The Promotion of Science Values: Science Teachers’ Perspectives and Practices

  • Mahbub SarkarEmail author
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 44)


Based on a qualitative case study, this chapter analyses science teachers’ perspectives and practices with regard to the promotion of two curriculum-intended values—curiosity and rational thinking. Six science teachers representing a range of geographical locations, school types with different class sizes, lengths of teaching experience and educational qualifications, along with their associated science classes, each representing a case, participated in this study. Data were gathered through observing the teachers’ science lessons, interviewing them as well as interviewing their students in focus groups. The cross-case analysis suggests that while both of the values were perceived to be important by the teachers, there were marked differences in their perceived importance and the corresponding teaching approaches. The discussion explores the meaning of these findings in terms of school science educational practice in Bangladesh.


Science teaching Scientific literacy Science values Curiosity Rational thinking 


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. Scholar
  2. Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1–12. Scholar
  3. Babbie, E. (2011). The basics of social research (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  4. Bybee, R., Fensham, P., & Laurie, R. (2009). Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA 2006 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 862–864. Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Corrigan, D., Dillon, J., & Gunstone, R. (Eds.). (2007). The re-emergence of values in science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  7. Corrigan, D., & Gunstone, R. (2007). Values in science and mathematics education: Issues and tensions. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 133–148). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Goodrum, D. (2004). Teaching strategies for science classrooms. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science (pp. 54–72). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. J. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  12. Graber, W., Nentwig, P., Becker, H.-J., Sumfleth, E., Pitton, A., Wollweber, K., & Jorde, D. (2001). Scientific literacy: From theory to practice. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education – Past, present, and future (pp. 61–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2005). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Paper presented at the International History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Group Meeting, Leeds, UK. Retrieved from
  14. Gunstone, R., Corrigan, D., & Dillon, J. (2007). Why consider values and the science curriculum? In D. J. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 1–10). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  15. Hare, W. (1979). Open-mindedness and education. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hare, W. (2009). What open-mindedness requires. Skeptical Inquirer, 33(2), 36–39.Google Scholar
  17. Hildebrand, G. (2007). Diversity, values and the science curriculum. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 45–60). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  18. Hodson, D., & Reid, D. (1988). Science for all. A curriculum developer’s checklist. School Science Review, 69(249), 821–826.Google Scholar
  19. Holbrook, J. (2005). Report on organizing the ROSE survey in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Secondary Education Sector Improvement Project (SESIP).Google Scholar
  20. Hossain, A. (2010, April 28). The psychology behind superstition. AsiaOne News. Retrieved from
  21. Howes, E. (2001). Visions for “science for all” in the elementary classroom. In A. C. Barton & M. D. Osborne (Eds.), Teaching science in diverse settings: Marginalized discourses and classroom practice (pp. 129–158). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  22. Koballa, T. R. J., Kemp, A., & Evans, R. (1997). The spectrum of scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 64(7), 27–31.Google Scholar
  23. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7–18.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education. (2010). National Education Policy 2010. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Ministry of Education, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of art (pp. 3–19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, G. (2009). Keep ‘em coming: Fostering curiosity to promote learning. Knowledge Quest, 38(1), 80–82. Retrieved from
  31. Nargund-Joshi, V., Rogers, M. A. P., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Exploring Indian secondary teachers’ orientations and practice for teaching science in an era of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 624–647. Scholar
  32. National Curriculum and Textbook Board [NCTB]. (1995). Curriculum and syllabus: Junior secondary level (grades VI–VIII) (in Bangla). Dhaka, Bangladesh: National Curriculum and Textbook Board [NCTB].Google Scholar
  33. National Curriculum and Textbook Board [NCTB]. (2012). National Curriculum 2012 (in Bangla). Dhaka, Bangladesh: National Curriculum and Textbook Board [NCTB].Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. Scholar
  38. Padilla, M. J., Okey, J. R., & Dillashaw, F. G. (1983). The relationship between science process skill and formal thinking abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(3), 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patricia, F. (1999). Catch a falling apple: Isaac Newton and myths of genius. Endeavour, 23(4), 167–170. Scholar
  40. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research and evaluation methods (pp. 339–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Qudrat-e-Khuda, M., Khan, M. F., Safa, M. N., Huq, A., Islam, S., Thakurta, B. G.,… Khan, M. A. (1974). Bangladesh education commission report. Dhaka, Bangladesh: The People’s Republic of Bangladesh.Google Scholar
  42. Rampal, A. (1994). Innovative science teaching in rural schools of India: Questioning social beliefs and superstitions. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 131–138). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rennie, L. J. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10–14.Google Scholar
  44. Rennie, L. J. (2007). Values in science in out-of-school contexts. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 197–212). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  45. Richetti, C. T., & Tregoe, B. B. (2001). Analytic processes for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  46. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. Scholar
  48. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Sarkar, M. (2012a). School science textbooks: A challenge for promoting scientific literacy in Bangladesh. In P. Chan (Ed.), Asia pacific education: Diversity, challenges and changes (pp. 154–168). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Sarkar, M. (2012b). Promotion of scientific literacy: Teachers’ perspectives, practices and challenges. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.Google Scholar
  51. Sarkar, M., & Corrigan, D. (2014). Bangladeshi science teachers’ perspectives of scientific literacy and teaching practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1117–1141. Scholar
  52. Siddique, M. N. A. (2010). Promoting scientific values through secondary science teaching. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Port Stephens, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  53. Siddique, M. N. A., & Rahman, S. M. H. (2007). Introducing open investigation in secondary science practical work: Prospects and challenges in the context of Bangladesh. Teacher’s World: Journal of Education and Research, 30–31, 19–33.Google Scholar
  54. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tan, S. K. (1997). Moral values and science teaching: A Malaysian school curriculum initiative. Science & Education, 6(6), 555–572. Scholar
  56. Tapan, M. S. M. (2010). Science education in Bangladesh. In Y.-J. Lee (Ed.), World of science education: Science education research in Asia (pp. 17–34). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  57. Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Canberra, Australia: Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  58. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (Eds.). (2002). Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations