Advertisement

Who Gets Science Education?

  • Alison Kelly
Part of the Explorations in Sociology book series (EIS)

Abstract

‘[S]ociologists have made virtually no contribution to our understanding of the teaching and learning of science.’ So wrote M. F. D. Young in 1974. Much has changed in science education in the intervening fourteen years, but his remark is as true today as it was then. Young’s own attempt to develop a sociology of the science curriculum in schools petered out in two early articles (1976; 1977). Since then, sociologists have been conspicuous by their silence. And yet the academic study of science education is a flourishing sub-discipline with at least three specialist research journals in Great Britain — the International (formerly European) Journal of Science Education, the Journal for Research in Science and Technological Education and Studies in Science Education — as well as the highly influential American Journal of Research in Science Teaching and Science Education. Nevertheless, with the partial exception of Studies in Science Education, which regularly publishes articles with a historical or philosophical emphasis, the academic field is dominated by psychologists and curriculum and methods specialists.

Keywords

Science Curriculum Science Subject Academic Ability General Science Comprehensive School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ADEY, P. and OLDHAM, V. (1986) ‘A Meeting of CLISP and CASE’, Education in Science, 117, pp. 31–2.Google Scholar
  2. APPLE, M. W. (1986) Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in Education (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  3. ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION (1980) ‘Evidence to the Rampton Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups’ (Hatfield: Association for Science Education).Google Scholar
  4. ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION (1981) Education Through Science (Hatfield: Association for Science Education).Google Scholar
  5. ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION (1985) ‘Science 5–16: A Response from the ASE’, Education in Science, 114, p. 13.Google Scholar
  6. BARKER, A. L. (1985) ‘Letter to the Editor’, Education in Science, 114, p. 36.Google Scholar
  7. BRANDT, G., TURNER, S. and TURNER, T. (eds) (1985) Science in a Multi-cultural Society, report on a conference at the London University Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  8. CARPENTER, I. (1987) ‘Science 5 to 16: A Statement of Action’, Education in Science, 121, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  9. CHAMBERLAIN, P. J. (1986) ‘Science Education in Multi-cultural Britain’, School Science Review, 68, pp. 343–8.Google Scholar
  10. CHAPMAN, B. R. and JENKINS, E. W. (1987) ‘Letter to the Editor’, Education in Science, 124, p. 38.Google Scholar
  11. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE AND THE WELSH OFFICE (1985) ‘Science 5–16: A Statement of Policy’, reprinted in Education in Science, 112, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar
  12. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1987) The National Curriculum 5–16, reprinted in part in Guardian, 28 July 1987, p. 15.Google Scholar
  13. DOUGLAS, J. W. B. (1984) The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary School (St Albans: Panther Books).Google Scholar
  14. DRIVER, G. (1980) Beyond Under-Achievement: Case Studies of English, West Indian and Asian School-Leavers at Sixteen-Plus (London: Commission for Racial Equality).Google Scholar
  15. ENGINEERING COUNCIL AND SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW (1987) Double Award Balanced Science: Statement of Support, reprinted in Education in Science, 124, pp. 23–6.Google Scholar
  16. FAIRHALL, J. (1987) ‘How Kenneth Baker is Still Struggling to Produce the Correct Physics Formula’, Guardian, 17 February 1987, p. 9.Google Scholar
  17. FAY, P. J. (1985) ‘Letter to the Editor’, Education in Science, 114, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
  18. FENNEMA, E. and PETERSON, P. (1985) ‘Autonomous Learning Behaviour: A Possible Explanation of Gender-related Differences in Mathematics’, in L. S. Wilkinson and C. Marrett (eds), Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (London: Academic Press).Google Scholar
  19. HOLLINS, M. (ed.) (n.d.) Science Teaching in a Multi-Ethnic Society: A Handbook of Suggestions and Resources (London: North London Science Centre).Google Scholar
  20. HOROBIN, G., OLDMAN, D. and BYTHEWAY, B. (1967) ‘The Social Differentiation of Ability’, Sociology, 1, pp. 113–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. KAHN, A. J. (1987) ‘Letter to the Editor’, Education in Science, 125, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar
  22. KELLY, A. (1986) ‘The Development of Girls’ and Boys’ Attitudes to Science: A Longitudinal Study’, European Journal of Science Education, 8, pp. 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. KELLY, A. (1988a) ‘Ethnic Differences in Science Choice, Attitudes and Achievement in Britain’, British Education Research Journal, 14, pp. 113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. KELLY, A. (1988b) ‘Towards a Democratic Science Education’, in P. Brown and H. Lauder (eds), Education in Search of a Future (Basingstoke: Falmer Press).Google Scholar
  25. KELLY, A. (1988c) Getting the GIST: A Quantitative Study of the Effects of the Girls into Science and Technology Project, in preparation.Google Scholar
  26. KELLY, A. and SMAIL, B. (1986) ‘Sex Stereotypes and Attitudes to Science among Eleven Year Old Children’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, pp. 158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. KELLY, A., WHYTE, J. and SMAIL. B. (1984) Girls into Science and Technology: Final Report, Department of Sociology: University of Manchester. Part reprinted in A. Kelly (ed.) (1987), Science for Girls? (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  28. NOTT, M. and WATTS, M. (1987) ‘Toward a Multi-Cultural and AntiRacist Science Education Policy’, Education in Science, 121, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
  29. SCHOFIELD, R. (1975) ‘Schools and Physics’, Physics Bulletin, 26, p. 218.Google Scholar
  30. SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW (1983) Science Education 11–16: Proposals for Action and Consultation (London: Secondary Science Curriculum Review).Google Scholar
  31. SMAIL, B. and KELLY, A. (1984a) ‘Sex Differences in Science and Technology among Eleven Year Old Children: I, Cognitive’, Research in Science and Technology Education, 2, pp. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SMAIL, B. and KELLY, A. (1984b) ‘Sex Differences in Science and Technology among Eleven Year Old Children: II, Affective’, Research in Science and Technology Education, 2, pp. 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. WELFORD, G., BELL, J., DAVEY, A., GAMBLE, R. and GOTT, R. (1986) Science in Schools: Age 15, Research Report number 4, issued by the Assessment of Performance Unit (London: Department of Education and Science).Google Scholar
  34. WHYTE, J. (1986) Girls into Science and Technology: The Story of a Project (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  35. YOUNG, M. F. D. (1974) ‘Notes for a Sociology of Science Education’, Studies in Science Education, 1, pp. 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. YOUNG, M. F. D. (1976) ‘The Schooling of Science’, in G. Whitty and M. F. D. Young (eds), Explorations in the Politics of School Knowledge (Driffield: Nafferton Books).Google Scholar
  37. YOUNG, M. F. D. (1977) ‘School Science: Innovation or Alienation?’, in P. Woods and M. Hammersley (eds), School Experience (London: Croom Helm).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Sociological Association 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison Kelly

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations