The Challenge to Educational Reforms during a Global Emergency: The Case of Progressive Science Education
Abstract
This article argues that what is most at risk in schooling during a global pandemic, or other similar broad challenges to normal functioning, are those elements that might be considered the less traditional and so the most progressive. After setting out some general background common to the challenge faced by schools and school teachers, this argument is exemplified through the case of school science education. Two particular aspects are considered: one related to pedagogy (responding to learners’ alternative conceptions or ‘misconceptions’) and one related to curriculum (teaching about the nature of science). These are considered ‘progressive’ features in the sense that they have widely been championed as ways of improving and reforming science education across a wide range of national contexts but can be understood to have faced resistance both in the sense of being opposed by ‘reactionary’ stakeholders and in terms of the level of support for teacher adoption. It is argued that at a time when the education system is placed under extreme stress, such progressive elements are at particular risk as teachers and administrators may view them as ‘extras’ rather than ‘core’ features of practice and/or as reflecting more ‘difficult’ educational objectives that may need to be de-prioritised (and so neglected) for the time being. In that sense, they are fragile aspects of practice that lack the resilience of more established, and thus robust, features. It is concluded that where progressive elements are especially valued, they need to become sufficiently embedded in custom and practice to no longer be viewed as luxuries but rather to be recognised as core elements of good teaching to be protected and maintained during a period of emergency.
Downloads
References
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. SHiPS Educational Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bourke, B., Bray, N. J., & Horton, C. C. (2009). Approaches to the core curriculum: An exploratory analysis of top liberal arts and doctoral-granting institutions. The Journal of General Education, 58(4), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0049
Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2019). ‘I’m sad that it is gone’: Teachers’ views on teaching the nature of science at Key Stage 4. School Science Review, 100(373), 69–74.
Chesky, N. Z., & Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
Driver, R., Rushworth, P., Squires, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2013). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1991/1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Penguin Books Ltd.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.
Hadžibegović, Z., & Sliško, J. (2013). Changing university students’ Alternative Conceptions of Optics by Active Learning. CEPS Journal, 3(3), 29–48.
Jenkins, E. W. (2007). School science: a questionable construct? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 265–282.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Mulitmodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. Continuum.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). University of Chicago.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated cognition: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
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. 2, pp. 600–620). Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Long, D. E. (2011). Evolution and religion in American education: An ethnography. Springer.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual Matters.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
Orion, N., King, C., Krockover, G. H., & Adams, P. E. (1999). The development and status of Earth science education: A comparison of three case studies: Israel, England and Wales, and the United States Part II.
Peskova, K., Spurna, M., & Knecht, P. (2019). Teachers’ acceptance of curriculum reform in the Czech Republic: one decade later. CEPS Journal, 9(2), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.560
Reiss, M. J. (2008). Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue? Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802264214
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (Vol. 39). Springer.
Schools Inquiry Commission. (1868). Report of the commissioners [a.k.a. The Taunton report]. H. M. Stationary Office.
Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14(9), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1958.11453895
Sumida, M. (2018). STEAM (science, technology, engineering, agriculture, and mathematics) education for gifted young children: A glocal approach to science education for gifted young children. In K. S. Taber, M. Sumida, & L. McClure (Eds.), Teaching gifted learners in STEM subjects: Developing talent in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (pp. 223–241). Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 179–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2431-2
Taber, K. S. (2010). Paying lip-service to research?: The adoption of a constructivist perspective to inform science teaching in the English curriculum context. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 251–45.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: how the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (and not just when teaching evolution) [journal article]. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9750-8
Taber, K. S. (2018a). Masterclass in science education: Transforming teaching and learning. Bloomsbury.
Taber, K. S. (2018b). Pedagogic doublethink: scientific enquiry and the construction of personal knowledge under the English National Curriculum for science. In D. W. Kritt (Ed.), Constructivist Education in an Age of Accountability (pp. 73–96). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66050-9_4
Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69–119.
Taber, K. S. (2020). Foundations for teaching chemistry: Chemical knowledge for teaching. Routledge.
Taber, K. S., & Li, X. (2021). The vicarious and the virtual: A Vygotskian perspective on digital learning resources as tools for scaffolding conceptual development. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research (Vol. 143, pp. 1–72). Nova.
Taber, K. S., & Vong, L. T. K. (2020). Lumping and splitting in curriculum design: curriculum integration versus disciplinary specialism. In Bachmeier (Ed.), Curriculum Perspectives and Development (pp. 1–66). Nova Science Publishers.
Toplis, R. (Ed.). (2011). How science works: Exploring effective pedagogy and practice. Routledge.
Zhang, D. (2012). Tongshi education reform in a Chinese university: Knowledge, values, and organizational changes. Comparative Education Review, 56(3), 394–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/665814
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
