Abstract
This paper outlines the rationale underpinning the conception of science education as sociopolitical action, and then presents a critique of such a conception from the perspective of liberal education. More specifically, the paper discusses the importance of the conception of science education as sociopolitical action (e.g., it can provide students with opportunities to link school and society, it can offer them opportunities for more meaningful experiences, and it can also empower them as citizens) and then raises questions about the content of school science, about the place and value of scientific inquiry, and about the opportunities students have for self-directed inquiry. The central idea behind the critique is that a conception of science education as sociopolitical action downplays the importance of knowledge for its own sake and totally neglects the personal/aesthetic dimension of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
If “democracy urgently needs to be wedded to the community and to community action if it is to exhibit caring qualities to counteract the potentially selfish ‘enterprise’ character of individualism” (Solomon 2003, p. 87), then there are good reasons for science educators to adopt a socio-political approach to science teaching and learning.
Kyle (1996), in arguing for an investment in human resources, had proposed a science education ought to become “an active, critical, politicized life-long endeavour that transcends the boundaries of classrooms and schools” (p. 1).
Participation in community-based projects leading to social action provides students with a purpose because they have the opportunity to become aware of an improvement in their own condition. Even the possibility of imagining such an improvement can be a potent stimulus for learning (Hadzigeorgiou 1997, 2001). In participating in community-based projects, students become members of a “community of practice” (see Wenger 1998), which offers them an opportunity for “a sense of identity, place, and hope” (Giroux 1992, p. 170) and hence a reason for learning. According to Wenger (1998), a community of practice does not simply function through mutual engagement in a shared repertoire of activities, but it develops around things that matter to people. So students know why they are making an “investment”, to use Giroux’s (1992, p. 176) own word, in that community of practice. This can be very important for students who feel that traditional school science is “another world” (see Costa 1995) and for students from marginalized groups, such as girls and especially homeless children (see Calabrese-Barton 1998, 2012; Calabrese-Barton and Osborne 2001, 2002). As Calabrese-Barton (1998) had reported, through community-based projects, homeless children develop critical conscience: school science becomes a productive force that helps children “to challenge the existing social conditions in which they live” (p. 388). It also can be important for students from other (non-Western) cultures, since their participation in such projects can facilitate the building of bridges between their own culture and that of school science.
It deserves to be noted that SEASPA needs to be distinguished from the so called socio-scientific issues (SSI) approach to science education. For example Sadler’s and Zeidler’s work stresses the centrality of science content knowledge and also knowledge of NOS (see Sadler and Zeidler 2005; Zeidler et al. 2005; Zeidler and Nichols 2009). It thus makes sense to distinguish between the SSI approach and the radical SEASPA approach, espoused by Roth and his colleagues and Calabrese-Barton.
Although Peters’ work, in general, has made a significant contribution to central questions in epistemology, ethics, politics, and moral psychology, it was his later, major work on the analysis of the concept of education that made him one of the founding fathers of contemporary philosophy of education (Cuypers and Martin 2011). And it would not be an exaggeration to say that, despite criticisms (Martin 1998), Peters’ “analysis of the concept of education is today seen as a classic” (Thiessen 1989, p. 1).
Beckett (2011) has argued that Peters' work Ethics and Education, is one of the most important texts on education, since it can still make a contribution to the future of the discipline. Despite the limitations of Peters' analysis of the concept of education, through the proposition of the “Criteria of Education” (see Hamm 1989), in the chapter on “Education as Initiation” in that same work, Peters did offer a synthetic sketch of education that, as Beckett (2011) argues, provides us with a more comprehensive definition of education, which can be accepted by all philosophers, regardless of the tradition they work in. See also Cuypers (2012).
Such a different outlook on the world, as a result of learning, has been advocated by some contemporary educators; “Learning, ultimately, should help students see that things can be other than as they seem, other than as they are” (Jardine et al. 2003, p. 102).
‘Cognitive perspective’ constitutes one of the criteria of Peters’ concept of education. Even though he does not provide any definition of education, he does argue that we can only define education by its criteria and through its aims. For Peters, education “picks out no particular activity or process. Rather it lays down criteria to which activities or processes must conform” (Peters 1966, p. 25). So he proposes three criteria to which the various processes should conform if they are to be educative. According to Peters, an educative process:
-
(a)
implies the transmission of what is worthwhile to those who become committed to it,
-
(b)
involves knowledge and understanding and some kind of cognitive perspective which are not inert,
-
(c)
rules out the some procedures of transmission, on the grounds that they lack wittingness and voluntariness on the part of the learner. (Peters 1996, p. 45)
In looking at these criteria, it is evident that Peters laid out a value criterion (i.e., education is a value laden concept), a knowledge criterion (i.e., education involves the development of knowledge and understanding, and also the development of cognitive perspective) and a procedural criterion (i.e., education presupposes the student’s willingness).
-
(a)
For Peters familiarity with, and a degree of mastery of, the procedures by means of which knowledge and understanding are acquired is not as important as content knowledge. “To be educated a person must at least have got as far as [the understanding of principles and theories] and have some familiarity with [the methods and procedures whereby he acquires such understanding] even if he lacks the mastery of such procedures. (Peters 1977, p. 29).
According to Peters, an educated person must have “knowledge, not just knack, and an understanding of principles. His form of life must also exhibit some mastery of forms of thought and awareness which are not harnessed purely to utilitarian or vocational purposes, or completely confined to one mode” (Peters 1967, p. 9).
It is unfortunate that the term “cognitive perspective”, that Peters (1966) used as one of the criteria by which to judge the educated person, might lead one to take it as representing a limited view of knowledge. But if “cognitive perspective” is about the ability of the learner to see the place of knowledge “in a coherent pattern of life” (Peters 1966, p. 45), then “cognitive perspective” is closely related to emotions, aesthetics and ethical conduct. Therefore it is a holistic notion. Scheffler (1996), in fact, has pointed out that “the notion of cognitive perspective is related to the idea of wholeness” (p. 84).
There are those educators and philosophers who have stressed the view that significant learning is directly related to a change of outlook, to the ability to perceive the world in an unhabitual way. See for example Hirst (1972, p. 401), Jardine et al. (2003, p. 102), Schank (2004, p. 37). In this sense the development of cognitive perspective in science education is about significant learning, directly or indirectly related to knowledge for its own sake.
Even though SEASPA can no doubt foster a change of students’ view of science as a school subject, for reasons that have already been mentioned in the introduction (see footnote 7), and the world in general, from a liberal perspective on science education such change should be the result of acquisition of content knowledge.
It is the manner of teaching, that is, the way one presents a specific content, the questions s/he asks in order to foster a sense of wonder, the story and the drama behind it etc, that determines whether a student will expand his/her horizons, whether he or she will develop an emotional relationship with content knowledge, and ultimately whether he or she will change his or her outlook on the world.
References
AAAS. (1990). Science for all Americans. Scientific literacy. New York, Oxford: Oxford.
Adler, M. (1980). The paideia proposal. New York: McMillan.
Aikenhead, G. (2003). Review of research on humanistic perspectives in science curricula. Paper presented at the 2nd ESERA conference. Noordwijkehoot, Netherland, August 19–23.
Arlin, P. (1990). Wisdom: The art of problem finding. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origin, and development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Arons, A. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Deadalus, 112, 91–122.
Beckett, K. (2011). R. S. Peters and the concept of education. Educational Theory, 61, 239–255.
Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.
Brickhouse, N. (2003). Science for all? Science for girls? Which girls? In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education (pp. 93–101). London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 379–394.
Calabrese-Barton, A., & Osborne, M. (2001). Urban girls’ participation in formal science settings: Playing with identities and borders. Curriculum & Teaching, 16, 17–38.
Calabrese-Barton, A., & Osborne, M. (2002). Reconstructing the harsh world: Science with/for sociopolitical action. In W.-M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 167–184). New York: Peter Lang.
Costa, V. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between the worlds of family, friends, school and science. Science Education, 79, 313–333.
Counts, G. (1932). Dare schools build a new social order? New York: John Day Company.
Cuypers, S. (2012). R.S. Peters’ ‘The justification of education’ revisited. Ethics & Education, 7, 3–17.
Cuypers, S., & Martin, C. (Eds.). (2011). Reading R. S. Peters today: Analysis, ethics and the aims of education. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1931). The way of confusion. In A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 16). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier-McMillan.
Dewey, J., & Childs, J. (1933). The social-economic situation and education. In W. Kilpatrick (Ed.), The educational frontier (pp. 32–72). New York: Appleton-Century.
Donelly, J. (2004). Humanizing science education. Science Education, 88, 762–784.
Duschl, R. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic tradition of science education. Science Education, 72, 51–62.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind. How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On design and evaluation of school programs. New York: McMilan.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185.
Feynman, R. (1964). The value of science. In A. Arons & A. Bork (Eds.), Science and ideas (pp. 3–12). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gallas, K. (1997). Sometimes I can be anything: Power, gender and identity in a primary classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallagher, S. (1992). Hermeneutics and education. New York: SUNY Press.
Girod, M., Ran, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87, 574–587.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings. Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York and London: Routledge.
Gross, P., Levitt, N., & Lewis, M. (1996). The flight from science and reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (1997). Relationships, meaning, and the science curriculum. Curriculum & Teaching, 12, 83–90.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (1999). On problem situations and science learning. School Science Review, 81, 43–48.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2001). Some thoughts on the notion of purposeful learning. Educational Forum, 65, 316–326.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005a). Romantic understanding and science education. Teaching Education, 16, 23–32.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005b). Science, personal relevance, and social responsibility: Integrating the liberal and humanistic traditions of science education. Educational Practice & Theory, 27, 82–93.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005c). On humanistic science education. ERIC DOCUMENT 506504.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2006). Exploring the possibilities for developing romantic understanding through storytelling. Paper presented at the 1st conference on storytelling and science teaching. Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany, July 3–7, 2006.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2011). Fostering a sense of wonder in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 42, 985–1005.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2012). Encouraging a romantic understanding of science: The effect of the Nikola Tesla story. Science & Education. Published online,. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9417-5.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Konsolas, M. (2001). Global problems and the curriculum: Toward a humanistic and constructivist science education. Curriculum & Teaching, 16, 29–39.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Stivaktakis, S. (2008). Encouraging involvement with school science. Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 5, 138–162.
Hamm, C. M. (1989). Philosophical issues in education: An introduction. London: The Falmer Press.
Helms, J. (1998). Science and/in the community: Context and goals in practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 643–653.
Hirst, P. (1972). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R. Dearden, P. Hirst, & R. Peters (Eds.), Education and the development of Reason (pp. 391–414). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hirst, P. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hirst, P. (1998). Education, knowledge, and practices. In P. Hirst & P. White (Eds.), Philosophy of education—Major themes in the analytic tradition (Vol. I, pp. 384–395). New York: Routledge.
Hirst, P., & White, J. (Eds.) (1998). Philosophy of education—Major themes in the analytic tradition, Vol. I: Philosophy and education. London, New York: Routledge.
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicization of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71–99.
Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83, 775–796.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action. Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.
Holton, G. (1996). Science education and the sense of self. In P. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 551–560). New York: The Academy of Sciences.
Hove, P. (1996). The face of wonder. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 437–462.
Howe, A. (1971). A lost dimension in elementary science education. Science Education, 55, 143–146.
Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2003). Back to the basics of teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jenkins, E. (1996). The “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 137–150.
Jenkins, E. (1997). Towards a functional understanding of science. In R. Levinson & R. Thomas (Eds.), Science today. Problem or crisis?. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, E. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 703–710.
Jenkins, E. (2002). Linking school science education with action. In W.-M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 17–34). New York: Peter Lang.
Jenkins, E., & Nelson, N. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes toward secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23, 41–57.
Kelly, A. (1995). Education and democracy. London: Paul Chapman.
Kyle, W. (1996). The importance of investing in human resources. Editorial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1–4.
Martin, J. (1998). Needed: A new paradigm for liberal education. In P. Hirst & P. White (Eds.), Philosophy of education, Vol. 1: Philosophy and education (pp. 267–283). London, New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and Philosophy of science. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Maxwell, N. (1984). From knowledge to wisdom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Maxwell, N. (1992). What kind of inquiry can best help us create a good world? Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 205–227.
McAllister, J. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Moulakis, A. (1994). Beyond utility. Liberal education in a technological age. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Norris, S. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81, 239–257.
Oakeshott, M. (1989). The voice of liberal learning. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Oakeshott, M. (1991). Rationalism in politics and other essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
OECD. (2000). Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical, and Scientific Literacy. Paris: OECD.
Olson, J., & Lang, M. (2004). Science and technology and the didactics of citizenship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 543–553.
Opdal, P. M. (2001). Curiosity, wonder and education seen as perspective development. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 331–344.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., 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, 692–720.
Peters, R. (1966). Ethics and education. London: Allen and Unwin.
Peters, R. (1967). What is an educational process? In R. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education (pp. 1–23). New York: The Humanity Press.
Peters, R. S. (1973a). Authority, responsibility and education. London: Allen & Unwin.
Peters, R. S. (1973b). Aims of education—A conceptual enquiry. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The philosophy of education (pp. 1–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, R. S. (1977). Education and the education of teachers. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. (1988). Democratic values and educational aims. In W. Hare & J. Portelli (Eds.), Philosophy of education (pp. 339–357). Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises.
Peters, R. S. (1998). The justification of education. In P. Hirst & P. White (Eds.), Philosophy of education, Vol. 1: Philosophy and education (pp. 207–230). London, New York: Routledge.
Phenix, P. (1982). Promoting personal development through learning. Teachers College Record, 84, 301–317.
Pugh, K. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88, 182–196.
Pugh, K. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46, 107–121.
Pugh, K., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9–27.
Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010a). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94, 1–28.
Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010b). Teaching for transformative experiences and conceptual change: A case study and evaluation of a high school biology teacher’s experience. Cognition and Instruction, 28, 273–316.
Root-Bernstein, R. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis. Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Boston, London: Kluwer.
Root-Bernstein, R. (2002). Aesthetic cognition. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 16, 61–77.
Rorty, R. (1985). Solidarity or objectivity? In J. Rajchman & C. West (Eds.), Post-analytic philosophy (pp. 3–19). New York: Columbia University Press.
Roth, W.-M. (2003). Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective praxis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 9–23.
Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (2002a). Science education as/for sociopolitical action: Charting the landscape. In W.-M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 1–16). New York: Peter Lang.
Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (Eds.). (2002b). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.
Roth, M., & Jornet, A. (2013). Toward a theory of experience. Science Education,. doi:10.1002/sce.21085.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Breaking the spell: Science education for a free society. In W.-M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 67–98). New York: Peter Lang.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.
Rury, J. (2002). Education and social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Schank, R. (2004). Making minds less well educated than our own. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scheffler, I. (1996). The concept of the educated person. In V. A. Howard & I. Scheffler (Eds.), Work, education, and leadership (pp. 81–100). New York: Peter Lang.
Schulz, R. (2009). Reforming science education: Part 1: The search for a philosophy of science education. Science & Education, 18, 225–249.
Schulz, R. (2014). Philosophy of education and science education: A vital but underdeveloped relationship. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Handbook of research on history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1259–1315). Berlin, Springer (in press).
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34, 14–22.
Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Solomon, J. (1994). Conflict between mainstream science and STS in science education. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives (pp. 3–10). New York: Teachers College Press.
Solomon, J. (2003). The UK and the movement for science, technology, and society (STS) education. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education (pp. 76–90). London, New York: Routledge Falmer.
Stanley, W. (1992). Curriculum for utopia. New York: SUNY Press.
Stevenson, L., & Byerly, H. (2000). The many faces of science. An introduction to scientists, values, and society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tauber, A. (1996). From Descartes’ dream to Husserl’s nightmare. In A. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 289–312). Boston, London: Kluwer.
Taylor, J. (1998). Poetic knowledge. The recovery of education. New York: SUNY Press.
Thiessen, E. J. (1989). R.S. Peters on liberal education—A reconstruction. Interchange, 20, 1–8.
UNESCO. (1993). International forum on scientific and technological literacy for all. Final report. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2000). Report of the world conference on science: Framework for action. Science sector. Paris: UNESCO.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Witz, K. (1996). Science with values and values for science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 597–612.
Wong, D., Pugh, K., & The Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University. (2001). Learning science: A Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 317–336.
Woolgar, S. (1993). Science: The very idea. London: Routledge.
Zeidler, D., & Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific isuues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 49–58.
Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. A Critique of Science Education as Sociopolitical Action from the Perspective of Liberal Education. Sci & Educ 24, 259–280 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9728-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9728-4