Premium
Atheoretical nature of the national science education standards: There's more theory than we think—a response to Thomas Shiland
Author(s) -
Pushkin Dave
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
science education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.209
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1098-237X
pISSN - 0036-8326
DOI - 10.1002/sce.10027
Subject(s) - positivism , science education , psychology , epistemology , sociology , mathematics education , pedagogy , political science , law , philosophy
This article seeks to address concerns Shiland raised in his prior article (Science Education 1998, 82(5), 615–617) regarding the National Science Education Standards (NSES). While there is considerable merit to Shiland's article, especially regarding the broadness and lacking specificity of these standards, there are also points to contend. In addition to addressing the pros and cons of the NSES, I will also address how Shiland may have overlooked a more fundamental issue for debate. Three key “failures” Shiland notes of the NSES are more reflective of a possible desire to move away from specific outcomes‐based objectives and towards more global, interdisciplinary learning; these are “failures” only in the eyes of positivistic epistemologies. As for the consequences Shiland foresees, science educators need to get past such consequences by not underestimating the cognitive abilities of classroom teachers and students alike. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 86: 161–166, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sce.10027