Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science and Religion in Education

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Afdal, G. (2004). Facts, values and moral education. Nordic Studies in Education, 24(3), 195210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Biesta, G. J. J. (2014a). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2014b). Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2017). http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302–326). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fishman, Y. I., & Boudry, M. (2013). Does science presuppose naturalism (or anything at all)? Science & Education, 22(5), 921–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Føllesdal, D. (2005). The emergence of justification in ethics. European Review, 13(2), 169182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1999). Values in science and in science education [Special issue]. Science & Education, 8(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teacher Association (2000). The nature of science. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx. Accessed 27 Mar 2014.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of educational research (3rd ed.). London: Continuum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reindal, S. (2013). Bildung, the Bologna process and Kierkegaard’s concept of subjective thinking. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 32(5), 533–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. J. (2010). Science and religion: implications for science educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2014). Naturfag som allmenndannelse [Science education as “Bildung”]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarationhuman-rights/. Accessed 4 Apr 2017.

  • Wikipedia (2017). The ideal speech situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_speech_situation. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.

  • 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 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (Eds.). (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education [Special issue]. Science & Education, 17(8–9).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NLA University College, Bergen, Norway

    Jostein Sæther

Authors
  1. Jostein Sæther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jostein Sæther .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LASAR (Learning about Science and Religion), Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK

    Berry Billingsley  & Keith Chappell  & 

  2. Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

    Michael J. Reiss

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sæther, J. (2019). Three Perspectives on the Science-Religion Issue in Science Education: Interdisciplinarity, Value or Ideology Orientation and Responsible Personalization. In: Billingsley, B., Chappell, K., Reiss, M.J. (eds) Science and Religion in Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17234-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17234-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17233-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17234-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation