Advertisement

Three Perspectives on the Science-Religion Issue in Science Education: Interdisciplinarity, Value or Ideology Orientation and Responsible Personalization

  • Jostein SætherEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 48)

Abstract

What principles should guide the teaching of controversial, value- or ideology- oriented topics in science education? An answer to this question may provide a frame of reference for the science-religion-worldview issue in school contexts, as well as a necessary background for my main question: Is interdisciplinarity the way to go, and how important is responsible personalization (subjectification) in this context? References to selected sources aim to build connections between the literature on science education and educational theory of a more general character. This chapter is not simply one more contribution from the perspectives of theology, philosophy and science on the relationship between science, worldviews, ideologies etc. However, in the introduction, I summarize a knowledge base for the following discussion. The purpose is to highlight challenges and dilemmas by discussing a didactic model combined with ten theses, which relate to the claim that interdisciplinarity, value or ideology orientation and responsible personalization are necessary preconditions in science education. To concretize, I refer particularly to the debate on methodological versus metaphysical naturalism.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my colleagues Solveig Magnus Reindal, Njål Skrunes and Geir Olav Toft. The models we have developed originate from The Linnaeus International Project on Integrative Approaches within Teacher Education initiated by Lena Fritzén and Anna Tapola, Linnaeus University, Sweden, with financial support from The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (RJ), Linnaeus University, and NLA University College (Norway). Thanks also to the editors and reviewers.

References

  1. Afdal, G. (2004). Facts, values and moral education. Nordic Studies in Education, 24(3), 195210.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, M., Paradis, E., & Kuper, A. (2017). Interdisciplinary fantasy. In S. Frickel, M. Albert, & B. Prainsack (Eds.), Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration. Theory and practice across the disciplines (pp. 84–103). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The nature of science. http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm. Accessed 27 Mar 2017.
  4. Berliner, D. C. (2006). Educational psychology: Searching for essence throughout a century of influence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–27). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesta, G. (2013). Becoming educationally wise: Towards a virtue-based conception of teaching and teacher education. In A.-L. Østern, K. Smith, T. Ryghaug, T. Krüger, & M. B. Postholm (Eds.), Teacher education research between national identity and global trends (pp. 29–51). Trondheim: Akademika Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2014a). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. (2014b). Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biesta, G. (2017). The future of teacher education: Evidence, competence or wisdom? In M. A. Peters, B. Cowie, & I. Menter (Eds.), A companion to research in teacher education (pp. 435–453). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Billingsley, B., Nassaji, M., Fraser, S., & Lawson, F. (2018). A framework for teaching epistemic insight in schools. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1115–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357–387). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  13. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2017). http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.
  14. Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education vol II (pp. 395–411). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Develaki, M. (2008). Social and ethical dimension of the natural sciences, complex problems of the age, interdisciplinarity, and the contribution of education. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 873–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisner, E. W. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302–326). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Engen, T. O. (2009). Socialization, literacy, and empowerment. In J. A. Bank (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 252–262). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Fishman, Y. I., & Boudry, M. (2013). Does science presuppose naturalism (or anything at all)? Science & Education, 22(5), 921–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Føllesdal, D. (2005). The emergence of justification in ethics. European Review, 13(2), 169182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geddis, A. N. (1998). Analyzing discourse about controversial issues in the science classroom. In D. A. Roberts & L. Østman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 115–129). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J. I. Goodlad et al. (Eds.), Curriculum inquiry. The study of curriculum practice (pp. 43–76). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Hawking, S. (2017). [Hawking on religious beliefs]. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/551152-when-people-ask-me-if-a-god-created-theuniverse. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.
  24. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kampourakis, K., Reydon, T. A. C., Patrinos, G. P., & Strasser, B. J. (2014). Genetics and society – Educating scientifically literate citizens: Introduction to the thematic issue. Science & Education, 23(2), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klafki, W. (1998). Characteristics of critical-constructive Didaktik. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopman (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 308–330). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education vol II (pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahner, M. (2014). Science, religion, and naturalism: Metaphysical and methodological incompatibilities. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1793–1835). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1999). Values in science and in science education [Special issue]. Science & Education, 8(1).Google Scholar
  32. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. National Science Teacher Association (2000). The nature of science. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx. Accessed 27 Mar 2014.
  35. Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patry, J.-L., Weinberger, A., Weyringer, S., & Nussbaumer, M. (2013). Combining values and knowledge education. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 565–579). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of educational research (3rd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  41. Reindal, S. (2013). Bildung, the Bologna process and Kierkegaard’s concept of subjective thinking. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 32(5), 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reiss, M. (2007). What should be the aim(s) of school science education. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 13–28). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reiss, M. J. (2010). Science and religion: implications for science educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reiss, M. J. (2011). How should creationism and intelligent design be dealt with in the classroom? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(3), 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reiss, M. (2014). What significance does Christianity have for science education? In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1637–1662). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts & L. Østman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  47. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Sæther, J., Reindal, S. M., Skrunes, N. & Toft, G.O. (2018). A model for analysing genetics and values in biology textbooks with focus on teacher education. MENON: Journal of Educational Research. Third thematic issue, pp. 46–57. Open access: http://www.edu.uowm.gr/site/system/files/menon_issue_3rd_special_112018.pdf
  50. Säther, J. (2003). The concept of ideology in analysis of fundamental questions in science education: A review with selected examples from Norwegian curricula and textbooks. Science & Education, 12(3), 237–260.Google Scholar
  51. Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schulz, R. M. (2014). Philosophy of education and science education: A vital but underdeveloped relationship. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1259–1316). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Sjøberg, S. (2014). Naturfag som allmenndannelse [Science education as “Bildung”]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  54. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarationhuman-rights/. Accessed 4 Apr 2017.
  55. Wikipedia (2017). The ideal speech situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_speech_situation. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
  56. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education vol II (pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (Eds.). (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education [Special issue]. Science & Education, 17(8–9).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NLA University CollegeBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations