‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?

Michael Allen

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75358

Full Text (PDF)

Michael Allen ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Current school science curricula attempt to reflect contemporary constructivist- provisionalist related epistemologies as accepted by professional science. It is argued that conversely, the effect of science education is the creation of pupils holding naïve-realist epistemological beliefs, largely inductivist-positivist absolutists who chase an irrefutable ‘right answer’. This outcome has unwelcome consequences: Encouraging positivist mind-sets during school science practical work that trigger confirmation bias and other deviant evidential attitudes. Philosophical inconsistency creating epistemological confusion with a tendency towards positivism that continues into higher education, and perhaps beyond. This forms a significant barrier to science learning and impacts on the quality of scientists within the workforce. Solutions are offered but as things presently stand, significant change is deemed unlikely. Discussion of these issues is timely in the light of the recent introduction into English secondary schools of a teaching scheme that articulates a post-positivist view of the nature of science, in the form of a How Science Works strand.

Keywords

literacy
religion
science
sociocultural
superstition

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2008, Volume 4, Issue 4, 319-326

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

Publication date: 22 Dec 2008

Article Views: 1147

Article Downloads: 998

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Allchin, D. (1998). Values in science and science education. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1083-1092). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ben-Ari, M. (2005). Situated learning in ‘this high-technology world’. Science & Education, 14, 367-376.
Allen, M. (2005). Encouraging pupil error may promote better understanding of a scientific concept. School Science Review, 86, 79-85.
AQA (2006). General Certificate of Secondary Education: Science A, 2007. London: Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
Austin, R., Holding, B., Bell, J. and Daniels, S. (1991). Patterns and Relationships in School Science. Assessment Matters: No. 7. London: SEAC/EMU.
Driver, R. (1975). The name of the game. School Science Review, 56, 800-805.
Claxton, G. (1986). The alternative conceiver's conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 13, 123-130.
Fairbrother, R. and Hackling, M. (1997). Is this the right answer? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 887- 894.
Farrar, S. and Shepherd, J. (2006). Campus believers preach Genesis. Times Higher Educational Supplement, June 23rd, 6- 7.
Fisher, K. M. and Lipson, J. I. (1986). Twenty questions about student error. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 783-803.
Fordham, A. (1980). Student intrinsic motivation, science teaching practices and student learning. Research in Science Education, 10, 108-117.
Foulds, K., Gott, R. and Feasey, R. (1992). Investigative Work in Science. Durham: University of Durham.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press.
Gott, R. and Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. Buckingham: The Open University Press.
Gott, R. and Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 791-806.
Greenwald, A., Pratkanis, A., Lieppe, M. and Baumgardner, M. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216-229.
Gunstone, R. F. and Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. HegartyHazel (Ed.), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum (pp159-182). London: Routledge.
Gunstone. R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp67-77). Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.
Hipkins, R. and Barker, M. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: modest adaptations or radical reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 243–254.
Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
Huizenga, J. R. (1993). Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kirschner, P. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Skills in Science Education, 1, 273-299.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. and O'Loughlan, M. (1988). The Development of Scientific Thinking. San Diego: Academic Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd Edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lubben, F. and Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 955-968.
Millar, R. (1989). Bending the evidence: the relationship between theory and experiment in science education, In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education (pp38-61). London: Falmer Press.
Millar, R. (1991). A means to an end: the role of processes in science education. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp67-77). Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.
National Academy of Science (1995). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nott, M. and Smith, R. (1995). Talking your way out of it, “rigging” and “conjuring”: what science teachers do when practicals go wrong. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 399-410.
Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. School Science Review, 82, 23–31.
Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R. and Duschl, R. (2001). What should we teach about science? A Delphi study (Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) Report). London: School of Education, King's College.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2006). Programme of Study: Science. London: Crown Copyright. Found at: http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/10340_science_pro g_of_study_from_2006_ks4.pdf Accessed 2nd September 2006.
Rigano, D. L. and Richie, S. M. (1995). Student disclosures of fraudulent practice in school laboratories. Research in Science Education, 25, 353-363.
Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2006). The role of evidence in the new KS4 National Curriculum for England and the AQA specifications. School Science Review, 87, 29-39.
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
Roth, W-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197-223.
Roth, W-M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B. and Boutonne, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 509-533.
Simon, S. A. and Jones, A. T. (1992). Open Work in Science: A Review of Existing Practice. London: Kings College.
Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C. and Hennessey, G. M. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349–422.
Thoermer, C. and Sodian, B. (2002). Science undergraduates’ and graduates’ epistemologies of science: the notion of interpretive frameworks. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 263– 283.
Toplis, R. (2004). What do key stage 4 pupils think about science investigations? Science Teacher Education, 41, 8-9.
Wellington, J. (1981). 'What's supposed to happen, sir?': some problems with discovery learning. School Science Review, 63, 167-173.
Wittrock, M. C. (1994). Generative science teaching. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone and R. White (Eds.), The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning (pp29-38). London: The Falmer Press.

How to cite this article

APA

Allen, M. (2008). ‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(4), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

Vancouver

Allen M. ‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2008;4(4):319-26. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

AMA

Allen M. ‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2008;4(4), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

Chicago

Allen, Michael. "‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2008 4 no. 4 (2008): 319-326. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

Harvard

Allen, M. (2008). ‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(4), pp. 319-326. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358

MLA

Allen, Michael "‘Now This is What Should have Happened…’: A Clash of Classroom Epistemologies?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 4, no. 4, 2008, pp. 319-326. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75358