Philosophy Of Science Education Research Articles

ФІЛОСОФСЬКА ПАРАДИГМА НАУКОВОЇ ОСВІТИ: КОНЦЕПТУАЛЬНА ЕКСПЛІКАЦІЯ

The relevance of the development of science education provokes new discussions about its philosophical foundations, which cover the attributes of progress in this field since antiquity and offer new projects and perspectives for the development of a philosophical paradigm of science education in view of the challenges and requirements of today. The article is devoted to the analysis of three main approaches to define the philosophical paradigm of science education: interiorization, interrelational, and multiperspective. The interiorization approach to defining the philosophical paradigm of science education involves the development of the "philosophy of science education" as an "internal philosophy". The interrelational approach to delineating the philosophical paradigm of science education is based on identifying the relationship between the philosophy of science and science education, the relationships between sections of philosophy and scientific inquiry. The most comprehensive approach to defining the philosophical paradigm of science education is multi-perspective, which is based on addressing various philosophical trends and their understanding of scientific meaning and rationality, mutual influences and contradictions, determining the contribution of each of them to the progress of the theory and practice of science education. This approach usually develops the concept of science education through the prism of such philosophical trends as John Dewey's pragmatism, constructivism, rationalist school, classical empiricism, and postmodernism. Each of the mentioned directions is analyzed in the article in the context of the dialectics of science education.

O PROGRAMA DE PESQUISA DE MARTIN EGER: PRINCÍPIOS DA HERMENÊUTICA FILOSÓFICA NA EDUCAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIAS

ABSTRACT: This text begins with a theoretical research program that seeks to map the tradition of Philosophical Hermeneutics (PH) in Science Education (SE), producing syntheses of works by different authors who assumed the PH in SE. The objective is to present research programs that articulated PH and SE as we tailored our own research program based on them. We started with the research on the work of Martin Eger, one of the pioneers in this discussion in English, who proposed a Philosophy of Science Education (PSE). The justification for this program is that PH provides arguments for understanding the role of language, which contributes to facing the daily challenges of teachers in Natural Sciences teaching and learning. In this text, based on a brief discussion of PH as developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer, we have studied Martin Eger's work. Some of the concepts proposed by Gadamer, such as the hermeneutic circle and the expansion and fusion of horizons, as well as the triple hermeneutics, proposed by Eger, have supported the understanding of the language of Natural Sciences, thus undoing the separation between subject and object; in this way, students, teachers in training, professors and researchers in Education and Science Education, as well as scientists, can be seen as interpreters of the Natural Sciences. By bringing together the work of Natural Sciences and the work of art in a cascade of interpretations throughout the production of scientific knowledge and its learning by students, Eger's academic production provides arguments to understand the very history of Science Teaching, by rescuing paths and reviews. At the same time, it brings inspiration to think about the present.

Dragons, Monsters, Emotions, Cavemen and Kuhn’s Epistemology: Scientific Revolutions in Films

Background : There have been many discussions on the importance of teaching philosophy of science in schools, and the need of a teaching focused on the science process, seeking to remedy deformed views that distance children from scientific life. Kuhn is undoubtedly the science philosopher most debated in history and his work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” has significant potential to construct proper views of the scientist in primary education. Films are important pedagogic tools to transmit concepts and ideas in a rich and engaging way. Objectives : The present work identified the presence of Kuhn ideas in four animated films and the competences of science procedures in their characters. Design : We selected the films “How to Train Your Dragon”, “The Croods”, “Inside Out” and “Monsters, Inc.”. Within those, we seek for paradigms, paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions, and the competences for scientific investigation on the characters. Setting and Participants : This is a theoretical analysis, and therefore does not have participants. The materials used were only bibliographic sources . Data collection and analysis : We used ten scientific competences and made a philosophical reflection of Kuhn's theory in the films. Results : The analysis reveals the occurrence of normal science, recognized anomalies, extraordinary science and break of paradigms in all those films. In addition, we identified the competences of science procedures of the characters. Conclusions : The films make an artistic representation of situations where Kuhn concepts and the scientific competences can be taught in a clear and significant way.

Investigating understanding the nature of science

<p><span>The survey method was employed for investigating understanding nature of science</span><span lang="IN"> (NOS)</span><span> between general science education and science pre-service teachers. Independent t-test and two-way ANOVA were used for testing hypothesis. Results found that both of two programs rated understanding NOS ranges disagree and highly agree levels in different items. The item ‘scientists work in their laboratory, even though social needs are not influence to scientists’, disagree for general science education but agree for science program. The post-hoc test indicated that there were not differences by mean scale of two programs. There was no interaction between group and components of NOS. The post-hoc test also indicated that not found the differences in each component among scientific worldview, scientific inquiry, and scientific enterprises. However, three components of NOS must incorporate to teacher preparation program for making community of science and literate person as well as philosophy of science education.</span></p>

Can a Unified Approach Help in Teaching Philosophy of Science?

Can a Unified Approach Help in Teaching Philosophy of Science?

Modernizing philosophy of science for the philosopher and student alike

Philosophy of science is a rapidly evolving and increasingly inclusive academic field. It is one of the most dynamic branches of philosophy. However, for the most part, philosophy of science has been taught historically by recounting and tracing through discussions and debates from the early to late twentieth century. Great texts of positivism, instrumentalism, demarcation, falsification, paradigm shifts, realism, observation and so on are handed out to students and critically assessed. There is something rather puzzling about this way of teaching philosophy of science, since contemporary philosophy of science has moved on significantly and is arguably distinct from the historical subject, just as current science has many features different from the science of Kuhn’s and Popper’s day. Such philosophical work, however, often only seems to make a late appearance in such courses. It often seems that we teach philosophy of science solely as an exercise in point and refutation, leaving students with often little sense of how philosophy today is contributing a rich and much more informed vision of contemporary scientific practice. This new textbook from Barker and Kitcher is a wonderful attempt to create a new thoroughly more modern kind of general philosophy of science course that embraces the true expansiveness of the field and the modern concern of philosophers to move beyond traditional epistemological and metaphysical debates. There is no doubt that teaching philosophy of science can have an important instructive role given the often clear and relatively uncomplicated nature of historical writings. Further scientists themselves often seem to take narrow perspectives on their work, such as falsificationism. It is important to address the limitations of these views. However, modern science is such a rich and complex enterprise; it seems a shame to deprive students of philosophical discussion of contemporary topics, for instance big data or climate science modeling, genetic reductionism, disease research and global health, team science and interdisciplinarity and so on; and how each contribute to

Discipline-based philosophy of education and classroom teaching

This article concentrates on the necessity for teachers in just one discipline area, namely, science, having philosophical competence and using it to inform their professional life – in their classroom teaching, assessing and institutional engagements – in other words, having a philosophy of science teaching. This group of questions and issues might be labelled discipline-based philosophy of education. It is comparable to the position argued 40 years ago by Israel Scheffler. Professional educators need to have some appreciation of the body of knowledge, the history and the methods of investigation into which they are inducting students. This appreciation can only be acquired by history and philosophy of science studies. But further, as professionals, science teachers are constantly engaged with questions that assume certain positions in history and philosophy of science. Recognition of the conjunction of history and philosophy of science and science teaching is not optional for science teachers; the diverse questions and fields that constitute history and philosophy of science and science teaching are simply parts of contemporary national and provincial curriculum; they cannot be avoided by science teachers. So if the in-principle arguments for history and philosophy of science and science teaching fail to convince, the in-practice arguments (teaching the curriculum) cannot be avoided. Teachers of other subjects can see how much of the arguments laid out here are applicable to their circumstances.

Integrating History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences in Practice to Enhance Science Education: Swammerdam’s Historia Insectorum Generalis and the Case of the Water Flea

Hasok Chang (Sci Educ 20:317–341, 2011) shows how the recovery of past experimental knowledge, the physical replication of historical experiments, and the extension of recovered knowledge can increase scientific understanding. These activities can also play an important role in both science and history and philosophy of science education. In this paper I describe the implementation of an integrated learning project that I initiated, organized, and structured to complement a course in history and philosophy of the life sciences (HPLS). The project focuses on the study and use of descriptions, observations, experiments, and recording techniques used by early microscopists to classify various species of water flea. The first published illustrations and descriptions of the water flea were included in the Dutch naturalist Jan Swammerdam’s, Historia Insectorum Generalis (1669) (Algemeene verhandeling van de bloedeloose dierkens. t’Utrrecht, Meinardus van Dreunen, ordinaris Drucker van d’Academie). After studying these, we first used the descriptions, techniques, and nomenclature recovered to observe, record, and classify the specimens collected from our university ponds. We then used updated recording techniques and image-based keys to observe and identify the specimens. The implementation of these newer techniques was guided in part by the observations and records that resulted from our use of the recovered historical methods of investigation. The series of HPLS labs constructed as part of this interdisciplinary project provided a space for students to consider and wrestle with the many philosophical issues that arise in the process of identifying an unknown organism and offered unique learning opportunities that engaged students’ curiosity and critical thinking skills.

Finitude, Fallibilism and Education towards Non-dogmatism: Gadamer’s hermeneutics in science education

The philosophy of science has witnessed continuous controversy since the mid-twentieth century regarding the justification of science’s privileged position, and which has also reverberated in the philosophy of science education. This contribution brings to the discussion the viewpoint of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. I suggest that by relating to the idea of the fallibility of knowledge, Gadamerian philosophy provides a compromise between the extreme positions in the aforementioned debate. Gadamerian hermeneutics also has implications for science education: from the Gadamerian perspective, science education should (1) induce experiences of negation that familiarize learners with their own pre-understanding and (2) introduce learners to the fallibility of knowledge. Finally, I argue that both instances (1) and (2) aim to cultivate non-dogmatism in learners.

Ernst Mach and the Epistemological Ideas Specific for Finnish Science Education

Where does Finnish science education come from? Where will it go? The following outside view reflects on relations, which Finns consider “normal” (and thus unrecognizable in introspection) in science education. But what is “normal” in Finnish culture cannot be considered “normal” for science education in other cultures, for example in Germany. The following article will trace the central ideas, which had a larger influence in the development of this difference. The question is, if and why the Finnish uniqueness in the philosophy of science education is empirically important. This puts Finnish science education into the perspective of a more general epistemological debate around Ernst Mach’s Erkenntnistheorie (a German term similar to the meaning of history and philosophy of science, though more general; literally translated “cognition/knowledge theory”). From this perspective, an outlook will be given on open questions within the epistemology of Finnish science education. Following such questions could lead to the adaptation of the “successful” ideas in Finnish science education (indicated by empirical studies, such as the OECD PISA study) as well as the further development of the central ideas of Finnish science education.

Do We Need a Philosophy of Science Education?

Reflection on several decades of science teaching at the secondary-school level leads to the strong suggestion that a theory of science education should be based on arguments emanating from insights into the process of meaningful communication in the light of modern epistemology. These arguments show that the teacher’s personality and engagement with the subject is a major source of interest and devotion of students who try to understand the presented ideas. An analysis of the conditions of this engagement leads to a vision for a future understanding of the teaching process, especially in science teaching.

Shaking the Tree, Making a Rhizome: Towards a nomadic geophilosophy of science education

This essay enacts a philosophy of science education inspired by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's figurations of rhizomatic and nomadic thought. It imagines rhizomes shaking the tree of modern Western science and science education by destabilising arborescent conceptions of knowledge as hierarchically articulated branches of a central stem or trunk rooted in firm foundations, and explores how becoming nomadic might liberate science educators from the sedentary judgmental positions that serve as the nodal points of Western academic science education theorising. This is demonstrated by commencing two rhizomatic textual assemblages that generate questions, provocations and challenges to dominant discourses and assumptions of contemporary science education. The first of these addresses cultural representations of Sir Isaac Newton and the second makes multiple, hybrid connections among the parasites, mosquitoes, humans, technologies and socio‐technical relations signified by malaria.

Buddhism, Christianity, and Modern Science: A Response to Masao Abe

����� ��� After number of years of teaching philosophy of science, a few years ago I took up the challenge of teaching philosophy of religion. As one might imagine, it has always seemed to me to be important that our religious convictions harmonize with our best scientific knowledge of how the world works, and this became a more interesting issue when the change in my teaching assignment brought me into contact with the work of Masao Abe, the eminent Japanese Buddhist scholar. His essay “Religion and Science in the Global Age—Their Essential Character and Mutual Relationship” (Abe 1985: 241‐248) challenged me to expand my thinking to consider not only how theistic religions such as Christianity relate to science, but also to consider how nontheistic religions, such as Buddhism, might fare when interacting with modern science. In his essay on religion and science Abe expressed his agreement with the thought of Keiji Nishitani in this way: 1. It is necessary for each religion to re-examine the basis of its world view. For any religion its world view is not like clothes that one can change whenever one pleases. A world view is to religion what water is to a fish. It is the indispensable condition through which religion can actually come into existence. Water is neither the life of the fish as such, nor its body, yet it is fundamentally linked to both. For a religion to change its world view is a matter no less fatal to it than for a fish to change from salt water to fresh. 2. What is even more crucial and important is that each religion re-examine and reinterpret that tradition’s understanding of God or the ‘ultimate’ and His or its relation to human beings and the world. With regard to this second point, Buddhism which is fundamentally non-theistic, is in a somewhat different situation from Christianity, which is basically theistic. (Abe 1985: 244‐245)

SUSTAINING AND RESPONDING TO CHARGES OF BIAS IN CRITICAL THINKING

Educational TheoryVolume 45, Issue 2 p. 199-211 SUSTAINING AND RESPONDING TO CHARGES OF BIAS IN CRITICAL THINKING Stephen P. Morris, Stephen P. Morris Professor of Educational Research and Philosophy of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X8. His primary areas of scholarship are critical thinking, philosophy of science education, and philosophy of reading.Search for more papers by this author Stephen P. Morris, Stephen P. Morris Professor of Educational Research and Philosophy of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X8. His primary areas of scholarship are critical thinking, philosophy of science education, and philosophy of reading.Search for more papers by this author First published: June 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00199.xCitations: 10Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume45, Issue2June 1995Pages 199-211 RelatedInformation

Naturalized philosophy of science and natural science education

A major controversy in contemporary philosophy of science concerns the possibility and desirability of its ‘naturalization.’ In this paper I review the philosophical controversy concerning naturalism, and investigate the role it might play in the science classroom. I argue that science students can benefit from explicit study of this controversy, and from explicit consideration of the extent to which philosophy of science can be studied naturalistically. More specifically, I suggest that such consideration can enhance students' understanding of the nature of ‘natural’ science, of the nature and importance of philosophy of science, and of the relationship between the two — and that these benefits accrue to science education whichever philosophical view concerning naturalization proves to be correct. My hope is that the paper demonstrates the benefits to be gained from explicit consideration in the science classroom of an important issue in the philosophy of science.

Hermeneutics and science education: An introduction

This paper is a programmatic sketch of a line of theoretical investigation in the philosophy of science education. The basic idea is that philosophical hermeneutics is an appropriate framework for science education in most of its aspects. A brief discussion is given of hermeneutics in general, of the version of it developed by H. G. Gadamer, and of the reasons for its relevance to science and to the problem of meaning in science education. A key element in this approach is the suggestion that each science be biewed as a language. Arguments against the appropriateness of hermeneutics to natural science are also discussed. One application of the theory to ongoing educational research — ‘misconceptions’ — is specifically treated.

Some Clarifications and Cautions Essential for Good Philosophy of Science Teaching

Some Clarifications and Cautions Essential for Good Philosophy of Science Teaching

Science, Society and Trends in Science Education‐‐some Thoughts on the Development of Integrated Science in the Educational Systems of the World

Summaries English Before constructing a new curriculum for any level in integrated‐science education, it is very important to establish a basic philosophy of science teaching which reflects a symbiotic relationship between education and the socio‐economic development in a particular country of the world. The curriculum structure of integrated‐science education should broaden the basis of curricular decision and should be designated to follow the expectations of the society in providing professional intellectual training so that education can make a significant contribution to the socio‐economic growth of the country. This basic assumption which established a link between cultural and socio‐economic growth, involves a diversification of the cultural trends of science education which must become appropriate to the economic and historical context of each country in a fast changing world of work. Therefore, by critically removing outside influences in the transmission of scientific knowledge, there should be ...

V. Teaching Philosophy of Science in a Medical School

V. Teaching Philosophy of Science in a Medical School

The psychology and philosophy of science teaching

Science EducationVolume 42, Issue 1 p. 17-19 Article The psychology and philosophy of science teaching† George Greisen Mallinson, George Greisen Mallinson Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MichiganSearch for more papers by this author George Greisen Mallinson, George Greisen Mallinson Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MichiganSearch for more papers by this author First published: February 1958 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730420106Citations: 1 † Paper presented at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Hotel Sherman, Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 1956. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume42, Issue1February 1958Pages 17-19 RelatedInformation