Why science education alone is not enough
Carson R.N.
1997
Interchange
7
10.1023/a:1007396704454
Science did not come into existence independent of the other disciplines. It is one dimension of a complex culture. We err in attempting to theorize how best to teach it with little or no regard for the broader cultural matrix. How we have transformed our curriculum into its present fragmented condition is not difficult to trace. A reductionist and materialist orientation has resulted in a serious loss of coherence, of beauty, and of any real depth of meaning for the subjects we teach. In this paper, I will argue that the tendency to think of science and science education in isolation from a broad and intellectually noble cultural design is damaging, not only to the teaching of our culture in general, but also to the teaching of science. A substantial and fundamental reorientation is called for. © Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Culture; Curriculum design; Goals of teaching; History; History of knowledge; Liberal education; Science education; Scientific culture
Boyle R., The Sceptical Chymist, (1661); Caine R.N., Caine G., Making Connections - Teaching and the Human Brain, (1991); Von Glasersfeld E., An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical, Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, (1990); Hirst P., Liberal education and the nature of knowledge, The Philosophy of Education, pp. 87-111, (1973); Lavoisier A., Elements of Chemistry, (1790); Lewis C.S., The Abolition of Man, (1947); Matthews M., Science Teaching, (1994); Piaget J., The Psychology of Intelligence, (1966); Sloan W., The Craft of Writing, (1983)
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Article
Scopus