Knowledge, Method and Belief in Science Education from the Perspective of Philosophy of Science

Zhu Jing

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.07.009

Volume 38 Issue 7

Jul. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(7): 106-116

Zhu Jing. Knowledge, Method and Belief in Science Education from the Perspective of Philosophy of Science[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(7): 106-116. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.07.009

Citation:

Zhu Jing. Knowledge, Method and Belief in Science Education from the Perspective of Philosophy of Science[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(7): 106-116. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.07.009

Citation:

PDF( 579 KB)

Knowledge, Method and Belief in Science Education from the Perspective of Philosophy of Science

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.07.009

Zhu Jing

Department of Philosophy, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China

Available Online: 2020-07-14
Publish Date: 2020-07-14

Abstract

Abstract

Drawing on recent development in social epistemology and philosophy of science, this study explores the importance of understanding the nature of science in science education, more than just basic knowledge of science facts,which is to help students make evidence-based decisions on science-related issues in the future. Moreover, it clarifies that the job of science education from an epistemic perspective and the division of cognitive labor, is to establish or maintain the epistemic authority of science. Students should be provided with the recent researches on scientific practice in philosophy of science about the real and complex image of science, and the real practice of scientists in history of science to develop a richer and more authentic understanding of science. Philosophers of science need to engage in constructive conversation with the science education community to explore a schema of teaching scientific practices with a pragmatic approach that takes into account students^, levels, their prior knowledge as well the context of learning.
- science education,
- epistemology,
- philosophy of science,
- cognitive labor,
- nature of science

FullText(HTML)

References(29)

References

[1]	潘士美, 张裕灵, 李玲. (2018). 义务教育学生科学素养及其关键影响因素研究——来自PISA、TIMSS和NAEP的国际测评经验. 外国教育研究,45(10),76−87.
[2]	裴新宁, 刘新阳. (2018). 初中课堂科学探究中究竟发生了什么——基于多案例的实证考察. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(4),107−121.
[3]	朱晶. (2019). 论民国时期科学理想与社会诉求的建构——以进化论的传播为例. 上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),27(127),92−103.
[4]	Alameh, S., & Abd-EI-Khalick F. (2018). Towards a philosophically guided schema for studying scientific explanation in science education. Science & Education, 27(9—10), 831−861.
[5]	Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of Public Understanding of Science-Discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology & Society, 14(2), 221−240.
[6]	Beilock, S.L., et al. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 1860−1863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910967107
[7]	Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, 316, 996−997. doi: 10.1126/science.1133398
[8]	Boesch, B. (2019). Skill transmittance in science education: Study the skills of scientific expertise. Science & Education, 28(1—2), 45−61.
[9]	Braillard, P., & Malaterre C. (2015). Explanation in biology: An introduction. In Braillard, P., & Malaterre C. (eds.). Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1—28.
[10]	Collins H., & Evans R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235−296. doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
[11]	Gervais. W. M. (2015). Override the controversy: Analytic thinking predicts endorsement of evolution. Cognition, 142, 312−321. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.011
[12]	Goddiksen, M. (2015). An empirical method for the study of exemplar explanations, In Wagenknecht, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Andersen, H. (eds.). Empirical Philosophy of Science: Introducing Qualitative Methods into Philosophy of Science. Springer, pp. 105−126.
[13]	Gundersen, T. (2018). Scientists as experts: A distinct role?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 69, 52−59. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.02.006
[14]	Irzik G. & Nola R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591−607.
[15]	Kere, A. (2018). The Public understanding of what? Laypersons’ epistemic needs, the division of cognitive labor, and the demarcation of science. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 781−792. doi: 10.1086/699690
[16]	Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 290−298. doi: 10.1007/s12052-008-0061-8
[17]	McDonald, C., & Abd-EI-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks: A Global Perspective. Routledge: New York.
[18]	Mercer, D. (2018). Why Popper can’t resolve the debate over global warming: problems with the uses of philosophy of science in the media and public framing of the science of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 139−152. doi: 10.1177/0963662516645040
[19]	Metz, S. E., Weisberg, D. S., & Weisberg, M. (2018). Non-scientific criteria for belief sustain counter-scientific beliefs. Cognitive Science, 42, 1477−1503. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12584
[20]	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
[21]	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades 6—12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
[22]	Pincock, C. (2018). Explanatory relevance and contrastive explanation. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 806−818. doi: 10.1086/699715
[23]	Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education. New York: Palgrave.
[24]	Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge.
[25]	Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influence. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415−426. doi: 10.1177/0963662516629750
[26]	Summers, R., & Abd-EI-Khalick, F. (2019). Examining the representations of NOS in educational resources: An analysis of lesson plans aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards. Science & Education, 28(3—5), 269−289.
[27]	Wan, D., Zhang, H., & Wei, B. (2018). Impact of Chinese culture on pre-service science teachers’ views of the nature of science. Science & Education, 27, 321−355.
[28]	Weber, E., Van Bouwel, J., & De Vreese, L. (2013). Scientific explanation. New York: Springer.
[29]	Weisberg, D. S., Landrum, A. R., Metz, S. E., & Weisberg, M. (2018). No missing link: Knowledge predicts acceptance of evolution in the United States. Bioscience, 68(3), 212−222. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix161