- Research Article
2
- 10.1023/a:1010301021456
Back to Basics: A Comment on Irzik
- Mar 01, 2001
- Studies in Philosophy and Education
- Michael R Matthews
Gurol Irzik has provided a masterful review of my anthology Constructivism in Science Education: A Philosophical Examination (Kluwer, 1998) which could well serve as an Introduction to the volume. I of course agree with him that it is important to get the basic philosophical matters clear in the frequently heated and confused exchanges over constructivism in science education. This is what the anthology set out to do, and it is gratifying to read that Irzik thinks it has achieved its aim; or at least that the anthology’s contributors have not further muddied the already muddied epistemological waters of science education. Philosophical questions are thrust upon science educators both from within the practice of science education – What are scientific laws? What is scientific methodology? What is the difference between science and non-science? What constitutes a good explanation? How do scientific models relate to reality? What is the role of values in science? And so on. Students routinely ask these questions of teachers – ‘Miss, if no one has seen an atom how come we are drawing pictures of them?’, and curriculum writers standardly mention some or all of the questions and expect teachers to convey an understanding of them to students. Learning about ‘The Nature of Science’ is a ubiquitious goal of international science programmes. So teachers, and science educators who research teaching practice and who educate teachers, have philosophy thrust upon them from the inside. But philosophy is also thrust upon teachers and educators from the outside. Feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, religious interests, the Science Wars – all of these demand more or less explicitly philosophical responses from science teachers and from educators. But teachers and educators are put into an invidious position by these philosophical demands: precious little in their training equips them to answer the questions. Science teachers have little, if any, systematic training in philosophy. The same can be said for science educators: they are standardly trained in the sciences, have teacher training and teaching experience, and usually do their advanced degrees and research in science education. Having even an undergraduate major in philosophy is a rarity among science educators. The number world wide who have post-graduate degrees in philosophy could probably be counted on the fingers
Read more