AHS  Vol.3 No.4 , September 2014
Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach
ABSTRACT
The subjectivity and objectivity of science are strongly associated to the nature of science, which is part of science education curricula worldwide. The issue under research is how an epistemological issue, like objectivity and subjectivity in science, could be introduced in science classes, so as to reflect the most realistic image of science. Following this line in the present study, concepts were related to what students and teachers should know, science education research and policy documents were explored, and current views within the philosophy of science were briefly summarized. We propose a distinction between the partially subjective scientific process and the rather objective end result of scientific inquiry as a schema promoting better understanding in science education. Intersubjectivity and critical transformation are then proposed as concepts which can enhance this schema. The history of science provides a suitable framework for teaching these ideas in science classes.

Cite this paper
Stefanidou, C. and Skordoulis, C. (2014) Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach. Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 183-193. doi: 10.4236/ahs.2014.34016.
References
[1]   Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2004). Learning as Conceptual Change: Factors Mediating the Development of Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views on Nature of Science. Science Teacher Education, 88, 785-810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10143

[2]   American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php

[3]   Anderson, E. (2011). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/#standpoint

[4]   Annis, D. (1978). A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 213-219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009716

[5]   Bird, A. (2011). Thomas Kuhn. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

[6]   Boas, M. (1951). Bacon and Gilbert. Journal of the History of Ideas, 12, 466-467.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2707755

[7]   Burbules, N., & Linn, M. (1991). Science Education and Philosophy of Science: Congruence or Contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 227-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130302

[8]   Crasnow, S. (1993). Can Science Be Objective? Longino’s Science as Social Knowledge. Hypatia, 8, 194-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00045.x

[9]   Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (2004). Science Framework for California Public Schools. Sacramento: California Department of Education.

[10]   Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

[11]   Eflin, J., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The Nature of Science: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 107-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<107::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-3

[12]   Gilbert, W. (1600/1958). De Magnete. New York: Dover Publications.

[13]   Grene, M. (1987). Ch. 3: Historical Realism and Contextual Objectivity: A Developing Perspective in the Philosophy of Science. In The Process of Science Contemporary Philosophical Approaches to Understanding Scientific Practice (pp. 69-81). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

[14]   Harding, S. (1993). Ch. 3: Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is Strong Objectivity? In Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49-82). New York and London: Routledge.

[15]   Heering, P. (1992). On Coulomb’s Inverse Square Law. American Journal of Physics, 60, 988-1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.17002

[16]   Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.

[17]   Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[18]   Hempel, C. G. (1983). Ch. 4: Valuation and Objectivity in Science. In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis (pp. 73-100). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_4

[19]   Hesse, M. (1960). Gilbert and the Historians (I). The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 11, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/XI.41.1

[20]   Irwin, A. (1997). Historical Case Studies: Teaching the Nature of Science in Context. Science Education, 84, 5-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<5::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-0

[21]   Kimball, M. (1967). Understanding the Nature of Science: A Comparison of Scientists and Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Education, 5, 110-120.

[22]   Kragh, H. (1998). Social Constructivism, the Gospel of Science, and the Teaching of Physics. Science & Education, 7, 231-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008645218507

[23]   Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.

[24]   Lederman, N. G. (2007). Ch. 28: Nature of Science: Past, Present and Future. In Handbook of Research in Science Education (pp. 831-880). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

[25]   Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Ch. 5: Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science. In The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies (pp. 83-126). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_5

[26]   Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[27]   Matthews, M. (1989). A Role for History and Philosophy in Science Teaching. Interchange, 20, 3-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01807043

[28]   Matthews, M. (1993). Constructivism and Science Education: Some Epistemological Problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 359-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00694598

[29]   McComas, W. (2002). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5

[30]   McComas, W., Clough, M., & Almazroa, H. (2002). Ch. 1: The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. In The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies (pp. 3-39). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1

[31]   Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond Processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057268708559938

[32]   Ministry of Education (1993). Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

[33]   National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: The National Academy Press.

[34]   National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

[35]   Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (2013). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscuting Concepts and Core Ideas. http://www.nextgenscience.org/

[36]   Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[37]   Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “Ideas-about-Science” Should Be Taught in School? A Delphi Study of the Expert Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105

[38]   Phillips, D. (1990). Ch. 1: Subjectivity and Objectivity: An Objective Inquiry. In Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate (pp. 19-37). New York: Teachers College Press.

[39]   Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[40]   Roller, D., & Roller, H. D. (1957). Ch. 8: The Development of the Concept of Electric Charge: Electricity from Ancient Greeks to Coulomb. In Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science (pp. 541-640). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674598713.c5

[41]   Rossi, P. (2001). The Birth of Modern Science. Oxford: Willy.

[42]   Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the Nature of Science through History: Action Research in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290408

[43]   Ziman, J. (1996). Is Science Losing Its Objectivity? Nature, 382, 751-754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/382751a0

 
 
Top