The intellectual positioning of science in the curriculum, and its relationship to reform

Journal of Curriculum Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 623-640

  Donnelly, James ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Curriculum; Epistemology; Ontology; Reform; Science education; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845255550     PISSN: 00220272     EISSN: 13665839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220270600822228     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. 21st Century Science Project Team. (2003) 21st Century Science - a new flexible model for GCSE science School Science Review, 85((310)), pp. 27-34.
2. Abrams, D.(1996) The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-human World. New York: Pantheon.
3. Aikenhead, G.(1994) The social contract of science: Implications for teaching science. In STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform. (pp. 11-20). New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Aikenhead, G. S. (2002) The educo-politics of curriculum development Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2((1)), pp. 49-57.
5. Allchin, D. (2004) Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88((6)), pp. 934-946.
6. Aronson, J. L. and Harré, R. and Way, E. C.(1994) Realism Rescued: How Scientific Progress is Possible. London: Duckworth.
7. (2001) After the Science Wars. London: Routledge.
8. Atkins, P. W.(1995) The limitless power of science. In Nature's Imagination: The Frontiers of Scientific Vision. (pp. 122-132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Bartholomew, H. and Osborne, J. and Ratcliffe, M. (2004) Teaching students 'ideas-about-science': Five dimensions of effective practice Science Education, 88((5)), pp. 655-682.
10. Bausor, J. and Poole, M. (2003) Science education and religious education: Possible links? School Science Review, 85((311)), pp. 117-124.
11. Bencze, J. L. (2000) Democratic constructivist science education: enabling egalitarian literacy and self-actualization Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32((6)), pp. 847-865.
12. (1995) Reinventing Biology: Respect for Life and the Creation of Knowledge. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
13. (1996) Changing the Subject: Innovations in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. London: Routledge in association with OECD.
14. Brown, J. R.(2001) Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Cartwright, N.(1999) The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Chandrasekhar, S.(1987) Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivation in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Chapman, B. (2004) Opinion: 4.5 billion versus 4.5 thousand - no contest? School Science Review, 85((313)), pp. 8-10.
18. Clarendon Commission.(1864) Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Revenues and Management of Certain Colleges and Schools. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [contain minutes of evidence]
19. Cobern, W. W. and Loving, C. C.(2004) Defining science in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. In Reconsidering Science Learning. (pp. 195-214). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
20. Cohen, B. C. (n.d.) The ethics of using medical data from Nazi experiments Jewish Law. Available online at: http://www.jlaw.com/ Articles/NaziMedEx.html, accessed 11 December 2005
21. Collins, H. M.(1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.
22. Cooper, D. E.(2003) Meaning. London: Acumen.
23. Cross, R. T. (1997) Ideology and science teaching: Teachers' discourse International Journal of Science Education, 19((5)), pp. 607-616.
24. Department for Education and Skills (DfES).(2005) 14-19 Education and Skills - White Paper. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/14-19educationandskills/, accessed 11 December 2005
25. Devitt, M.(1984) Realism and Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Dirac, P. A. M. (1963) The evolution of the physicist's picture of nature Scientific American, 208((5)), pp. 45-53.
27. Donnelly, J. (1999) Interpreting differences: The educational aims of teachers of science and history, and their implications Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31((1)), pp. 17-41.
28. Donnelly, J. (2001a) Contested terrain: The nature of science in the National Curriculum for England and Wales International Journal of Science Education, 23((2)), pp. 181-196.
29. Donnelly, J.(2001b) Instrumentality, hermeneutics and the place of science in the school curriculum. In Science Education and Culture: The Contribution of History and Philosophy of Science. (pp. 109-127). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Donnelly, J. (2002) The 'humanist' critique of the place of science in the curriculum in the nineteenth century, and its continuing legacy History of Education, 31((6)), pp. 535-555.
31. Donnelly, J. (2004) Humanizing science education Science Education, 88((5)), pp. 762-784.
32. Donnelly, J. and Buchan, A. and Jenkins, E. W. and Laws, P. and Welford, G.(1996) Investigations by Order: Policy, Curriculum and Science Teachers' Work Under the Education Reform Act. Nafferton: Studies in Education.
33. Eflin, J. T. and Glennan, S. and Reisch, G. (1999) The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36((1)), pp. 107-116.
34. Girod, M. and Rau, C. and Schepige, A. (2003) Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding Science Education, 87((4)), pp. 574-587.
35. Goodson, I. F.(1988) The Making of Curriculum: Collected Essays. London: Falmer.
36. Graham, L. R.(1981) Between Science and Values. New York: Columbia University Press.
37. Griffin, D. R.(1988) The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
38. Habermas, J.(1972) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.
39. Hacking, I.(1999) The Social Construction of What?. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Hall, E. G. (2004) Rational or illiberal? [Letter to the Editor] School Science Review, 86((314)), pp. 11-13.
41. Harding, S.(1998) Is Science Multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms and Epistemologies. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
42. Hepburn, R. W.(2001) Truth, subjectivity and the aesthetic. In The Reach of the Aesthetic: Collected Essays on Art and Nature. (pp. 16-37). Burlington VT: Ashgate.
43. Hirst, P. H.(1974) Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In Knowledge and the Curriculum: A Collection of Philosophic Papers. (pp. 30-53). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
44. HM Treasury, DTI, and DfES.(2004) Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-14. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Available online at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/ associated_documents/spending_sr04_science.cfm accessed 11 December 2005
45. Hodson, D.(1998) Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a Personalized Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
46. Holton, G.(1996) Science education and the sense of self. In The Flight from Science and Reason. (pp. 550-560). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
47. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.(2002) Science Education from 14 to 19 Third Report of Session 2001-02, Vol. I: Report and Proceedings of the Committee, HC 508-I. London: The Stationery Office. Available online at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200102/cmselect/cmsctech/508/50802.htm, accessed 24 December 2005
48. Hurd, P. D.(1997) Inventing Science Education for the New Millennium. New York: Teachers College Press.
49. Kant, I.(1926) Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics 3rd edn. London: Longmans.
50. Kuipers, T. A. F.(2000) From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism: On Some Relations Between Confirmation, Empirical Progress, and Truth Approximation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
51. (2001) The One Culture?: A Conversation about Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Lacey, H.(1999) Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.
53. McComas, W. F.(1998) The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer.
54. McCulloch, G. and Jenkins, E. W. and Layton, D.(1985) Technological Revolution? The Politics of School Science and Technology in England and Wales Since 1945. London: Falmer.
55. (1998) Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future: A Report with Ten Recommendations. London: School of Education: King's College.
56. Monk, M. (2004) Science education and religious education [Letter to the Editor] School Science Review, 85((312)), pp. 8-9.
57. Nanda, M.(2003) Prophets Facing Backwards: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
58. National Research Council.(1996) National Science Education Standards: Observe, Interact, Change, Learn. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
59. National Research Council.(2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
60. Osborne, J. and Collins, S.(2000) Pupils' and Parents' Views of Science in the School Curriculum: A Study Funded by the Wellcome Trust. London: King's College.
61. Osborne, J. and Collins, S. and Ratcliffe, M. and Millar, R. and 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((7)), pp. 692-720.
62. (2000) Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. 99th Yearbook, Part 1, of the National Society for the Study of Education
63. Roberts, G.(2002) SET for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills. London: HM Treasury. Available online at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Documents/ Enterprise_and_Productivity/Research_and_Enterprise/ent_res_roberts.cfm, accessed 11 December 2005
64. Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2004) Assessment of Sc1: Alternatives to coursework School Science Review, 85((313)), pp. 103-108.
65. (2002) Science Education as/for Sociopolitical Action. New York: Peter Lang.
66. Royal Society.(2004) Students should not turn their backs on science before 19, says Lord May. Press release, 26 October. Available online at: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=2660, accessed 11 December 2005
67. Rudolph, J. L.(2002) Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education. New York: Palgrave.
68. Sokal, A. D.(2001) What the Social Text affair does and does not prove: a critical look at 'science studies'. In After the Science Wars. (pp. 14-29). London: Routledge.
69. Spurgin, B. (2004) Science teachers and religion [Letter to the Editor] School Science Review, 85((312)), pp. 9-10.
70. Stevens, P. (1978) On the Nuffield philosophy of science Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, pp. 99-111.
71. Tobin, K. and McRobbie, C. J. (1996) Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum Science Education, 80((2)), pp. 223-241.
72. Turner, S. and Sullenger, K. (1999) Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate Science, Technology and Human Values, 24((1)), pp. 5-30.
73. Witz, K. G. (1996) Science with values and values for science education Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28((5)), pp. 597-612.
74. (1971) Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education. London: Collier-Macmillan.