Conflicting agendas: Critical thinking versus science education in the International Baccalaureate theory of knowledge course

Science and Education

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 167-196

  Zemplén, Gábor Á ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE   (Germany)

^b BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Critical thinking; History of science; International Baccalaureate Organization; Otto Neurath; Pargma dialectics; Philosophy of science; Science education; Theory of knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751193449     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-006-6387-0     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alchin, N.: 2003a, Theory of Knowledge - Teacher's Book, John Murray, London.
2. Alchin, N.: 2003b, Theory of Knowledge, John Murray, London.
3. Allchin, D.: 1999, 'Values in Science: An Educational Perspective', Science & Education 8(1), 1-12.
4. Aristoteles: 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, in Barnes Jonathan (ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
5. Bailin, S.: 2002, 'Critical Thinking and Science Education', Science & Education 11(4), 361-375.
6. Bauer, H.H.: 2003, 'The Progress of Science and Implications for Science Studies and for Science Policy', Perspectives on Science 11(2), 236-278.
7. Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L. & Uebel, T.E.: 1996, Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
8. Cat, J.: 1995, 'The Popper-Neurath Debate and Neurath's Attack on Scientific Method', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 26(2), 219-250.
9. Davson-Galle, P.: 2004, 'Philosophy of Science, Critical Thinking and Science Education', Science & Education 13(6), 503-517.
10. Donnelly, J.: 2002, 'Instrumentality, Hermeneutics and the Place of Science in the School Curriculum', Science & Education 11(2), 135-153.
11. Dotger, S.: 2005, Using Theories of Epistemic Cognition to Evaluate the Goals for Teaching the Nature of Science. Paper read at 2005 IHPST, at Leeds.
12. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J.: 2000, 'Establishing Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms', Science Education 85, 288-311.
13. Edexcel Level 3 as Gee in History and Philosophy and Ethics (Perspectives on Science). 2004 - Nov Draft.
14. Eemeren, F.H.v., & Grootendorst, R.: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 1. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
15. Eemeren, F.H.v. & Grootendorst, R.: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
16. Eemeren, F.H.v. & Grootendorst, R.: 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Eemeren, F.H.v., Grootendorst, R. & Henkemans, F.S.: 2002, Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, L. Erlbaum, London; Mahwah NJ.
18. Eemeren, F.H.v. & Houtlosser, P.: 2002, 'Strategic Maneuvering. Maintaining a Delicate Balance', in F.H.v. Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 131-159.
19. Facione, P.A.: 1990, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purpose of Educational Assessment and Instruction: American Philosophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 423).
20. Facione, P.A. & Facione, N.C.: 1992, The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (Cctdi). Test Administration Manual, California Academic Press, Millbrae.
21. Fawkes, D., O'Meara, B., Weber, D. & Flage, D.: 2005, 'Examining the Exam: A Critical Look at the California Critical Thinking Skills Test', Science & Education 14(2), 117-135.
22. Galison, P. & Stump, D.J.: 1996, The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.
23. Good, R. & Shymansky, J.: 2001, 'Nature-of-Science Literacy in Benchmarks and Standards: Post-Modern/Relativist or Modern/Realist?', Science & Education 10(1-2), 173-185.
24. Gregory, J. & Miller, S.: 2001, 'Caught in the Crossfire? The Public's Role in the Science Wars', in J.A. Labinger & H. Collins (eds.), The One Culture? A Conversation About Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 61-72.
25. Haller, R.: 1982, 'Das Neurath-Prinzip. Grundlagen Und Folgerungen', in F. Stadler (ed.), Arbeiterbildung in Der Zwischenkriegszeit, Löker, Wien, pp. 79-87.
26. Hamblin, C.L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
27. Harding, S.G. (ed.): 1976, Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
28. Harpine, W.D.: 2004, 'What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?', Philosophy and Rhetoric 37(4), 335-352.
29. Heilbron, J.L.: 2002, 'History in Science Education, with Cautionary Tales About the Agreement of Measurement and Theory', Science & Education 11(4), 321-331.
30. Holton, G.: 1992, 'Ernst Mach and the Fortunes of Positivism in America', Isis 83(1), 27-60.
31. Holton, G.: 2003, 'What Historians of Science and Science Educators Can Do for One Another', Science & Education 12(7), 603-616.
32. Howard, D.: 2002, 'Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thought on the Discovery-Justification Distinction', in F. Steinle (ed.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, pp. 41-58.
33. Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. & Adúriz-Bravo, A.: 2003, 'Epistemological Foundations of School Science', Science & Education 12(1), 27-43.
34. Jacobs, S.: 2000, 'Michael Polanyi on the Education and Knowledge of Scientists', Science & Education 9(3), 309-320.
35. King, P.M. & Kitchener, K.S.: 1994, Developing Reflective Judgment, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
36. Kozleski, E.B.: 2004, 'Technology Transfer and the Field of Education. The Research to Practice Conundrum', Comaparative Technology Transfer and Society 2(2), 176-194.
37. Lederman, N.G., Wade, P.D. & Bell, R.L.: 1998, 'Assessing the Nature of Science: What Is the Nature of Our Assessments?', Science & Education 7(6), 595-615.
38. Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York.
39. Matthews, M.R.: 2004, 'Reappraising Positivism and Education: The Arguments of Philipp Frank and Herbert Feigl', Science & Education 13(1-2), 7-39.
40. McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M.P.: 1998, 'The Nature of Science in Science Education: An Introduction', Science & Education 7(6), 511-532.
41. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P. & Almazroa, H.: 2000, 'The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education', in F.W. McComas (ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
42. Neurath, O.: 1913, 'Die Verirrten Des Cartesius Und Das Auxiliarmotiv (Zur Psychologie Des Entschlusses)', Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft, an der Universität zu Wien 1913, 45-59.
43. Neurath, O.: 1973, Empiricism and Sociology, in R.S. Cohen (ed.), D. Riedel, Dordrecht.
44. Neurath, O.: 1983, Philosophical Papers, 1913-1946, Vienna Circle Collection; V. 16, D. Riedel - Kluwer, Dordrecht, Boston.
45. Nott, M. & Wellington, J.: 1998, 'Eliciting, Interpreting and Developing Teachers' Understandings of the Nature of Science', Science & Education 7(6), 579-594.
46. Russell, J.B.: 1997, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback.
47. Schiappa, E.: 2001, 'Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric', Philosophy and Rhetoric 34(3), 260-274.
48. Scott, R.L.: 1967, 'On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic', Central States Speech Journal 18, 9-17.
49. Smith, M.U. & Scharmann, L.C.: 1999, 'Defining Versus Describing the Nature of Science: A Pragmatic Analysis for Classroom Teachers and Science Educators', Science Education 83, 494-509.
50. Solbes, J. & Traver, M.: 2003, 'Against a Negative Image of Science: History of Science and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry', Science & Education 12(7), 703-717.
51. Stadler, F.: 1997, Studien Zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung Und Wirkung Des Logischen Empirismus Im Kontext, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
52. Stöltzner, M.: 2001, 'Otto Neurath', in S. Tanaka (ed.), Ernst Mach's Vienna 1895-1930. On Phenomenalism as Philosophy of Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 105-122.
53. Tomkinson, J.L.: 2004, The Enterprise of Knowledge: A Resource Book for Theory of Knowledge, 2nd edn., Leader Books, Athens.
54. Toulmin, S.E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.
55. Uebel, T.E.: 1997, 'From the Duhem Thesis to the Neurath Principle', in J.C. Marek (ed.), Austrian Philosophy Past and Present, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pp. 87-100.
56. Woolman, M.: 2000, Ways of Knowing, IBID Press, Victoria, Australia.
57. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L. & Howes, E.V.: 2005, 'Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education', Science Education 89, 358-377.
58. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A. & Simmons, M.L.: 2002, 'Tangled up in Views: Beliefs in the Nature of Science and Responses to Socioscientific Dilemmas', Science Education 86, 344-367.
59. Zolo, D.: 1990, 'Reflexive Epistemology and Social Complexity - the Philosophical Legacy of Neurath - Otto', Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20(2), 149-169.