Advertisement

Pedagogic Doublethink: Scientific Enquiry and the Construction of Personal Knowledge Under the English National Curriculum for Science

  • Keith S. Taber
Chapter

Abstract

The English National Curriculum (for 5–16 year olds) for the science taught in English schools has had unintended as well as planned effects. There has been extensive government involvement in the professional work of teachers through inspection regimes, offering direction on the nature of formal assessment, and emphasising the outcomes of high status tests as public markers of educational quality. The chapter considers where these efforts have supported teachers in meeting widely accepted aims of science education, and where they have—often inadvertently—restricted good teaching practice and undermined efforts to teach in accordance with the principles of constructivist educational theory: working against teachers’ flexibility to respond to the needs of students, undermining meaningful enquiry teaching, and restricting effective teaching about socio-scientific issues.

References

  1. Beck, J. (2012). Reinstating knowledge: Diagnoses and prescriptions for England’s curriculum ills. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 22(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2012.680322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, B., Jones, A., & Car, M. (1995). The development of the recent National New Zealand Science Curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 26, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berube, C. T. (2008). The Unfinished Quest: The plight of progressive science education in the age of standards. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Braund, M., Erduran, S., Simon, S., Taber, K. S., & Tweats, R. (2004). Teaching ideas and evidence in science at key stage 3. Science Teacher Education, 41, 12–13.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, R. (2007). Differentiation by alternative conception: Tailoring teaching to students’ thinking – A review of an attempt to target teaching according to the alternative conceptions of electricity held by year 7 students. School Science Review, 88(325), 97–104.Google Scholar
  6. Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum: Major findings. London: Planet Science/Institute of Education/Science Museum.Google Scholar
  7. Claxton, G. (1986). The alternative conceivers’ conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 13, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: A preliminary model for learning science. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science (pp. 45–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cray, D., Dawkins, R., & Collins, F. (2006, November 5). God vs. science. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html
  12. Cromer, A. (1997). Connected knowledge: Science, philosophy and education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Department for Education. (2014). Combined science: GCSE subject content. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  14. Department for Education and Employment. (1998). Requirements for courses of initial teacher education: Annexe H – Initial teacher training National Curriculum for Secondary Science. London: Department for Education and Employment / Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  15. DES/WO. (1988). Science for ages 5 to 16. London/Cardiff, UK: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.Google Scholar
  16. DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography – Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geetz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  29. Gove, M. (2011). Michael Gove speaks to the Royal Society on Maths and Science. London: Department for Education and Employment / Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  30. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Jenkins, E. W. (1979). From Armstrong to Nuffield: Studies in twentieth-century science education in England and Wales. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  32. Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W W Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  33. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2002a). Framework for teaching science: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  34. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2002b). Misconceptions in Key Stage 3 science. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  35. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knorr, C. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Koestler, A. (1978/1979). Janus: A summing up. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  40. Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. 2, pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  47. Millar, R. (2003). Teaching about energy. In Key Stage 3 National Strategy (Ed.), Strengthening teaching and learning of energy in Key Stage 3 science: Notes for tutors (pp. 161–179). No place of publication given: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  48. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, A. I. (1986). Imagery in scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. School Science Review, 82(298), 23–31.Google Scholar
  55. Piaget, J. (1970/1972). The principles of genetic epistemology (trans: Mays, W.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  56. QCA. (2000). Key stage 3 schemes of work. No place of publication given: Qualification and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  57. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007a). Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  58. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007b). Science: Programme of study for key stage 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  59. Russell, T., & Osborne, J. (1993). Constructivist research, curriculum development and practice in primary classrooms: Reflections on five years of activity in the Science Processes and Concept Exploration (SPACE) project. Paper presented at the third international seminar on Misconceptions in the Learning of Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  60. Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Scerri, E. R. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(20), 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scerri, E. R. (2012). Some comments arising from a recent proposal concerning instrumentalism and chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(11), 1481–1481. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed101025f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry (The Inglis Lecture, 1961). In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A review of studies from a Vygotskian perspective. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shaw, M. (2012). Here endeth the three-part lesson. TES. Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyCode=6219960
  66. Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Statutory Instrument. (1989). The Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  69. Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taber, K. S. (2010a). Constructivism and direct instruction as competing instructional paradigms: An essay review of Tobias and Duffy’s constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Education Review, 13(8), 1–44. Retrieved from http://www.edrev.info/essays/v13n8index.html
  72. Taber, K. S. (2010b). Paying lip-service to research?: The adoption of a constructivist perspective to inform science teaching in the English curriculum context. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Taber, K. S. (2010c). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8001623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taber, K. S. (2011a). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39–61). New York: Nova. Retrieved from https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/wiki/eclipse/Constructivism.html
  75. Taber, K. S. (2011b). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of science research – Concepts and methodologies (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. Taber, K. S. (2013a). A common core to chemical conceptions: Learners’ conceptions of chemical stability, change and bonding. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 391–418). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Taber, K. S. (2013b). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Taber, K. S. (2016). The nature of science and the teaching of gifted learners. In K. S. Taber & M. Sumida (Eds.), International perspectives on science education for the gifted: Key issues and challenges (pp. 94–105). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Taber, K. S. (2017). Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: How the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (And not just when teaching evolution). Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9750-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction: An introduction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 3–10). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Yeo, R. (1979). William Whewell, natural theology and the philosophy of science in mid nineteenth century Britain. Annals of Science, 36(5), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033797900200341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith S. Taber
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations