The rationality of the Curriculum of Science Education based on the Philosophy of Transcendental Realism

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 khu

2 T.U

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explain the logic of the science education curriculum based on the philosophy of Bhaskarian Transcendental Realism. The research method is deductive. For this purpose, it introduces the central core of transcendental realism that focuses on the three elements of ontological realism, epistemic relativism and judgmental rationality, and then its implications for the logic of science education curriculum. The findings showed that the combination of ontological realism and epistemic relativism brings about a constructive realism approach to the rationale of science education; in constructive realism, science, although a product of human imagination, is nevertheless realistic. Also the third element of Basskar's philosophy is the rationality of judgment which has recommended a critical approach to the science education. The Critical Approach drives science education towards critical thinking and rational criteria for judging competing theories and ideas.

Keywords

References

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 15-42
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22 (9), 2087-2107.
Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (2013). Critical realism: Essential readings. Routledge.‏
Bagheri Noaparast, k (2013). Constructive Realism and Science Education, Journal of Curriculum Studies (J.C.S.), Vol.7 (28); 81-92
Baumberger-Henry, RN (2005). Cooperative learning and case study: does the combination improve students. Nurse Education Today, vol (25) Issue (3) pp.238-246.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Views of learning to underpin teacher development. Teacher development: A model from science education, 38-69.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). Forms Of Realism. Philosophica 15. 1975 (1). Pp. 99-127.
Bhaskar, R. (2013). A realist theory of science. Routledge.‏
Burbules, N.C. & Linn, M.C.: 1991, ‘Science education and philosophy of science: congruence or contradiction?’,International Journal of Science Education 13 (3), 227-241.
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing.‏
Curtiss, S.J. (1968). An introduction to the philosophy of education. London; University tutorial press
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fitzgerald, A., & Smith, K. (2016). Science that Matters: Exploring Science Learning and Teaching in Primary Schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (4).
Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6 (1).
Kattoula, E. H. (2005). Conceptual change in pre-service teachers’ views on nature of science when learning a unit on the physics of waves. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, GeorgiaStateUniversity.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London: Routledge.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of research in science teaching, 29 (4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23 (2), 285-302.
Magnussen, L. Inshida, D.and Itono, J. (2000). The use of inquiry based learning. J. of Nursing Education,39,8, pp.360-364.
Marc Stuckey, Avi Hofstein, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman & Ingo Eilks (2013) The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum, Studies in Science Education, 49:1, 1-34
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Psychology Press.‏
Mathews, M.R. (Ed 1998): Constructivism and Science Education: A Philosophical Examination, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Springer Netherlands.
Nicholas C. Burbules & Marcia C. Linn (1991) Science education and philosophy of science: congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13:3, 227-241.
Sankey, Howard. 1993. Five Varieties of Cognitive Relativism. in: Cogito Vol 7. No 2. pp. 106-111.
Spiliotopoulou, V., & Alevizos, P. (2001). Entities of the World and Causality in Children’s Thinking. In Research in Science Education-Past, Present, and Future (pp. 113-118). Springer, Dordrecht.
van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1-10). Springer Netherlands.‏

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 April 2019
  • Revise Date: 22 May 2019
  • Accept Date: 07 June 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics