhile attempt to discuss various aspects of postcolonial theory, and offer constructive ideas to ongoing academic as well as public conversations with respect to whether science education can meet the challenges of educating an increasingly diverse population in the 21st century. These essays are grounded in the assumption that it is difficult to make meaningful and transformative changes in science education so that educators’ efforts take into consideration the dramatic changes (i.e., diverse culture and racial origins, language, economic status etc.) of ‘an era of globalization’ in order to meet the demands of today’s schools. Each of these four essays problematizes various aspects of the social and cultural conditions of science education nowadays using different ‘postcolonial’ ideas to interpret the implications for science learning and teaching. Although the term ‘postcolonial’ has certainly multiple meanings in the literature, we use this term here to describe the philosophical position of these essays to challenge long-standing and hegemonic practices and taken-for-granted assumptions in science education. Through critical analysis of these essays, we engage in a dialogue with the authors, focusing on two of what seem crucial issues in understanding the potential contributions as well as the risks of postcolonial concepts in science education; these issues are space and identity. We choose these issues because they permeate all four essays in interesting and often provocative ways.

Romantic understanding and science education

This essay outlines the potential role for Kieran Egan’s (1990 Egan K (1990) Romantic understanding Chicago University of Chicago Press  [Google Scholar]) notion of “romantic understanding” in science education. A summary of conventional approaches to science education is followed by a detailed analysis of the implications that romantic understanding may have for the science curriculum, teaching and student learning. In particular the relationship between teaching scientific concepts versus scientific ideas is discussed as well as the possible role in science teaching of inspiration, anticipation, and aesthetic understanding.     

Authentic science experiences as a vehicle to change students’ orientations toward science and scientific career choices: Learning from the path followed by Brad

Bringing a greater number of students into science is one of, if not the most fundamental goals of science education for all, especially for heretofore-neglected groups of society such as women and Aboriginal students. Providing students with opportunities to experience how science really is enacted—i.e., authentic science—has been advocated as an important means to allow students to know and learn about science. The purpose of this paper is to problematize how “authentic” science experiences may mediate students’ orientations towards science and scientific career choices. Based on a larger ethnographic study, we present the case of an Aboriginal student who engaged in a scientific internship program. We draw on cultural–historical activity theory to understand the intersection between science as practice and the mundane practices in which students participate as part of their daily lives. Following Brad, we articulate our understanding of the ways in which he hybridized the various mundane and scientific practices that intersected in and through his participation and by which he realized his cultural identity as an Aboriginal. Mediated by this hybridization, we observe changes in his orientation towards science and his career choices. We use this case study to revisit methodological implications for understanding the role of “authentic science experiences” in science education.

Science, science education and their discontents: a response to commentaries on the paper, Portrait of a Science Teacher as a Bricoleur: A case study from India

In this response to commentaries by Ali Sammel, Jhumki Basu and Alberto Rodriguez, I present my perspective on three important issues raised by the commentators. These issues relate to the role of a researcher in her field settings and society, the critique of science and science education as oppressive dominant discourses, and co-opting participants as researchers. I argue that researchers should work actively for progressive change in discursive fields such as educational research, in which they are firmly embedded rather than playing an interventionist role in field settings where their discursive positionality maybe temporary and not that rooted. Regarding the critique of science and science education, my response favors a perspective wherein an understanding of the marginalization and oppression of non-western communities caused by western science and science education is counterbalanced by an appreciation of the ways in which marginalized communities can use science and science education for affecting progressive change. Lastly, I recognize the value of co-opting participants in writing and communication of research.

A Systematic Review of Remote Laboratory Work in Science Education with the Support of Visualizing its Structure through the <Emphasis Type="Italic">HistCite</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">CiteSpace</Emphasis> Software

Laboratory work, particularly the latest remote laboratories (RLs), has been assumed to have a general positive effect on science education because practical work can provide diverse learning experiences and enhance thinking skills suitable for the 21^st century. However, there has not been a synthesis of the science education research to support this assumption. The objective of this study is to systematically review the growth of educational research on laboratory work, particularly in RLs, utilizing a series of review processes with innovative software for visualizing structural relationships. The combined use and support of HistCite and CiteSpace software enabled the visualization of the citation structure and history of articles. The findings revealed that RLs were a state-of-the-art subset of laboratory work and a new way of conducting laboratory work that has gained fairly wide research attention in engineering education over the past two decades. Thus, this innovative literature review process has established a solid background for future research and development efforts on RLs in science education dealing with scientific and engineering practices.     

The historical context of science and education at the American Museum of Natural History

In this article I critically examine the historical context of science education in a natural history museum and its relevance to using museum resources to teach science today. I begin with a discussion of the historical display of race and its relevance to my practice of using the Museum’s resources to teach science. I continue with a critical review of the history of the education department in a natural history museum to demonstrate the historical constitution of current practices of the education department. Using sociocultural constructs around identity formation and transformation, I move to the present with a case study of a teacher who transforms the structure of science education in her classroom and school as a result of her identity transformation and association with a museum-based professional education program.

Reconfiguring the optics of the critical gaze in science education (after the critique of critique): (re)thinking “what counts” through Foucaultian prismatics

The purpose of this article is to explore what Michel Foucault refers to as “the” critical attitude and its relationship to science education, drawing from Foucault’s (The politics of truth. Semiotext(e), New York, 1997) insight that the critical attitude is but a critical attitude. This article is a rejoinder to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper, “Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action”. Where Danielsonn and colleagues think with Foucaultian power/knowledge to examine and (re)consider teacher-student didactic relations in science and technology education, this article critically examines the power/knowledge relationship between science educators and science education to critically explore the modes of criticality produced and produceable. Particularly, I explore possibilities for and of critique that stem from and respond to what Bruno Latour (Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993) refers to as the crisis and critique of critique.