Abstract
AbstractOsborne (2019, this issue) raises several issues in his response to Furtak and Penuel (2019, Sci Edu, 103, 167–186). He challenges the primacy of phenomena, argues that commonsense is not productive for science, and maintains that the primary goal of science instruction is students’ understanding the canon. To us, the import of Osborne's response, and what moved us to accept the editors’ invitation to comment, is in how it reflects the ongoing complexity and instability of views within the community of scholarship in science education. We reflect on these ongoing tensions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
