Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 1289–1305 | Cite as

Narrative Pedagogies in Science, Mathematics and Technology

  • Linda Hobbs
  • Rob Davis


Despite years of research, there remains serious concern regarding the engagement of students in science, mathematics and technology education. In this paper, the authors explore how narrative pedagogies are used in science, mathematics and technology in order to make the subjects meaningful. The paper focuses specifically on the role and aesthetic nature of narrative as a pedagogical approach in these school subjects and between school sectors. Case study methodology was used to compare the findings of two independent studies investigating the role of narrative-based pedagogies in mathematics and science (first author) and technology (second author). Based on this comparison, this paper proposes two perspectives on narrative-based pedagogies that deal with the connection of students with the subject: inward-looking that situated the learner within the story generated around artefact creation, and outward-looking that situated the stories of the content into students’ lifeworlds. The use of this comparative lens enabled a higher level of analysis that could not have been achieved by each research programme, generating a broader narrative that provided deeper insight into the teaching and learning experience.


Aesthetics Education Mathematics Narrative Science Technology 


  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2010). The shape of the Australian curriculum v. 2.0. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.Google Scholar
  2. Boström, A. (2006) Sharing lived experience: how upper secondary school chemistry teachers and students use narratives to make chemistry more meaningful. Dissertation, Stockholm Institute of Education, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (2002). Making stories, law, literature, life. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, R. B. (1994). Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, L. (2002). Recognising commonalities and reconciling differences in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: learning about learning mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2008). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. (1990). Narrative experience and the study of curriculum. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3), 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darby, L. (2009). Translating a “relevance imperative” into junior secondary mathematics and science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 277–288.Google Scholar
  10. Darby, L. (2010). Subject cultures and pedagogy: Comparing secondary mathematics and science. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, R. S. (2005). Investigation of design technology issues in the primary classroom. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Brisbane, QUT.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, T. & Elmer, R. (2001). Learning in design and technology: The impact of social and cultural influences on modelling. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 163–180.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1934/1980) Art as experience. Dewey: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Doxiadis, A. (2003). Embedding mathematics in the soul: narrative as a force in mathematics education. Opening address to the Third Mediterranean Conference of Mathematics Education, Athens. 3 Jan 2003.
  16. Education & Training Committee. (2006). Inquiry into the promotion of mathematics and science education. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.Google Scholar
  17. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2002). Writing as inquiry: storying the teaching self in writing workshops. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elmer, R. (2002). Meta-cognition and design and technology education. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 7(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  19. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadanidis, G., & Hoogland, C. (2002). Mathematics as story.
  21. Gardner, H. (2004). Discipline, understanding, and community. Journal of Cirriculum Studies, 36(2), 233–236.Google Scholar
  22. Girod, M. & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Dewyan) perspective on science learning. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 199–224.Google Scholar
  23. Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87, 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1994). Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, A. (1994). Technological problem solving in two science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 24, 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, A. (2003). The development of a national curriculum in technology for New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerby, A. (1991). Narrative and the self. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity—a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 35–52.Google Scholar
  31. Mason, E. J., & Bramble, W. J. (1997). Research in education and the behavioral sciences: concepts and methods. Madison: Brown and Benchmark.Google Scholar
  32. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pavlova, M. (2009). Conceptualisation of technology education within the paradigm of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sinclair, N. (2004). The roles of the aesthetic in mathematical inquiry. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tauber, A. I. (1996). The elusive comparison: aesthetics and science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia's future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  40. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience; human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.Google Scholar
  41. VCAA. (2005). Victorian essential learning standards: discipline-based learning strand science. Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  42. Wickman, P. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Zembylas, M. (2005). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in science learning: conceptual change, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. Studies in Science Education, 41, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.University of BallaratBallaratAustralia
  3. 3.Waurn PondsAustralia

Personalised recommendations