Science Education in Theory and Practice

Springer Texts in Education
Ben Akpan
Teresa J. Kennedy Editors
Science
Education in
Theory and
Practice
An Introductory Guide to Learning
Theory
Springer Texts in Education delivers high-quality instructional content for
graduates and advanced graduates in all areas of Education and Educational
Research. The textbook series is comprised of self-contained books with a broad
and comprehensive coverage that are suitable for class as well as for individual
self-study. All texts are authored by established experts in their fields and offer a
solid methodological background, accompanied by pedagogical materials to serve
students such as practical examples, exercises, case studies etc. Textbooks
published in the Springer Texts in Education series are addressed to graduate and
advanced graduate students, but also to researchers as important resources for their
education, knowledge and teaching. Please contact Natalie Rieborn at textbooks.
[email protected] for queries or to submit your book proposal.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13812

Ben Akpan Teresa J. Kennedy
•
Editors
Science Education in Theory

and Practice
An Introductory Guide to Learning Theory
123
Editors
Ben Akpan Teresa J. Kennedy
Science Teachers Association of Nigeria University of Texas at Tyler
Abuja, Nigeria Tyler, TX, USA
ISSN 2366-7672 ISSN 2366-7680 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-43619-3 ISBN 978-3-030-43620-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, corrected publication 2021

Chapter “The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki and Beyond” is licensed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/). For further details see licence information in the chapter.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi-
cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The field of science education is a relatively broad and dynamic area. Theories and
applications of science teaching strategies are at the very core of the success of any
science education program. While various books abound in support of international
science education programs, there is a dearth of books that provide a collection of
applicable learning theories and their applications to science teaching in a single
source. Science Education in Theory and Practice fills this gap.
Science education specialists from 14 countries (Canada, China, Estonia,
Germany, Ireland, Mauritius, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa,
Sweden, Turkey, UK, and USA) anchored the 32 chapters of the book. This broad
geographical coverage consisting of 44 authors provides applicable generational
and regional perspectives from around the world.
This book provides a synthesis of historical theories while also providing
practical implications for the improvement of pedagogical practices aimed at
advancing the field into the future. The 32 chapters are divided among five sig-
nificant areas:
• humanistic theories;
• behaviourist theories;
• cognitivist theories;
• constructivist theories; and the
• intellectually oriented and skill-based theories.
The theoretical viewpoints included span cognitive and social human development,
address theories of learning, as well as describe approaches to teaching and cur-
riculum development. In addition, wider issues are also addressed related to
philosophical positions supporting science education. With a global readership in
mind, each chapter follows a reader-motivated approach beginning with an
introduction/background, followed by the primary or related issues through his-
torical and/or theoretical background and reference to current debate and practice.
Each chapter also provides recommended resources for extended reading and ends
with a summary or list of main ideas. The genre of the writing is the narrative form.
v
vi Preface
Science Education in Theory and Practice, is intended for use by undergraduate

and post-graduate students and their teachers, as well as researchers in the field of
science education. It also serves as a guide for those aiming at creating optional
learning experiences to prepare the next generation STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) workforce. The theories and practical applications
highlighted serve as an active framework driving teaching and learning; and sup-
porting pedagogical practices that facilitate student learning in the classroom.
We are immensely grateful to all the contributing authors to this book and to
Springer International Publishing AG for facilitating its publication.
Abuja, Nigeria Ben Akpan

Tyler, USA Teresa J. Kennedy
Contents
1 Introduction—Theory into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ben Akpan and Teresa J. Kennedy
Part I Humanistic Theories

2 Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham Maslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Shannon L. Navy
3 Glasser’s Choice Theory and Science Education in British
Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Todd M. Milford and Robert B. Kiddell
4 Intrinsically Motivating Instruction—Thomas Malone . . . . . . . . . . 45
Bodil Svendsen, Tony Burner, and Fredrik Mørk Røkenes
5 The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki
and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Jesper Sjöström and Ingo Eilks
Part II Behaviourist Theories

6 Classical and Operant Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov;
Burrhus Skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Ben Akpan
7 Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Anwar Rumjaun and Fawzia Narod
8 Connectionism—Edward Thorndike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Richard Brock
vii
viii Contents
Part III Cognitivist Theories

9 New Media Technologies and Information Processing
Theory—George A. Miller and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Patricia J. Stout and Mitchell D. Klett
10 Stage Theory of Cognitive Development—Jean Piaget . . . . . . . . . . 133
Brinda Oogarah-Pratap, Ajeevsing Bholoa, and Yashwantrao Ramma
11 Mastery Learning—Benjamin Bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Ben Akpan
12 Meaningful Learning—David P. Ausubel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Steven S. Sexton
13 Discovery Learning—Jerome Bruner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Yasemin Ozdem-Yilmaz and Kader Bilican
14 Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Yashwantrao Ramma, Ajeevsing Bholoa, and Mike Watts
15 Developing Intellectual Sophistication and Scientific
Thinking—The Schemes of William G. Perry
and Deanna Kuhn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Keith S. Taber
Part IV Constructivist Theories

16 Pragmatism—John Dewey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Fran Riga
17 Experiential Learning—David A. Kolb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Louise Lehane
18 Social Constructivism—Jerome Bruner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Miia Rannikmäe, Jack Holbrook, and Regina Soobard
19 Mediated Learning Leading Development—The Social
Development Theory of Lev Vygotsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Keith S. Taber
20 Situated Cognition and Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning . . . . . . 293
Gultekin Cakmakci, Mehmet Aydeniz, Amelia Brown,
and Joseph M. Makokha
21 Activity Theory—Lev Vygotsky, Aleksei Leont’ev,
Yrjö Engeström . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Tony Burner and Bodil Svendsen
22 Multiliteracies—New London Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Shameem Oozeerally, Yashwantrao Ramma, and Ajeevsing Bholoa
Contents ix
23 Project and Problem-Based Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Michael R. L. Odell and Jaclyn L. Pedersen
24 Radical Constructivism—von Glasersfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Gráinne Walshe
25 Constructive Alternativism: George Kelly’s Personal
Construct Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Keith S. Taber
26 Knowledge-in-Pieces—Andrea A. diSessa, David Hammer . . . . . . . 389
Danielle B. Harlow and Julie A. Bianchini
Part V Intellectually-Oriented and Skill-Based Theories

27 Multiple Intelligences Theory—Howard Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Bulent Cavas and Pinar Cavas
28 Systems Thinking—Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Peter Senge,
and Donella Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Bao Hui Zhang and Salah A. M. Ahmed
29 Gender/Sexuality Theory—Chris Beasley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
Steven S. Sexton
30 Indigenous Knowledge Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
Constance Khupe
31 STEAM Education—A Transdisciplinary Teaching
and Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe, and Regina Soobard
32 21st Century Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Teresa J. Kennedy and Cheryl W. Sundberg
Correction to: The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki
and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Chapter 1
Introduction—Theory into Practice
Ben Akpan and Teresa J. Kennedy
What Role Do Theories Play in Teaching and Learning?
In everyday parlance, the term theory has several meanings: 1. A coherent body of
knowledge that is widely accepted as an explanation for some phenomena; 2. An
insight into the natural world which is tentative but which is capable of providing
explanations for natural phenomena if true; 3. Principles on which the practice of an
activity is based; and 4. An idea that can guide behaviour. This last definition helps
in understanding everyday behaviour of individuals. The first two definitions fit well
within the fields of natural and applied sciences. In education, especially in teaching
and learning, it is the third definition that prevails. In this sense, a theory becomes
a versatile tool for understanding certain processes especially how teaching might
result in effective learning. According to Woolfolk (2014):
Given a number of established principles, educational psychologists have developed expla-
nations for the relationships among many variables and even whole systems of relationships.
There are theories to explain how … people learn. Theories are based on systematic research
and they are the beginning and ending points of the research cycle. In the beginning, theories
provide the research hypotheses to be tested or the questions examined. A hypothesis is a
prediction of what will happen in a research study based on theory and previous research.
For example, two different theories might suggest two competing predictions that could be
tested. Piaget’s theory might suggest that instruction cannot teach young children to think
more abstractly, whereas Vygotsky’s theory might suggest that this is possible. Of course,
at times, psychologists don’t know enough to make predictions, so they just ask research
questions. (p. 30)
B. Akpan (B)
Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria
e-mail: [email protected]
T. J. Kennedy
College of Education and Psychology, College of Engineering, University of Texas, Tyler, USA
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

B. Akpan and T. Kennedy (eds.), Science Education in Theory and Practice,
Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_1
2 B. Akpan and T. J. Kennedy
Science Education in Theory and Practice presents 31 theories and describes how
they may be used in science teaching and learning. These theories are categorised into
five groups: humanistic, behaviourist, cognitivist, constructivist, and intellectually
oriented and skill-based theories. In what follows we examine each group in turn.
Humanistic Approach
There are various, but related, definitions of humanism. We adopt, here, the definition
by The Humanist Magazine (American Humanist Association, 2018):
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated
by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization
of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It
advocates the extension to participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society,
standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human
beings as part of nature and holds that values - be they religious, ethical, social or political
– have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of
life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions,
and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. (p. 1)
Prior to the advent of the humanistic approach, psychodynamic theories such as

psychoanalysis prevailed. Central to psychodynamics is the interrelation between
conscious and unconscious processes as well as emotions that determine personality
and motivation. Unfortunately, psychodynamics could not address issues such as
the meaning of behaviour, as well as the nature of healthy growth. These concerns
gave rise to the humanistic approach which places emphasis on subjective meaning,
rejects determinism (a philosophical theory which posits that all events are inevitable
consequences of antecedent sufficient causes; often denying the possibility of free
will), and shows concern for positive growth rather than pathology. Pathology here
refers to deviations from healthy or normal conditions. To humanists, individuals
are capable of understanding their own behaviour as the meaning of behaviour is
essentially personal and subjective. Ultimately, humanists posit, all individuals are
subjective. Also, individuals are good, active, and creative persons who live in the
present (Carducci, 2009).
In the humanistic theory of learning, learners observe what others do and the result
of their actions. The teachers are role models in the class, and for that reason, they
have to ensure inappropriate behaviours are avoided. When presenting learning tasks,
teachers are expected to provide reasons and motivations as well. It is in the nature of
humanism that learners have to take responsibility for their own learning including
setting goals that are realistic for themselves. In science learning and teaching, the
approach lays a high premium on collaborative and discussion groups which create
the desired environment for learners to observe their peers. In this book, we have
devoted four chapters to humanistic theories encompassing the ideas, among others,
of Abraham Maslow, William Glasser, Thomas Malone, and von Humbolt. Some of
the highpoints of the humanistic approaches to learning include placing emphasis
1 Introduction—Theory into Practice 3
on free will of learners, the placement of learners’ subjective experiences as well

as meanings at the centre, the focus on whole individual learners, and treatment of
learners with high level of respect, ultimately viewing learners as very active agents
in the teaching and learning process. On the flip side, some challenges exist. These
include laying too much emphasis on the free will of learners, and the fact that the
tenets of the humanistic approach are not subject to rigorous and objective methods
of research thus making it difficult to make predictions that can either be ascertained
or falsified.
Behaviourist Approach
Some psychologists’ views do differ from the humanistic approach to learning. One
such group are the proponents of behaviourism—a theory that assumes that the
behaviour of humans and animals should be explained in terms of conditioning, with-
out recourse to thoughts and feelings. The group also maintains that psychological
disorders can be treated by altering behaviour patterns. At its core, behaviourists see
behaviours as responses to stimuli. It is assumed that human behaviour is determined
by the environment where the person resides. These environments provide stimuli to
which the person responds. In contrast to other psychologists, behaviourists say that it
is not necessary to consider internal mental processes in explaining behaviour. What
is important to them is finding out which stimuli bring about particular responses. To
them, therefore, complex behaviours of humans are a consequence of learning as a
result of interaction with the environment. In this book, we dedicate three chapters to
the behaviourist theories, encompassing the views of Ivan Pavlov, Albert Bandura,
and Edward Thorndike.
The behavioural approach has some advantages. Unlike the humanistic approach,
it uses rigorous experimental methodologies, makes arguments in support of nurture
in learning and has demonstrated instances where the use of the approach is recom-
mended. Shuell (2013) maintains that operant conditioning is better than any other
theory in explaining how information is acquired, and how physical and mental skills
are learned. According to Shuell, classical conditioning provides the:
best explanation of how and why people including students, respond emotionally to a wide
variety of stimuli and situations. The many types of emotional reactions acquired through
classical conditioning include: anger toward or hatred for a particular person or group,
phobias to a particular subject area or to school itself, and infatuation with another person.
(p. 2)
These advantages have positive implications in science teaching and learning. For
example, students will not like to repeat behaviours that have been disapproved;
instead students tend to repeat actions that lead to positive consequences.
However, there are some disadvantages as well. The approach is overly deter-
ministic, placing control of behaviour on nurture, thus ignoring the role of nature.
Humans are therefore regarded as passive learners.
Cognitivist Approach
Cognitivism is the psychology of learning that is concerned with several mental

processes such as thinking, perception, recall of information, learning, and problem-
solving. This approach is as old as the field of psychology itself, but was at some
stage, dwarfed by the rise of behaviourism. In recent decades, psychologists have
redirected their interest to the area, especially as cognitive science (the study of mem-
ory and cognition) is gaining prominence. There are marked differences between the
cognitivist approach and the behaviourist approach to learning as shown in Table 1.1.
Following are major points to note about cognitive science in relation to learning
(Woolfolk, 2014):
• Whenever learning takes place the brain is involved. The brain shapes and is itself
being shaped by activities involving cognition.
• Both knowing and knowledge result from learning. Previous knowledge is of
overarching importance for future learning. Some knowledge may be general
while some are specific, or to use cognitive terminology, domain-specific.
• What people already know, or what they need to know, determines how they pay
attention. People with attention-deficit disorder experience difficulty in paying
attention or ignoring competing information. Learners cannot process information
which they don’t recognise; so, attention is crucial for learning.
• People’s working memory serves as the workbench of conscious thought. It holds
information that is current. In contrast, long-term memory holds information that
is properly learned. Information that is lost from the working memory has defi-
nitely disappeared but given the right conditions information in long-term memory
can be retrieved. However, when neural connections become weak due to non-use
(time decay), information might be lost from long-term memory.
• Learners differ in how well and how fast they learn some tasks due to differences in
their metacognitive knowledge and skills. Metacognition means thinking about
Table 1.1 Differences between behavioural and cognitive approaches

Behavioural approach Cognitive approach
1. New behaviours are learned Knowledge and strategies are learned;
changes in behaviour are due to changes in
knowledge and strategies
2. Reinforcement strengthens responses Reinforcement provides information about
what could occur when behaviours change
or are repeated
3. Learning is influenced by events in the Learners actively choose and take decisions
environment in pursuance of their learning goals
4. Identification of general laws of learning No concern with general laws.
which apply to all humans is of great Consequently, no one theory of learning is
interest representative of the cognitive view
thinking. It regulates thinking and learning through planning, monitoring, and

evaluation.
• Learning strategies facilitate the cognitive engagement of learners.
Seven chapters anchor the cognitivist approach in this book. Expectedly, the various
positions canvassed by the theorists are very disparate. Jean Piaget in his stage theory
of cognitive development presents a four-stage model showing how new informa-
tion is processed in the mind. Children, he claims, progress through sensorimotor,
preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational stages and they all do
so in that same order. Benjamin Bloom’s mastery learning is based on the need to
give each student enough time, help, and support through individualised and differ-
entiated instruction in order to attain mastery of a learning task. For David Ausubel,
meaningful learning takes place when new information is related to previous knowl-
edge, an idea that gave rise to concept maps. Jerome Bruner and Robert Gagné both
subscribe to discovery learning but while Bruner goes for pure discovery, Gagné
supports guided discovery. For Bruner, learning is a process. For Gagné, learning is
both a process and a product. According to Bruner:
To instruct someone… is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to
teach him to participate in the process that makes possible the establishment of knowledge.
We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but rather to get a
student to think mathematically for himself, consider matters as an historian does, to take
part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is a process not a product (Smith, 2002
p. 4).
Elsewhere, Bruner also reiterated:

It is my hunch that it is only through the exercise of problem-solving and the effort of
discovery that one learns the working heuristics of discovery, and the more one has practice,
the more likely is one to generalise what one has learned into a style of problem-solving
or inquiry …I think the matter is self-evident, but what is unclear is what kinds of training
and teaching produce the best effects. How do we teach a child to, say, cut his losses but at
the same time be persistent in trying out an idea; to risk forming an early hunch without at
the same time formulating the one so early and with so little evidence as to be stuck with
it waiting for the appropriate evidence to materialize…to pose good testable guesses that
are neither too brittle nor too sinuously incorrigible. Practice in inquiry, in trying to figure
out things for oneself, is indeed what is needed, but in what form? Of only one thing I am
convinced. I have never seen anybody improve in the art and technique of inquiry by any
other means other than engaging in inquiry. (Bruner, 1975, p. 87)
However, Gagné (1975) retorts:

Broad, generalizable knowledge is a prerequisite for the successful practice of enquiry,
whether as part of the total instructional process or as a terminal capability. How does the
student acquire this broad knowledge? … such knowledge cannot be attained by the student
by the use of the method of enquiry itself. Were we to follow this suggestion, we should have
to put the student back in the original situation that Newton found himself in, and ask the
student to invent a solution, as Newton did. It would be difficult to achieve this situation, in
the first place, and presumably not all students would achieve what Newton did, even then.
But the major difficulty with this suggestion is that it would be a most terrible waste of time.
Are we going to have students rediscover the laws of motion, the periodic table, the structure
of the atom, the circulation of blood, and all the other achievements of science simply in order
to ensure that instructional conditions are “pure”, in the sense that they demand enquiry?
(pp. 95-96).
Taken together, cognitive approaches are very popular and are applicable in many
areas of science teaching and learning. Overall, they demonstrate the function of the
human brain in the learning and thought processes. The approaches can be combined
with other theoretical models based on the human and material resources available.
However, reliance on cognitive science has precluded several aspects of humanity
such as genetic, biological, and chemical features and imbalances. Also, where people
are observed in controlled environments, the findings may differ from real-world
settings where several stimuli compete for attention at the same time.
Constructivist Approaches
The constructivist approaches are closely related to the cognitivist approaches. Con-
structivism is a philosophy of teaching which maintains that students perform mental
construction in the process of learning. By using personal experiences and relating
these to new knowledge, students are able to construct meanings for themselves.
Thus, students create their mental models (also called schemas) in a bid to understand
new subject matter. New knowledge is accommodated through the adjustment of the
schemas. All students thus actively search for meanings in constructivist learning
approaches. In general, therefore, constructivists are of the view that learners con-
struct their own knowledge and that knowledge construction processes are greatly
enhanced by social interactions (Woolfolk, 2014). Constructivism has provided a
solid foundation for the learning sciences—an interdisciplinary research area that
focuses on fields of learning such as neuroscience, computer studies, psychology,
sociology, philosophy, and anthropology.
There are three major ways knowledge is constructed: (1) Knowledge acquisi-
tion is externally directed through reconstruction of external reality as in the case
of information processing models of learning; (2) Knowledge acquisition occurs
through internal direction by transformation or reorganisation of past knowledge
as in Jean Piaget’s theory; and (3) Knowledge acquisition is attained through both
knowledge of the outside world and previous knowledge as in the case of Lev Vygot-
sky’s theory. Additionally, knowledge may be situated, a form of enculturation or
adoption of norms.
Although there are differences in the various cognitivist positions as exempli-
fied in eleven chapters in this book, some learning activities typify the approaches.
These, according to Windschitl (2002) include complex, meaningful, problem-based
activities; obtaining students’ ideas on specific topics and organising suitable learn-
ing experiences to help them improve on the current knowledge; task-oriented col-
laborative activities involving many students; asking students to apply knowledge
and experiences in explaining concepts, interpreting phenomena, and constructing
coherent arguments based on evidence; and using diverse assessment methods to find
out how students are progressing and to give feedback to the students. In addition,
Woolfolk (2014) maintains that the approaches often involve scaffolding—situations
where ‘teachers and students make meaningful connections between what the teacher
knows and what the students know and need in order to help the students learn more’.
(p. 393)
As a group, the constructivist approaches are very effective in hands-on environ-
ments and in helping learners to relate subject matter to lived experiences. Science
classes implementing these approaches enable teachers to identify and place empha-
sis on topics that learners tend to like. In addition, by working in groups, learners
acquire the much-needed social skills, are able to assist one another, and indirectly
learn to respect the point of views of other persons. However, implementing the
approaches may be expensive in terms of materials and professional development
of science teaching personnel. With variations in previous knowledge of students,
difficulties may arise in agreeing on the operational curriculum for a class; and as
standardised testing and grading is downplayed, comparisons of achievements across
states and regions, for example, become problematic.
Intellectually Oriented and Skill-Based Theories
There are six theories in this book which are collectively grouped under intellectually
oriented and skill-based theories. These are multiple intelligences, systems thinking,
gender/sexuality, indigenous knowledge systems, STEAM education, and twenty-
first-century skills. It is important to note that where there is an overarching need to
take care of diversity among students by designing appropriate and suitable teaching
and learning strategies, these theories will be very useful.
Multiple Intelligences Theory
The multiple intelligences theory proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 (Edutopia,

2016) takes the view that the time-honoured view of intelligence based on IQ tests
is highly limited. The theory thus proposes many different intelligences in humans:
verbal-linguistic intelligence (words), logical-mathematical intelligence (logic, num-
bers), visual-spatial intelligence (pictures), bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (physi-
cal experience), musical-rhythmic intelligence (music), interpersonal intelligence
(social experience), intrapersonal intelligence (self-reflection), naturalist intelligence
(experience in the natural world), and existential intelligence (using values and intu-
ition to generate understanding). Thus, if a science teacher is having difficulty in
reaching a learner in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction,
the theory provides many other approaches through which the learning task could be
presented to facilitate effective science teaching and learning.
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is a theory that explores an understanding of a system by examin-

ing the linkages and interactions between the different parts that make up the entire
system that is being considered. It looks at things as a whole rather than various
components. Basically, a system, whether human-made or natural, exists and func-
tions as a whole through the dynamic interaction of its component parts. A change
in one part of the system affects other parts of the system, and subsequently affects
the stability and sustainability of the system. In applying systems thinking in science
teaching and learning, learners: try to understand the big picture, figure out patterns
and trends in scientific systems, become aware of how a scientific system’s structure
causes its behaviour, identify and explore cause and effect relationships, test scien-
tific assumptions, and search for clues as to where unintended consequences may
arise.
Gender/Sexuality Theory
Gender/Sexuality is a dedicated area of interdisciplinary study on gender represen-

tation and identity with respect to women and men. Such studies are conducted in
several fields of human endeavour such as science, technology, engineering, math-
ematics, education, medicine, politics, languages, and anthropology. Across these
fields, variations as to how and why these studies are conducted are discernible. In
science teaching and learning, part of the focus is on gender neutrality and equity
in instructional materials development and implementation as well as in planning,
streaming, resource allocation, assessment procedures, guidance and counselling,
and careers in related fields. A challenge facing science educators is to vigilantly
monitor their classroom activities and adjust pedagogical practices to promote gender
parity (Kennedy & Sundberg, 2017).
Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Blades and Mcivor (2017) are of the view that indigenous people are those who first
settle in an area in any part of the world. The knowledge developed by such people
is termed indigenous knowledge and is used as a basis for making decisions and in
other personal and communal pursuits. According to McCallum (2012), indigenous
knowledge should be integrated into the science curriculum for the following reasons:
(1) Since our planet is encountering ecological problems and indigenous knowledge
has very strong links to global sustainability, such knowledge should be helpful
in ensuring efficient use of land; (2) Ways of conservation of resources as well as
energy can be imparted to students by using indigenous knowledge; (3) Indigenous
knowledge is useful in imparting knowledge about intellectual property rights of

indigenous peoples; and (4) Both indigenous knowledge and western knowledge
can be taught together thereby fostering an awareness of the culture of indigenous
peoples and promotion of peace and tolerance across the world.
The STEAM Framework
STEAM is a teaching strategy created by the Rhode Island School of Design in the
USA. The STEAM framework adds the Arts to the original STEM framework. The
approach demonstrates how interdisciplinarity can contribute to the understanding
and knowledge of scientific principles to solve societal challenges (Akpan, 2016).
According to the European Union (2015), the approach involves:
• learning science through other disciplines and learning about other disciplines
through science;
• strengthening connections and synergies between science, creativity,
entrepreneurship, and innovation; and
• placing more emphasis on ensuring all citizens are equipped with the skills and
competences needed in the digitalised world starting from preschool.
As noted by The Vision Board (2017), the STEAM approach uses science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics as access points for guiding student inquiry,
dialogue, and critical thinking. Indeed, STEAM enables teachers to use project-based
learning that crosses all 5 disciplines (University of San Diego, 2017). It thus pro-
vides an inclusive learning environment such that all learners are able to engage and
contribute. The STEAM framework is obviously not an easy one but as The Vision
Board (2017) stated:
the benefits to students and entire school community are tremendous. Students and teachers
engaged in STEAM make more real-life connections so that school is not a place where
you go to learn but instead becomes the entire experience of learning itself. We are always
learning, always growing, always experimenting. School doesn’t have to be a place, but
rather a frame of mind that uses the Arts as a lever to explosive growth, social-emotional
connections, and the foundation for the innovators of tomorrow… today! (p. 1)
Twenty-First-Century Skills
Twenty-first-century skills, are a group of skills and capabilities which are considered
necessary for a successful participation in learning, business, work, and other societal
responsibilities in this modern age. These skills include innovation, creativity, curios-
ity, health and awareness literacy, critical thinking, environmental literacy, scientific
literacy, problem-solving, perseverance, analysis, imagination, listening, collabora-
tion, media literacy, ethics, entrepreneurialism, humanitarianism, scientific method,
communication, interpretation, planning, synthesising information, teamwork, and

information and communications technology. There are numerous classifications of
these skills but for this discourse we align with the classification provided by Crock-
ett (2016) because it tends to cover all the areas of concern with respect to science
teaching and learning in the emerging world: problem-solving, creativity, analytic
thinking, collaboration, communication; and ethics, action, and accountability. The
task for teachers of science is how to use suitable approaches earlier described in
ensuring students acquire these skills.
How to Use This Book
In the foregoing discourse, we have provided an overview of the various groups

of theories presented in this book. It should be noted that some chapters deal with
theories of human development (either cognitive or social), some address theories
of learning, others deal with approaches to teaching and/or curriculum construction,
and some address wider issues relating to philosophical positions. As a result, it is
helpful for readers to appreciate that chapter authors are likely to take significantly
disparate approaches. Similarly, although there are measures that have standardised
the various chapters—for example, each author provides an abstract, an introduction,
and a closing summary and spends some time outlining the biographical details of
the major theoreticians being discussed—there are, nonetheless, striking differences.
These differences actually cater to the special and specific needs of the various
chapters and so are a source of strength for the book rather than an indication of a
lack of coherence and organisation. Thus, each of the 31 chapters anchoring these
theories has highlighted how the theory may be applied in teaching and learning
science. We also think it is appropriate here to state that the grouping of the theories
in the book is not cast in stone. The theories could be grouped in various other ways.
For example, in terms of cognitive and social development of humans, etc. Also, even
with the present groupings, some theories may fit into groups other than where they
are currently placed. Having said that, we want to take a close look at how to use this
book, and in particular, how to relate the various theories to classroom practice. Shuell
(2013) has given some viewpoints regarding the relationship between theory and
practice: (1) Ordinarily, instructional practices should be based on the best theories
that one can find. However, in practice this is not necessarily the case as schools
are more or less based on philosophical beliefs rather than on learning theories.
Indeed, establishment of schools globally is based on people’s cultural beliefs. In
every educational system, there is a theory of learning but these theories are usually
highly nuanced and so go unrecognised; (2) Contrasting philosophical views result
in very disparate classrooms. What is consistent is that theoretical beliefs have a
direct impact on practices in classrooms. There is, however, the chicken and egg
dilemma here; namely, whether or not it is the theory that comes before the practice
or whether the theory may be generated from classroom practice. In a way, there
is the view that although theories of learning are expected to provide direction for
educational practice (theories of teaching), it is not always the case. There is, indeed,
a two-way relationship between theory (learning theories) and practice (theories of
teaching); and (3) In the teaching and learning process, the teacher and the students
are important but ultimately it is whether the students have learnt effectively that
determines the success or otherwise of the teacher. To that extent, the student plays
an overarching role, way ahead of the teacher, in determining what is actually learnt.
In the end, which theory do we choose for instruction? Here, we align our thoughts
with those of Morrison (2014):
Is any one set of instructional method better than the other? No … there is a variety of
methods that serve different needs. It’s the skilled and intuitive educator that analyses a
learning situation, leverages the resources at his or her disposal … and is able to analyse the
situation and design the very best learning experience for his or her student. (p. 5)
Summary
In this chapter, we have discussed the following:

• The theories in this book are categorised into five groups: humanistic the-
ories, behaviourist theories, cognitivist theories, constructivist theories, and
intellectually oriented and skill-based theories.
• In science learning and teaching, the humanistic approach lays a high premium
on collaboration and discussion groups that create the desired environment for
learners to observe their peers.
• At its core, behaviourists see behaviours as responses to stimuli. It is assumed
that human behaviour is determined by the environment where the person resides.
These environments provide stimuli to which the person responds.
• Cognitivism is the psychology of learning that is concerned with several mental
processes such as those of thinking, perception, recall of information, learning,
and problem-solving.
• Constructivist approaches are very effective in hands-on environments and in
helping learners to relate subject matter to lived experiences. Science classes
implementing these approaches enable teachers to identify and place emphasis
on topics that learners tend to like.
• The multiple intelligences theory has proposed many different intelligences in
humans aimed at promoting the implementation of diverse teaching methods.
• Systems thinking looks at things as a whole rather than various components.
• In science education, gender/sexuality theory focuses on gender neutrality and
equity in instructional materials development and implementation as well as in
planning, streaming, resource allocation, assessment procedures, guidance and
counselling, and careers in related fields.
• The knowledge developed by indigenous people is termed indigenous knowledge
and is used as a basis for making decisions and in other personal and communal
pursuits.
• The STEAM framework adds the Arts to the original STEM framework.
• Twenty-first-century skills, are a group of skills and capabilities which are consid-
ered necessary for successful participation in learning, business, work, and other
societal responsibilities at this modern age.
Further Readings
Cruciun, B., & Dumitru, S. B. (2011). Knowledge management—The importance of learning theory.
Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics, and Information Technology. Retrieved June
6, 2016, from http://www.scientificpapers.org/wp-content/files/1209_Craciun_Bucur_Matei_
Knowledge_Management_the_importance_of_Learning_Theory.pdf.
Learning theory (education). 2016, April, 30. In Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
June 6, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_theory_(education)&
oldid=717947183.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Post, T. (1988). Some notes on the nature of mathematics learning. In T. Post (Ed.), Teaching
Mathematics in Grades K-8: Research Based Methods (pp. 1–19). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Retrieved 19 March, 2018, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ci/rationalnumberproject/88_9.html.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
References
Akpan, B. B. (2016). Science education research and national development. Journal of the Science
Teachers Association of Nigeria, 51(1), 105–116.
American Humanist Association. (2018). Definition of humanism. Retrieved from https://
americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/.
Blades, D., & Mcivor, O. (2017). Science education and indigenous learners. In K. S. Taber & B.
Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 465–478). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Bruner, J. S. (1975). The act of discovery. In E. Victor & M. S. Lerner (Eds.), Readings in science
education for the elementary school (3rd ed., pp. 77–89). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company Inc.
Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Crockett, L. W. (2016). The critical 21st century skills every student needs and why. Global Digi-
tal Citizen Foundation. Retrieved from https://globaldigitalcitizen.org/21st-century-skills-every-
student-needs.
Edutopia. (2016). Multiple intelligences: What does the research say? Retrieved from https://www.
edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-research.
European Union. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Luxemburg: Publications
Office of the European Union
Gagné, R. M. (1975). The learning requirements of enquiry. In E. Victor & M. S. Lerner (Eds.), Read-
ings in science education for the elementary school (3rd ed., pp. 89–103). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company Inc.
Kennedy, T. J., & Sundberg, C. (2017). International perspectives and recommendations on equity
and gender: Development studies in science education. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science education:
A global perspective: international addition (Chapter 15, pp. 295–311). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-32350-3; ISBN 978-3-319-32351-0 (eBook).
McCallum, D. (2012). Seven Reasons to integrate indigenous knowledge into science curricu-
lum. Working effectively with indigenous peoples [Blog]. Indigenous Corporate Training
Inc. Retrieved from https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/7-reasons-to-integrate-indigenous-knowledge-
into-science-curriculum.
Morrison, D. (2014, January 31). Why educators need to know learning theory [Blog].
Retrieved fromhttps://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/why-educators-need-
to-know-learning-theory/.
Shuell, T. (2013). Theories of learning. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
theories-of-learning/.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Jerome S. Bruner and the process of education. The encyclopedia of informal
education. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/jerome-bruner-and-the-process-of-education/.
The Vision Board. (2017). STEAM education. Retrieved from https://educationcloset.com/steam-
education/.
University of San Diego. (2017). STEAM education: A 21st century approach to learning. Retrieved
from https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/steam-education-in-schools/.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review
of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
Woolfolk, A. (2014). Educational psychology. Noida, India: Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.
Ben Akpan Ph.D., a professor of science education, is the Executive Director of the Science
Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN). He served as President of the International Council
of Associations for Science Education (ICASE) from 2010 to 2013 and currently serves on the
Executive Committee of ICASE as the Chair of World Conferences Standing Committee. Ben’s
areas of interest include chemistry, science education, environmental education, and support for
science teacher associations. He is the editor of Science Education: A Global Perspective pub-
lished by Springer and co-editor (with Keith S. Taber) of Science Education: An International
Course Companion published by Sense Publishers. Ben is a member of the Editorial Boards of
the Australian Journal of Science and Technology (AJST), Journal of Contemporary Educational
Research (JCER), and Action Research and Innovation in Science Education (ARISE) Journal.
Teresa J. Kennedy Ph.D., holds a joint appointment as Professor of International STEM and
Bilingual/ELL Education in the College of Education and Psychology and in the College of Engi-
neering at the University of Texas at Tyler, United States of America. She served as President of
the International Council of Associations for Science Education (ICASE) from 2014 to 2017 and
currently serves on the Executive Committee of ICASE as the Representative to UNESCO. Teresa
is a two-time Fulbright Scholar, first in 1993 in Ecuador, and again during the 2014–15 academic
year focusing on engineering education in Argentina. Her research interests include STEM Edu-
cation, international comparative studies, gender equity, and brain research in relation to second
language acquisition and bilingualism. She is a member of the Editorial Boards of the Journal of
Educational Research and Review (JERR), the open-access journal Education Sciences, and ISCI
Publishing Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Part I
Humanistic Theories
Chapter 2
Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham
Maslow
Shannon L. Navy
Introduction and Chapter Map
When I was a high school science teacher in the United States (US), I often taught
students who were in remedial classes. The students were in these classes because
of previous grades or test scores. Some of the students, ages 15–19, were staying in
school until they were able to drop out or attend an alternative education program.
Some of them would come to school for the food at breakfast and lunch (80% of the
students were on free and reduced lunch, an indicator of poverty in the US), and/or to
socialize with friends. At this stage in their schooling, many of them were seemingly
no longer motivated to learn.
The more I worked with my students, the more I witnessed their capabilities
of achieving success when they were motivated to learn. A question I often asked
myself was, “How can I motivate my students to learn science?” To help answer
this question, I found myself reflecting to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
and theory of human motivation. Once I began to apply some of this theory to my
science teaching, I saw the benefit and value of its application to classroom practice
and student learning.
This chapter is intended to highlight the main components of Maslow’s theory
of human motivation and how it applies to science teaching. It begins with a brief
biography of Maslow, including the influences on his ideas and theory. Next, the
theory is explained through the hierarchy of needs beginning with the basic physi-
ological needs and advancing to self-actualization. Beyond the hierarchy of needs,
additional components of the theory are described including: hierarchy reversal of
needs, degrees of relative satisfaction, and multiple motivations of behavior. The
controversies associated with the theory are presented based on findings in the liter-
ature. The second part of the chapter discusses the applications of Maslow’s theory
S. L. Navy (B)
Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

18 S. L. Navy
to science instruction. Practical considerations for science teaching are suggested for
each of the levels in the hierarchy of needs.
Biography
Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) is considered the father of humanistic psychology.

He was born in Brooklyn, New York as the first of seven children to parents who
were Russian-Jewish immigrants. His father wanted him to be a lawyer, so he tried
law school for two weeks before deciding that he was not interested in becoming a
lawyer (Hall, 1968). Although studying law did not interest him, he had a quest for
learning and continued pursuing areas of interest.
In 1928, Maslow decided to study psychology at the University of Wisconsin
where he earned a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. by 1934. In 1935, Maslow transitioned
to a postdoctoral position at Colombia University where he conducted research
with Edward Thorndike, a distinguished behaviorist. Although Maslow was initially
impressed with behaviorism, he soon realized the limitations to the strict behaviorist
approach. He believed that not everything about human nature could be studied by
behaviorist approaches, which try to reduce elements of being human to variables
and numbers.
Maslow moved on from Columbia University to Brooklyn College where he taught
for 14 years. He encountered Ruth Benedict and Max Wertheimer, two friends he
became fascinated with because of their brilliance, creativity, and caring natures
(Frager, 1987). He wondered what made them admirable human beings and brilliant
scholars. Slowly, he started to realize that Benedict and Wertheimer were a type of
human being with comparable characteristics. This began to guide his thinking about
human nature and motivation.
In the 1940s, Maslow encountered Kurt Goldstein, a neurologist who created a
holistic theory of organisms. Goldstein introduced Maslow to the concept of self-
actualization. Goldstein considered self-actualization to be an individual’s “tendency
to actualize, as much as possible, its individual capacities” (Goldstein, 1939, p. 196).
Goldstein considered this tendency to be the basic drive of human life. As Maslow
continued studying individuals he believed to be healthy, highly fulfilled people,
he made many connections to Goldstein’s concept of self-actualization. In his 1943
paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow described how each person has a set
of basic needs which, once satisfied, will no longer motivate behavior. Motivation is
then driven by human fulfillment needs which he described as Goldstein’s concept
of self-actualization.
From 1951 to 1969, Maslow worked as the chairman of the psychology department
at Brandeis University in Boston. He continuously refined his ideas toward a more
comprehensive theory of human nature. Up until his death of a heart attack in 1970, he
was studying and observing human nature to more fully understand the complicated
connections of motivation, learning, and being.
2 Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham Maslow 19
A Theory of Human Motivation
The basis of this chapter is Maslow’s (1943) paper, A Theory of Human Motivation.
According to Maslow, humans are motivated by needs and these needs are hierar-
chically organized by priority. Unsatisfied needs are what motivate human behavior.
The hierarchy of needs in Maslow’s theory is most often represented as a pyramid
(see Fig. 2.1).
The Basic Needs
The needs are categorized into five levels, from highest priority to lowest priority:
physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Once one
level of needs is satisfied or gratified in the hierarchy, the next level of needs becomes
the focal center of motivation for an individual. For example, individuals with inad-
equate food (a physiological need) must meet that need before seeking to establish
stability (a need at the safety level). If and when individuals have met their physio-
logical needs, safety needs will then become a priority for motivation. This principle
continues through the hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943, 1970).
The physiological needs. The starting point for Maslow’s motivation theory is
the physiological needs of hunger, thirst, health, and sleep. These are the greatest
priority of all the needs. This means that if an individual is lacking anything in an
extreme fashion, then the physiological needs are the major motivation (Maslow,
1943). As Maslow (1943) wrote, “For the man who is extremely and dangerously
hungry, no other interests exist but food. He dreams food, he thinks about food, he
emotes only about food, he perceives only food and he wants only food” (p. 374). For
Fig. 2.1 The pyramid

representation of Maslow’s
theory of human motivation
Self-actualization –
self-fulfillment
Esteem –
self-respect
Love & Belonging –

relations, acceptance
Safety – peace, stability,

protection
Physiological – food, water, sleep

20 S. L. Navy
the extremely hungry person, aspects of life or learning not related to food remain
in the background until the food need is satisfied.
The safety needs. If the physiological needs are satisfied, then an individual’s
new center of focus becomes safety. Safety needs include feelings of peace, secu-
rity, stability, and protection (Maslow, 1970). They ensure an individual does not
feel threatened or endangered (Maslow, 1943). For children, characteristics of their
upbringing and their parents/guardians are important components to satisfying this
need. Children who are raised in loving homes without quarreling, assault, abuse,
and separation often feel safe and secure in the world. Maslow (1943) indicated,
“we may generalize and say that the average child in our society generally prefers a
safe, orderly, predictable, organized world, which he can count on” (p. 378). Children
without a home or family security often lack this sense of organization, structure, and
safety. Adults do not often experience the same safety concerns of children. However,
some adults may experience feelings of danger from wild animals, extreme weather,
criminals, and/or abuse.
The love and belonging needs. Once the physiological and safety needs are ful-
filled, an individual becomes motivated by love and belonging needs. These include
loving and being loved, belonging in a community, and having friends and family.
In this level of the hierarchy, an individual will strive for relationships with people.
It is also important to note that this level involves both giving and receiving love.
Maslow (1970) connected this level in the hierarchy to basic animal tendencies when
he remarked that humans have a “deeply animal tendency to herd, to flock, to join,
to belong” (p. 44). Maslow believed that the increase in frequency and popularity
of many training, personal growth, and community groups were related to humans’
motivations to belong and connect with people.
The esteem needs. If the physiological, safety, and love and belonging needs are
met, esteem needs become the focal center of motivation. The esteem needs include
feelings of self-respect, confidence, achievement, success, self-worth, reputation,
recognition, and being necessary in the world (Maslow, 1943, 1970). Failing to
satisfy these needs leads to feelings of inferiority or uselessness. Maslow (1970)
emphasized, “the most stable and therefore most healthy self-esteem is based on
deserved respect from others rather than on … unwarranted adulation” (p. 46). Thus,
in order for the esteem needs to be satisfied, the respect from others must be genuine
and earned rather than based on one’s status or fame in society.
The need for self-actualization. If all of the above needs are met, Maslow’s theory
indicates an individual will be motivated by self-actualization, or a desire for self-
fulfillment. Humans are driven to acknowledge, become, and fulfill their human
potential. As Maslow (1943) described self-actualization he wrote, “what a man can
be, he must be” (p. 382). It is about finding one’s calling in life in order to achieve
self-fulfillment.
In order to learn more about self-actualization in humans, Maslow studied indi-
viduals he believed to be psychologically healthy adults. His justification for doing so
was that he was more interested in forming a positive account of human behavior that
focused on what goes right with individuals rather than what goes wrong. He found
some common characteristics in the individuals he studied who he believed achieved
self-actualization. These characteristics included: accurate perception, spontaneity,

detachment, autonomy, interpersonal relations, and creativeness (Maslow, 1970).
Although the individuals Maslow studied were psychologically healthy adults, they
were far from perfect human beings. They discussed their failings, which Maslow
believed helped them remain psychologically healthy and achieve self-actualization.
Maslow discovered that self-actualizing people also had qualities that helped them
resolve conflicting dichotomies, such as: heart versus head, duty versus pleasure,
and selfishness versus unselfishness (Maslow, 1970). The values which motivated
them were being values (B-values) rather than deficiency values (D-values) (Maslow,
1968).
The five-level model of Maslow’s theory of human motivation moves from
physiological needs to self-actualization. Lower level needs must be satisfied
before progressing to the higher levels and achieving self-actualization. However,
Maslow believed that not all individuals achieved self-actualization because soci-
ety often rewards motivation based on esteem and belonging. Yet, he remained
hopeful that humans could achieve their potential and indicated that growth toward
self-actualization was a dynamic process.
Additional Characteristics
In addition to the hierarchical model of human needs that drive motivation, Maslow
also explained some important components of the theory. These included: hierar-
chy reversal of needs, degrees of relative satisfaction, and multiple motivations of
behavior. Understanding these aspects of the theory helps to understand Maslow’s
intentions with the extent of the theory.
Hierarchy reversal. Maslow created the hierarchy of needs based on his exami-
nations of the humans he studied. Although the order of needs seems to be accurate
for most people he studied, there are some exceptions. Therefore, the hierarchy is
not intended to be a fixed entity, but rather a less rigid structure and order.
There are five hierarchy reversal exceptions to consider in Maslow’s theory. One
reversal is that, for some individuals, self-esteem is more important than love. Another
is that creativity is the most important motivating factor for some individuals. As
such, some revised models of Maslow’s hierarchy include creativity as a separate
component. A third reversal is that for some individuals who are in a chronically
devastating condition, such as extreme hunger or chronic abuse, aspirations and
motivations may become permanently lowered. For such instances, having food and
water and safety might be sufficient in determining one’s satisfaction or gratification.
A fourth reversal is with individuals who have lacked love from a very early age. In
such circumstances, the desire and ability to love and be loved is nonexistent. A final
hierarchy reversal is the underestimated value of needs that have been sufficiently
satisfied for a long time. Maslow explained this latter reversal using the example of
hunger. People who have never experienced chronic hunger will likely deem food
as the most important need if they ever do experience chronic hunger, even if other
22 S. L. Navy
needs in their lives are currently satisfied or dominating (Maslow, 1943). These
reversal exceptions illustrate some of the fluidity in the hierarchy of needs proposed
by Maslow.
Relative satisfaction. In further explaining the concepts in his theory, Maslow
indicated that needs in the hierarchy do not require 100% satisfaction for an individual
to move on to the next level. In fact, Maslow explained that most normal humans
are partially satisfied and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at any one time
(Maslow, 1943). He believed it would be more accurate to portray the hierarchy of
needs in relative decreasing percentages going up the hierarchy. For instance, an
individual would have to be at least 85% satisfied in the physiological needs, 70%
satisfied in the safety needs, and so on as one moves up the hierarchy. Therefore,
complete 100% gratification at any one level may be unnecessary for determining a
person’s motivation.
Multiple motivations of behavior. Although the needs are described and classified
in different levels of a hierarchy, Maslow cautioned that most behavior is multi-
motivated and cannot be isolated to a single factor. Therefore, human behavior is
simultaneously motivated by many levels of the hierarchy. In the multi-motivated
view of behavior, some levels may highly motivate an individual while others weakly
motivate an individual at any given time or in any given situation.
Controversies
Maslow’s (1943) theory of human motivation has generated sustained interest and
support since its inception. It is still one of the most referenced and remembered
theories of human motivation. However, as with most grand theories, there exist some
criticisms and controversies. It has been criticized for focusing on individualism and
elitism, and relating to primarily Western cultures.
Individualism. One of the main criticisms of Maslow’s theory is its excessive
individualism, which is also a critique of the larger branch of humanistic psychol-
ogy (Pearson, 1999). Critics argue that a tension exists between the individual and
society, between the self and others. Buss (1979) indicated that Maslow primarily
focused on individual efforts, freedom, and development rather than on society’s
development needs. Although Maslow did give some recognition to societal and
cultural forces, at the center of his work were assumptions of individual capacity,
human-centeredness, autonomy, and responsibility. Pearson (1999) synthesized the
individualism in Maslow’s theory into the concepts of self, growth, responsibility,
and capability to influence social progress. Indeed, Maslow believed individuals
have a responsibility to grow and fulfill their potentials, which he considered to be
self-actualization.
The individualistic nature of Maslow’s work was criticized by Marxists and Post-
modernists. Marxists emphasized society’s influence in shaping individuals, thereby
rejecting the notion of autonomy. In order to reshape human nature, they argued,
society must be reshaped first (Pearson, 1999). Postmodernists critiqued the notion
of human agency and the concept of normal in Maslow’s theory. In this view, humans
are completely constructed by practices of power so the idea of the human self in
Maslow’s theory is rejected (Pearson, 1999).
Maslow constantly thought about his work and considered the critiques of his
theory. His journal writings indicated he was focusing more and more on social
and political factors (Lowry, 1979). In his later writings, his view of the world was
one where the individual and society developed in synergy (Pearson, 1999). These
adjustments were likely in response to the criticisms of individualism in the theory.
Elitism. Maslow’s theory of human motivation has also been critiqued for being
elitist. The premise of this critique is that not everyone in society can be self-
actualized given various societal circumstances. This puts those individuals who
are self-actualized as elite members of society (Cooke, Mills, & Kelley, 2005; Pear-
son, 1999). In this way, the hierarchy of needs is essentially a social hierarchy (Buss,
1979; Cooke et al., 2005; Cullen, 1997).
Cooke et al. (2005) explained that a tension is created between democracy and
elitism since not everyone can be self-actualized even though it is described as a basic
human condition in Maslow’s theory. For individuals who do not reach a level of
self-actualization, they may blame themselves, or others may blame them for their
hardships, rather than recognizing the social injustices that created the hardships
(Shaw & Colimore, 1988). This social hierarchy perspective of the theory illuminates
the criticism that larger questions of societal structure can remain hidden with an
elitist stance.
Culture. Maslow’s theory of human motivation has also been criticized for being
primarily applicable to Western cultures. The theory itself was developed based
on Maslow’s research on US subjects. Gambrel and Cianci (2003) indicated that
the hierarchy represented Maslow’s values and those of the US middle class. In a
critique of Maslow’s work, Bouzenita and Boulanouar (2016) indicated that any hier-
archy of needs created will be dependent upon the degree of individualism and/or
collectivism in the society. Since Maslow’s hierarchy was developed from an indi-
vidualistic perspective, which is pervasive in US culture, Nevis (1983) developed a
hierarchy of needs based on Chinese culture, which is known as being collectivist.
In this hierarchy, the basic need is belonging rather than physiological, and there
is no self-esteem need. Additionally, self-actualization is achieved by meeting the
developmental needs of society.
In his original explanation of the theory, Maslow (1943) claimed that it was
not intended to be universal for all cultures. Yet, he believed the types of needs
would cross cultural boundaries as he felt there are certain characteristics of human
nature that are similar from culture to culture. In a large number of cultural con-
texts, Maslow’s theory has received empirical support (Davis-Sharts, 1986; Taormina
& Gao, 2013). However, the cultural criticism based on collectivist views and
approaches to human nature remains a present part of the controversy today.
24 S. L. Navy
Applications to Science Teaching
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, I routinely found myself referenc-

ing Maslow’s theory of human motivation when I was trying to determine how to
motivate my students to learn science. Given empirical support for the theory and
its relevance to my students and teaching context, I applied a number of teaching
strategies which I believe captured the essence of the levels in Maslow’s hierar-
chy of needs. I believe these approaches, combined with an unwavering belief in
my students, helped increase my students’ motivation to learn science and scien-
tific practices and, ultimately, their achievement in the high school science class. In
the sections below, I describe applications to science teaching suitable for learning
science and scientific practices for each of the five levels in Maslow’s theory.
Physiological. Ensuring students’ physiological needs, such as food, water, and
sleep are met requires institutional support and teacher awareness. Many schools
in the US have a free and reduced lunch program for students to receive food for
breakfast and/or lunch at free or reduced prices. At the school level, this is a support-
ive program to ensure children are nourished for breakfast and lunch, which likely
provides them some nutrients and energy to learn throughout the day.
Teachers also have to be aware of the physiological needs of the students in their
classes. They should reach out to the appropriate support resources (e.g., school
counselors) if there are any concerns with a student’s nourishment, sleep, and/or
health. For example, if a student is regularly coming to class and trying to sleep, a
teacher should talk one-on-one with the student to decipher a cause for the behavior.
However, if it is a repeated behavior, additional support resources may be needed
to find out if the student is obtaining a healthy amount of sleep and nourishment
at home. Many times when I was teaching, my students would come to class tired
from working late shifts or taking care of family members at home. I would always
check in with the students. If a student is showing symptoms of fatigue, allowing the
student to stand up and get a drink of water might help awaken the mind and body.
Safety. Maslow’s theory of human motivation indicates that humans prefer famil-
iarity, consistency, and comfort to feel safe and reduce anxiety. In the science class-
room, it is important to establish a welcoming, comfortable, and respectful environ-
ment where students can contribute to the construction of scientific knowledge. This
begins on the first day of school with clear and consistent rules and expectations
for behavior and assignments. The consistency helps students understand what is
expected of them as they progress through their learning. Especially with laborato-
ries in science, safety rules need to be strictly followed to ensure students do not find
themselves in any type of danger.
Setting up a welcoming classroom environment also involves explicitly teaching
and modeling respect. One of the bulletin boards in the front of my classroom read
“Give Respect to Get Respect.” On the first day of class, I had students share their
ideas about what a respectful classroom and a disrespectful classroom looks and
sounds like. These ideas were discussed and written on post-it notes which were then
displayed on the bulletin board for the entire year. A culture of respect is necessary in
order for students to feel safe and learn science concepts and practices. I also made
sure that my students’ work was displayed on the walls throughout the year. This
gives the students a sense of ownership in the classroom. Students always enjoyed
seeing their work on the classroom walls.
Belonging. Building a sense of belonging and acceptance in the science classroom
begins with a respectful and welcoming environment discussed in the safety level
section above. Once this is established, peer interaction and teacher rapport with stu-
dents foster the fulfillment of the belonging needs. Collaborative learning activities
and peer dialogue help to build a sense of community in the classroom, especially
when groups are working toward a common goal. Many of the scientific practices
in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) incorporate
collaborative learning and dialogue. For example, when students are working on
engineering design solutions or asking questions to solve problems, they are often
discussing and collaborating with peers. When they are engaging in argumentation,
they are communicating their ideas which can involve small or whole group dis-
cussions. In a respectful environment, these collaborations and conversations help
ensure a sense of belonging and acceptance of one’s ideas and views. It also creates a
sense of community and interdependence, important features of a supportive learning
environment.
Likewise, important in meeting students’ belonging needs is a teacher’s rapport
with students. This begins by getting to know each student as an individual in the
class. There are many ways to do this at the beginning of the year, including student
interest surveys or questionnaires. Reading through student responses on these helps
a teacher get to know his or her students, which helps not only with rapport but also
making the science content relevant to students’ lives. I would have my students make
a “My Biology” poster at the beginning of the year, which included any information
they were willing to share about their cultures, interests, family, hobbies, etc. They
could also include a photograph, which I would take and get developed if a student
did not have one available. I would laminate these posters and hang them on the front
sidewall of my classroom. It helped me get to know my students, and it created a
sense of belonging in our classroom.
Esteem. The esteem needs involve feelings of self-respect, confidence, achieve-
ment, success, and recognition. Meeting these needs in the science classroom across
the year involves student-centered instructional approaches, productive question-
ing strategies, and recognition of effort and success. To build esteem in science,
instructional approaches should build on students’ prior knowledge and guide them
to accurate understandings. Instructional approaches or assessments where students
are seeking to find a correct answer may reduce self-esteem in science if the student’s
answer is incorrect. Rather, teachers should guide students to deeper understandings
in science by building on their prior knowledge. Questioning strategies can also be
open-ended so students can explain their understandings rather than recalling facts
from memorization. Open-ended responses provide a teacher with more informa-
tion to guide student thinking and increase student confidence in science rather than
close-ended responses which can often be marked as right or wrong.
26 S. L. Navy
Recognition of effort and success also can help build students’ self-esteem in
science. Praising student effort or progress rather than product can help create a
growth-oriented nature toward learning (Dweck, 2006). Recognizing success in the
classroom and awarding student achievement can also build self-esteem in science.
There are many ways this can be done. Some teachers use achievement stars for
every test score above 80%. Other teachers recognize positive group work and col-
laboration. Yet, others use raffle tickets for prizes which students can earn in various
ways. Positive comments and feedback on work also helps encourage students and
increase their self-esteem in science. However a teacher decides to recognize suc-
cess and effort will depend on the approach toward recognition and/or rewards in the
classroom.
Self-Actualization. Helping students toward self-actualization in the science class-
room builds on meeting the needs from the previous levels in the hierarchy. Self-
actualization involves the urge to grow and fulfill one’s calling in the world. It cer-
tainly builds on having a strong sense of self and self-esteem. Teachers want to help
students achieve their dreams and career goals. Through using a facilitative orien-
tation toward teaching science and encouraging self-directed learning, teachers can
help students progress toward attaining self-actualization. Inquiry or practice-based
science instruction are more student-centered approaches to learning. Teachers can
also have students set short- and long-term goals to have them work toward self-
actualization. For example, when I was teaching, my students collectively wrote a
whole class goal, an individual career goal, and a personal goal for their time in
the class. This helped them consider their contribution to the overall collective class
goal, monitor their progress in the class, and remain focused on their career goal.
In addition to the above strategies and suggestions for the five levels of the hier-
archy, a teacher’s overall awareness of Maslow’s theory and student needs can help
interpret student behavior. For instance, if students are misbehaving in class (e.g.,
causing disruptions, or not turning in assignments), they can be sent to the office, or
the teacher may call home to parents/guardians as punishment for the misbehavior.
However, these actions may be useless if the cause of the behavior is unknown. If
the student lacks food to eat or a place to sleep, a visit to the main office or a phone
call to a parent/guardian is not going to help remedy the situation. If students are
misbehaving because of a safety need, then the teachers need to do what they can
to help the students feel safe. If the student is not turning in assignments, it might
be because of low esteem. Using the levels of needs in Maslow’s theory can help
teachers understand the cause of student behavior and, therefore, help determine
appropriate actions to correct misbehavior.
The ideas and teaching applications in the above sections represent a sampling
of possible ways to incorporate Maslow’s theory of human motivation into science
teaching. They are based on my experiences as a high school biology teacher in the
US. Although the ideas are not a comprehensive list of every possible strategy, my
intention is to spark ideas to implement in your own teaching context.
Summary
• Maslow believed not everything in human nature can be studied by behaviorist

approaches. He studied individuals he considered to be caring and brilliant in
order to learn more about the connections of motivation, learning, and being.
• The theory of human motivation explains that humans are motivated by needs
which are organized into a hierarchy. Once one level of needs in the hierarchy is
met, a new level becomes the focal center of motivation for an individual.
• The basic needs in Maslow’s theory and hierarchy are: physiological, safety, love
and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. These are arranged in order from
greatest to least priority, according to Maslow. For instance, for a person who faces
extreme hunger (a physiological need), food is the primary motivating factor.
• Self-actualization, the highest tier in Maslow’s theory, is a desire or motiva-
tion toward self-fulfillment. To understand more about self-actualization, Maslow
studied individuals he considered to be physiologically healthy adults.
• In addition to the hierarchy of needs, Maslow’s theory also contains important
characteristics, such as: hierarchy reversal of needs, degrees of relative satis-
faction, and multiple motivations of behavior. For instance, at times, there are
exceptions to the order of the tiers in the hierarchy. Additionally, needs do not
have to be 100% satisfied before progressing toward higher levels of motivation.
• The main criticisms of Maslow’s theory are that it focuses on individualism and
elitism and relates primarily to Western cultures.
• Teaching strategies can be applied for each of the levels in the hierarchy. The main
strategies presented in this paper are:
– Physiological—free and reduced lunch programs, teacher awareness, support
resources
– Safety—respectful and welcoming classroom, clear rules and expectations,
laboratory safety
– Belonging—collaborative learning groups/activities, peer dialogue, teacher
rapport with students
– Esteem—inquiry and student-centered instructional approaches, productive
questioning strategies, recognition of effort and success
– Self-actualization—inquiry and student-centered instructional approaches,
goal setting strategies
• Maslow’s theory of human motivation remains one of the most referenced and
remembered theories to this day. Maslow continued to ponder questions about
human motivation and nature until his death in 1970.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Melissa Jurkiewicz and Ryan Nixon for
providing thoughtful feedback on drafts of this chapter.
28 S. L. Navy
References
Bouzenita, A. I., & Boulanouar, A. W. (2016). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: An Islamic critique.
Intellectual Discourse, 24(1), 59–81.
Buss, A. R. (1979). Humanistic psychology as liberal ideology: The socio-historical roots of
Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19(3), 43–55.
Cooke, B., Mills, A. J., & Kelley, E. S. (2005). Situating Maslow in cold war America:
A recontextualization of management theory. Group and Organization Management, 32(2),
129–152.
Cullen, D. (1997). Maslow, monkeys, and motivation theory. Organization, 4(3), 355–373.
Davis-Sharts, J. (1986). An empirical test of Maslow’s theory of need hierarchy using hologeistic
comparison by statistical sampling. Advances in Nursing Science, 9(1), 58–72.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Frager, R. (1987). Foreward: The influence of Abraham Maslow. In A. H. Maslow, R. Frager, J.
Fadiman, C. Reynolds, & R. Cox (Eds.), Motivation and personality (3rd ed., Rev., pp. 33–41).
Noida, India: Pearson.
Gambrel, P. A., & Cianci, R. (2003). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist
culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143–161.
Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data
in man. New York: American Book Company.
Hall, M. H. (1968). A conversation with Abraham H. Maslow. Psychology Today, 35–37, 54–57.
Lowry, R. (Ed.). (1979). The journals of A.H. Maslow. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Nevis, E. C. (1983). Using an American perspective in understanding another culture: Toward a
hierarchy of needs for the People’s Republic of China. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
19(3), 249–264.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Pearson, E. M. (1999). Humanism and individualism: Maslow and his critics. Adult Education
Quarterly, 50(1), 41–55.
Shaw, R., & Colimore, K. (1988). Humanistic psychology as ideology. An analysis of Maslow’s
contradictions. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28(3), 51–74.
Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2013). Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction
of the needs. The American Journal of Psychology, 126(2), 155–177.
Shannon L. Navy is an Assistant Professor of Science Education at Kent State University in

the United States. She taught high school biology prior to working in teacher education. Her
research focuses on science teacher learning and development, particularly during the induction
years. Related to human motivation, she is interested in teachers’ motivations to engage in life-
long learning opportunities. Her current work investigates teachers’ mindsets and trajectories of
learning.
Chapter 3
Glasser’s Choice Theory and Science
Education in British Columbia
Todd M. Milford and Robert B. Kiddell
Introduction
William Glasser developed choice theory (CT), which provides the foundations of
reality therapy (RT), in the 1960s in an effort to explain both human behavior and
motivation. In teacher education programs, and particularly in the areas of classroom
management and special education, CT is relatively common and is often addressed
along with other theories such as Skinner’s behaviorism, Bandura’s self-efficacy,
and Adler’s individual psychology. The first author was introduced to Glasser and
CT within his own course work as an early career teacher while doing a Special
Education Diploma at the University of British Columbia in the mid-1990s. In these
classes, Glasser’s ideas around motivation and student choice were appealing as they
could be directly applied to the elementary classroom, the classroom in which the
author planned to focus their teaching career. Glasser’s writings offer a clear and
straightforward explanation describing how a science classroom might be set up to
best function; that is, how one can live their life in a way that works for them while
getting along well with those they need to get along with (Glasser, 1998). Integrated
with classroom functioning, building and maintaining positive relationships are a key
area of emphasis within CT, much as relationships between students and teacher and
student are emphasized in the British Columbia (BC) Science Curriculum. Glasser
recognized that important human relationships were critical to success in life. This
recognition of how students interact with each other, as well as with the teacher
in the classroom, was also appealing as it countered the external control approach.
The external control approach argued for punishing students who are doing wrong
so they might do right and rewarding students for doing right so they will continue
T. M. Milford (B) · R. B. Kiddell

University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
R. B. Kiddell

30 T. M. Milford and R. B. Kiddell
to do so and was common in teacher education at the time. The recent revision of
the Kindergarten (K) to Grade 12 curriculum in British Columbia (BC) emphasizes
more personalized learning in science education, which better meets the needs of
individual students and offers a place for Glasser and his ideas to provide guidance.
This chapter outlines the basic ideas of Glasser’s CT, its relationship to additional
theories and theorists, and explores how CT can be applied to the science classroom.
As both authors are from BC, where the curriculum has recently undergone substan-
tial revision to better meet the needs of twenty-first-century students, the discussion
of CT and classroom applications—particularly in science—will explore the new
BC curriculum in some detail.
Choice Theory and Reality Therapy
William Glasser
William Glasser was an American psychiatrist and the creator of both RT and CT. He
was an anti-Freudian and anti-Behaviorist who focused on personal responsibility
and personal transformation as a way to mental health and success in life. Glasser did
not believe in, nor did he promote, the dominant paradigm in traditional psychiatry
that the common goal was to diagnose a patient with a mental illness and prescribe
medications to treat the particular illness. Instead, he believed the patient was typ-
ically acting out of unhappiness, not some kind of mental illness. Glasser notably
deviated from conventional psychiatrists by warning the general public about the
potential detriments caused by the profession of psychiatry. In fact, he was denied a
teaching position early in his career because of his efforts to counter the teachings
of Freud (Henderson & Thompson, 2010).
Glasser publicized his approaches to psychiatry and mental health through a num-
ber of single and coauthored books across a variety of topics including mental health,
counseling, school improvement, and teaching. Several publications advocated a pub-
lic health approach, which emphasized mental health versus the prevailing “medi-
cal” model that focused on illness and medication. He founded the Institute for
Reality Therapy in 1968, which offered both introductory and advanced courses
for professionals working in the areas of mental health services. Information on
William Glasser can be found easily on the internet through the William Glasser
Institute (n.d.; http://www.wglasser.com/) which offers research, training, journals,
counseling, membership, and conference information.
Reality Therapy. RT, developed by Glasser prior to the further detailing of its
theoretical foundation CT, is a person-centered approach to counseling that primarily
addresses the present instead of dwelling in the past. Fundamental to RT is the
suggestion that psychological problems are not the result of a mental illness, but
instead human psychological problems are the result of one’s inability to meet basic
needs. The modern science curriculum considers how basic needs affect elementary
3 Glasser’s Choice Theory and Science Education in British … 31
children’s learning. Glasser detailed five basic needs (i) love and belonging (to a
family, other loved one, and/or community); (ii) power and achievement (a sense of
winning or a sense of self-worth); (iii) survival (basic needs of survival, nourishment,
and shelter); (iv) freedom (to be independent or maintain personal autonomy); and,
(v) fun (to achieve satisfaction, enjoyment, and pleasure).
Glasser believed that an individual has control over their behavior. When an indi-
vidual makes choices to change their behavior, rather than attempting to change
someone else’s behavior, they will more successfully meet their needs. Life becomes
problematic for people when they engage in irresponsible behaviors; these irrespon-
sible behaviors are defined as any effort to satisfy one’s own needs that infringe
upon the rights of others to meet their needs (Henderson & Thompson, 2010). RT
emphasizes individual efforts to meet basic needs, and at the same time facilitates
individuals (clients in this case) to become aware of, and change negative thoughts
and actions. Under this approach, when an individual, or elementary science student,
is feeling poorly it is because one or more of the five basic needs is not being met.
The goal becomes to help the individual recognize that changing their actions may
have a positive effect on the way the individual feels as well as on their ability to
meet their needs, which has implications for the elementary science classroom.
According to RT, the source of almost all human problems is unsatisfactory or
nonexistent connections with people. RT works by helping the person in therapy
focus on the present and on what needs can be satisfied (William Glasser Institute,
2010). In this way, a specific issue or concern becomes the focus of what they can
actually change. Adapting Glasser’s approach helps students and teachers create
connections, the teacher who follows Glasser’s work likely will (a) focus on the
present; (b) avoid discussing complaints; (c) avoid blaming or criticizing; (d) offer
a nonjudgmental perspective; (e) avoid excuses; (f) focus on the specifics; and, (g)
help students to make a tangible and workable plan to reconnect with the people they
need in their lives. RT offers teachers and students a self-help tool, which effectively
improves the science classroom and boosts their confidence and self-esteem.
RT has been presented as an effective approach to dealing with challenging indi-
viduals who exhibit both resistive and uncooperative behaviors (Wubbolding, 1991).
Before his death in 2013, Glasser had a good deal of success applying the ideas
of RT and CT (see below) at the Ventura School for Girls in California where he
reduced the recidivism rate from over 90% to lower than 20% in a short period of
time (Henderson & Thompson, 2010). To achieve this outcome, Glasser assigned
each girl personal responsibility for her actions, favored praise over punishment,
and demonstrated personal interest in each of the girls’ well-being. Essentially, he
applied the tenets of both RT and CT with positive results.
Choice Theory. CT primarily focusses on the idea of external versus internal
control and indicates how these factors influence behavior. Glasser (1998) suggests
that from birth we begin to understand how we externally control others to meet our
needs (e.g., crying to gain attention or to be fed). As we age and mature, however,
continuing to try and externally control others’ behavior to meet our needs actually
leads to unhappiness (Glasser, 1998). Glasser saw the efforts to get others to do
things as the ultimate cause of relationship break downs. Central to the idea of CT is
that we are truly internally motivated and that external influences never force us to
do anything. Instead people are responsible for their choices, decisions, goals, and
the general degree of happiness in their lives (Henderson & Thompson, 2010). He
believed the best way to improve human relationships was for all people to embed
the ideas of CT in their own lives. This responsibility is not to say that we have
unlimited choice or that the external world is unimportant, just that individuals have
a good deal of control over and are responsible for the choices they make in life.
Student choice and responsibility is the core element of the BC Science Curriculum.
What motivates us internally is the personal image of a quality world we have
created for ourselves. Whenever we feel good it is because we are “choosing to
behave so that someone, something, or some belief in the real world has come close to
matching a picture of that person, thing, or belief in our quality world” (Glasser, 1998,
p. 45). Based upon this ideal, individuals evaluate their behavior and determine if it is
the best choice to move them toward their quality world. CT is about understanding
that one can only control their own behavior and that individuals have the ability to
make choices to improve their lives (Henderson & Thompson, 2010).
The most germane idea from CT for science teachers is that educators should
empower instead of control students. If, as a teacher, you deem external control and
punishment as inappropriate and ineffective in helping your students to succeed, then
the idea of bringing students to the point of cooperation in the classroom is appealing.
Glasser believes the teacher should play the role of a manager by motivating students
to make their own choices and by empowering them to take responsibility for their
own learning. Thus, it is not difficult to see how Glasser’s ideas have the potential to
fit nicely into a science curriculum focused on personalized learning.
Relationship to Other Behavior Theories
Realizing that there are chapters in this volume on both Bandura’s social learning
theory (SCT) (see Chap. 7 this volume) as well as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
(see Chap. 20 this volume), these will not be dealt with to any great detail here.
However, some exploration of how these theories overlap with parts of Glasser’s CT
provides a clearer understanding of CT as well as transitioning readers to the second
part of this chapter which is associated with the application of CT in the classroom
and science classroom.
Social Learning Theory. Albert Bandura’s SCT suggests learning occurs in a
social environment, can be acquired by observing and replicating what others do,
and can also occur through the observations of behavioral reward and punishment
(Bandura, 1971). Like behaviorism (see Chap. 6 this volume), SCT maintains that
when a behavior is reinforced it will tend to continue and if not reinforced then
the behavior will tend to diminish. From a comparative perspective, SCT and CT
share the belief that individuals control their own lives and actions, despite some
language differences (Malone, 2002). For example, Bandura speaks of an individual’s
self-regulatory capabilities while Glasser frames the choice or lack of choice in a
behavior by asking what need was potentially being fulfilled. Self-efficacy, one’s
belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task (Bandura,
1977), is also relevant as any discussion of CT relates to the “importance of human
relationships, and, to have feelings of worth, individuals need to feel a sense of
competence (self-efficacy)” (Malone, 2002, p. 11).
Sociocultural Theory. Another useful theory, when trying to understand CT
and its applications to the classroom, is Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Vygotsky
emphasized the role of the environment and social interaction on cognitive develop-
ment (Crain, 2011). He approached learning as a social experience, promoting social
interaction as a key theme in an individual’s cognitive development. The similarities
between CT and sociocultural theory in terms of the importance of social relation-
ships are obvious. Two key contributions to the understanding of cognitive develop-
ment within Vygotsky’s theory were the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and
that of internalization. The ZPD describes tasks that a learner is unable to complete
on their own but are appropriate when some assistance is provided from a more
knowledgeable person (Louis, 2009). Cognitive development occurs when learners
are confronted with tasks within this zone. The other contribution, internalization,
suggests that social forces are key to learning and that much of what children learn
is through interactions they have with the environment (Crain, 2011). Apparent in
sociocultural theory is that effective social interactions are a necessary foundation
for cognitive development. Glasser’s CT contributes to sociocultural theory through
the tools required to set this foundation for social interactions in a classroom (Louis,
2009).
Choice Theory and Teaching
The ideas that Glasser forwarded in CT, namely that humans have five basic needs
(i.e., survival, freedom, power, love and belonging, and fun) they seek to satisfy, have
applicability within the K to Grade 12 science classroom. Glasser felt students did
their best learning when they were happy and to realize this, he felt schools needed
to be places where “students can attain a sense of belonging, maintain the belief that
they have some control over their academic achievement, make developmentally
appropriate and meaningful choices, and appreciate school as a joyful place” (Wub-
bolding, 2007, p. 254). A classroom that reflects CT is one where social interactions
are paramount (Irvine, 2015) recognizing children learn best when positive relation-
ships between students, teachers, administration, and parents are actively fostered
(Wubbolding, 2007). The practice of teaching in a classroom, with such positive
interaction, is more about leading than about demanding. This sort of classroom is
also where teachers openly demonstrate they have students’ best interests at heart,
allowing students to place teachers into their quality world. Before discussing how
CT translates and informs teaching in a science classroom, a brief discussion of
the BC science curriculum and its recent focus on personalized learning provides a
context for why this change is warranted.
BC Science Curriculum
The public as well as the private sector provide education in Canada although fund-
ing and control are situated primarily at the provincial level. Up until the 1990s,
provinces developed their own curricula without considering the rest of the landscape
in Canada. In the 1990s, the Council of Ministers of Education with representation
from across the country formed the Pan-Canadian Protocol (PCP) for Collaboration
on School Curriculum to help each province develop their own curricula within the
larger context of Canada. The first development project initiated by the PCP was the
Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes, K to 12 (Council of Ministers
of Education, Canada [CMEC], 1997), a project that focused on science education
across the country.
The framework provided a vision and foundation statements for scientific literacy
in Canada, outlined general and specific learning outcomes, and included illustrative
examples for some of those outcomes. The framework created common ground for the
development of curriculum within each participating jurisdiction, with the intent to
provide greater consistency in the learning outcomes for K to Grade 12 science across
jurisdictions. Other benefits included a greater harmonization of science curriculum
for increased student mobility, the development of quality pan-Canadian learning
resources, and collaboration for professional development activities by teachers of
science. Each jurisdiction determined how the framework was to be used. The Com-
mon Framework had a large impact on the science curriculum across Canada and
despite its relatively advanced age and calls for its revision (Milford, Jagger, Yore,
& Anderson, 2010), current science curriculum from across the country continues to
reflect the common framework.
The British Columbia Ministry of Education (BCME) drew heavily from the Com-
mon Framework when it created the integrated resource package (IRPs), the school
curriculum, which was implemented in 2005 and is now replaced with a revised
curriculum. The goals for science education in BC, as stipulated in the IRPs, were to
provide students with scientific literacy through: understanding the nature of science,
technology, and the environment; skills for inquiry; knowledge and understanding
across the major domains of science; and the development of responsible attitudes
toward scientific and technological knowledge (BCME, 2005).
Science curriculum developers were informed that these four goals were critical
to students’ scientific literacy and that the science curriculum must adhere to three
principles of learning: (i) learning requires the active participation of the student;
(ii) people learn in a variety of ways and at different rates; and (iii) learning is
both an individual and a group process. The IRPs were broken down by subject
and grade level; there was one science IRP for all of K (5 years old) to Grade 7
(12-year old), additional science IRPs for Grades 8, 9, and 10 (13–15-year old) and
then subject-specific ones for upper level (16–18-year old) science (e.g., Biology
11 or Physics 12). The standards within the IRPs were called prescribed learning
outcomes (PLOs), which set the required attitudes, skills, and knowledge students
were expected to know and be able to do for each subject and grade level.
New K-12 BC Science Curriculum
In 2010, the BCME initiated the Learning Modernization Project (LMP) with the
goal of helping to transform education to better meet the needs of all learners (Mil-
ford, Hawkey, Glickman, & Anderson, 2017). The LMP was a consultative process
involving stakeholders, provincial partners, and school districts that took the form
of local sessions, provincial and regional conferences and meetings, conversations
with international experts, and online dialogue. In addition, explorations into best
practices in education within BC and a review of transformation plans from other
parts of Canada and from around the world helped advise this transformation.
From this process, a direction materialized reflecting the conviction that the
province needed a flexible curriculum that was less prescriptive than the IRP curricu-
lum. The new curriculum should enable teachers and students by providing choice,
encouraging collaboration, and empowering innovation. The LMP offered the vision
of a K to Grade 12 school system focused on competencies best suited to prepare
students for their futures based upon a new curriculum that was less prescriptive,
allowing for greater focus on important outcomes (and individual needs) and provid-
ing more flexibility to innovate. This vision of education has similar goals to those
proposed by Glasser in CT.
The BC Education Plan (BCME, 2015a), is the most recent revised articulation
of this new vision for education in BC. The Plan’s vision is further informed by the
understanding that capable young people should thrive in this rapidly changing world
and the education system, and therefore curriculum, must better engage students in
their own learning and allow students to foster the skills and competencies they will
need to succeed. Much like CT, the BCME (2015b), proposes
The best outcomes are achieved through learner-centered approaches that are sensitive to
individual and group differences, that promote inclusive and collaborative learning, that
harness students’ passions and interests, and that deliver tailored feedback and coaching.
(p. 3)
The BCME intends to achieve their vision forwarded by the BC Education Plan
through a focus on personalized learning and encouraging students to learn by
exploring their own interests and passions. This personalized approach supports
student-initiated, self-directed, and interdisciplinary learning.
The curriculum (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/) that emerged from this coopera-
tive undertaking was implemented for K to Grade 9 (5–14-year old) students in the
2016–2017 school year and was implemented for Grades 10–12 (15–18-year old)
students beginning in the 2018–2019 school year. Learners in science, as in every
discipline in the new curriculum, are expected to develop three core competencies:
communication, thinking, and personal and social (see Table 3.1). The communi-
cation competency encompasses the set of abilities that students use to impart and
exchange information. The thinking competency encompasses the knowledge, skills,
and processes associated with intellectual development. The personal and social com-
petency is the set of abilities that relate to students’ identity in the world, both as
individuals and as members of their community and society. The core competencies
Table 3.1 Description of the core competencies in the revised BC curriculum (BCME, 2017)
Competency Description
Communication The set of abilities that students use to impart and exchange information,
experiences, and ideas, to explore the world around them, and to
understand and effectively engage in the use of digital media
Thinking Encompasses the knowledge, skills, and processes we associate with
intellectual development. It is through their competency as thinkers that
students take subject-specific concepts and content and transform them
into a new understanding. Thinking competence includes specific
thinking skills as well as habits of mind and metacognitive awareness
Personal and social The set of abilities that relate to students’ identity in the world, both as
individuals and as members of their community and society. Personal and
social competency encompasses the abilities students need to thrive as
individuals, to understand and care about themselves and others, and to
find and achieve their purposes in the world
are intended for use in everyday school, designed to become an integral part of the
learning in all curriculum areas, and theorized to generalize to aspects of the stu-
dent’s life outside of school. The core competencies, while developed separately by
the BCME, relate very closely to Glasser’s CT.
The new BC science curriculum’s curricular competencies describe further and
delve deeper into the BCEP’s competencies (Fig. 3.1).
The new provincial curriculum resulted in a new science curriculum for students
in K to Grade 9 in the 2016–2017 school year. The redesigned science curriculum
indicates for teachers the content to be addressed and embeds the core competen-
cies of critical thinking, innovation, and collaboration. These core competencies are
further informed by science curricular competencies (see Fig. 3.1) which necessi-
tates, for example learners in Grade 4 to assume different perspectives, designing
and planning their own investigation and opportunities for expressing and reflecting
on personal or shared experiences of place.
The BC science curriculum also provides elaborations for the curricular compe-
tencies at each grade level. These elaborations are not science content but suggest
entry points through which students may investigate concepts related to the curricu-
lar competencies. The content, with many fewer descriptors than the competencies,
appears as a medium through which each individual can further their understanding
of the competencies. Thus, as Glasser suggests, the students become involved in their
learning and are expected to make choices that meet their needs. The curriculum was
specifically transformed to encourage this sort of student success. As one tenet of
that transformation states:
Personalized learning focuses on enhancing student engagement in learning and giving
students choices—more of a say in what and how they learn—leading to lifelong, self-
directed learning. Students and teachers develop learning plans to build on student’s interests,
goals, and learning needs. Involving students in reflecting on their work and setting new goals
based on their reflections allows them to take more control of their learning. Personalized
Big Ideas
All living things sense Matter has Mass, takes Energy can be The motions of earth and the moon
and respond to their up space, and can transformed cause observable patterns that affect
environment change phase living and non-living things
Curricular Competencies
Questioning and Planning Processing Communicating Evaluating Applying and

Predicting: and and analyzing Innovating
Demonstrate Conducting data and Represent and Make simple
curiosity about information communicate inferences based on Contribute to
the natural Suggest ideas and their results and prior care for self,
world. ways to plan Experience findings in a knowledge. others, school,
and conduct and interpret variety of ways, and
Observe objects an inquiry to the local such as Reflect on whether an neighbourhood
and events in find answers environment. diagrams and investigation was a through
familiar to their simple reports, fair test. individual or
contexts. questions. Identify First using digital collaborative
People’s Demonstrate an
technologies as understanding and approaches.
Identify Consider perspectives appropriate.
questions about ethical and appreciation of Cooperatively
familiar objects responsibilit knowledge as Express and evidence. design projects.
and events that ies when sources of reflect on Identify some simple
can be deciding information. personal or Transfer and
environmental apply learning
investigated how to shared implications of their
scientifically. conduct an Sort and experiences of to new
classify data and others’ actions. situations.
experiment. place.
Make and
predictions Safely use information Generate and
based on prior appropriate using introduce new
knowledge tools to drawings or or refined ideas
make provided when engaged
observations tables. in problem-
and solving
measuremen Use tables,
ts. simple bar
graphs, or
Make other formats
observations to represent
about living data and show
and non- simple
living things patterns and
in the local trends.
environment.
Compare
results with
predictions,
suggesting
Collect possible
simple data. reasons for
findings.
Content
Sensing and Responding: humans, other animals, plants

Biomes as large regions with similar environmental features
Phases of matter
The effect of temperature on particle movement
Energy: has various forms, is conserved
Devices that transform energy
Local changes caused by Earth’s axis, rotation, and orbit
The effects of the relative positions of the sun, moon and Earth including local First People’s perspectives
Fig. 3.1 Big ideas, curricular competencies, and content from the Grade 4 science BC revised
curriculum (BCME, 2017)
learning also encompasses place-based learning, where learning experiences are adapted to
the local environment or an individual context. (BCME, 2015b, p. 2)
The result is a science curriculum that is much more personalized than the previous
curriculum in the province. The New BC Science Curriculum from its vision, through
to its goals, big ideas and competencies, and content, is designed to engage the
individual learner. The vision and goals provide a clear direction toward individual
learning while the design of the big ideas, curricular competencies, and content lead
to the development of the whole child intellectually, personally, and socially. The
science curriculum prepares students for their lives as individuals and moves teaching
from simply helping students master the knowledge and skills acquired through the
standard subject areas to applying it in their lives. BC’s science curriculum design is
intended to enable a personalized, flexible, and innovative approach at all levels of
the education system.
CT and Science Teaching
The transition to a more personalized, innovating, and flexible curriculum in BC as

outlined in the previous section has the potential to address concerns Glasser voiced
with the education system. Glasser had two major difficulties with the institution
that he labeled schooling. First, the entire enterprise was designed to make students
acquire facts and information that have limited value in the real world; and second,
that in order to make these acquisitions occur, the system needed to emphasize
external control and punishment. Instead, he argued for education that encouraged
students to meet their basic needs of love and belonging, power and achievement,
survival, freedom, and fun. For Glasser, a successful education system could be
designed to meet these different needs in students.
However, the literature associated with CT in the classroom is sparse. One area
where CT has some overlap is with the education transformation currently underway
in BC. The BCME has stated that it is transforming the education system in BC
to one that “better engages students in their own learning and fosters the skills and
competencies students will need to succeed” (BCME, 2019, para. 2). The BCME
clearly emphasized personalized learning in its most recent curriculum revisions
and further states that to achieve personalization, “educators on the ground will
need to innovate and identify successful approaches” (BCME, 2015b, p. 8). We
believe one potential approach would be for teachers to employ CT in their efforts
to bring core and curricular competencies to the science classroom. For example, a
Grade 4 classroom that seeks to encourage students in the personal and social core
competency would fit nicely with the basic ideas of CT. The personal and social
core competency relates to how a student as an individual and as a member of a
group is associated with the larger community, as well as how students learn to care
about themselves and others. The basic principle within CT of empowering students
by offering choice within their educational experience and encouraging them to take
personal control over their interactions in the classroom would clearly align to support
this competency. In this way, students can bring both science as a subject as well as
their teachers into their quality world.
Basic needs. As a way to explore what education as opposed to schooling might
look like in a science classroom, each of Glasser’s basic needs (love and belonging;
power and achievement; survival; freedom; and fun) is used as a basis for discussion.
Love and belonging. The first of Glasser’s stated needs is for relationships,
social connections, affection, and group membership as there is a positive asso-
ciation between the relationships in our lives and our welfare. Kohn (2006) suggests
that students are unsuccessful, not because of cognitive deficits, but because they
feel unwelcome, detached, or alienated from significant others in the educational
environment. A classroom environment that counters this alienation and supports
positive relationships is one of mutual trust, where students are identified positively
for actions and achievements, and learning activities occur along a continuum from
individual to whole group instruction. For example, the 5E model of engage, explore,
explain, elaborate, and evaluate (Bybee, 1997) easily becomes a place for teachers to
set students up in learning groups for explorations, ensuring that each student has a
key role to play in the activity and also understands the direction and learning in the
group. Additionally, the Applying and Innovating Curricular Competency for Grade
4 Science indicates that students are expected to (i) Contribute to care for self, others,
school, and neighborhood through individual or collaborative approaches and to (ii)
Cooperatively design projects.
Power and achievement. This need is based on the personal recognition and
understanding of achievement, competence, and skill. Rich performance assessment
tasks built upon formative assessment offer pathways for students to achieve this
need. Assessment tasks, tied intimately with instruction, help teachers and students
to understand what learning needs to have taken place before assessment occurs.
In this way, students better understand where they have strength and weakness,
which they are then able to address while teachers offer support and guidance on a
more individual and differentiated level. Irvine (2015) also identified opportunities
for this need in a science classroom where students became “scientists for a day”
with the opportunity to understand a scientific concept and present this to the class.
He suggested that this opportunity supported student choice, competence, and self-
efficacy. At all levels, students of science are adept at forming rubrics or other tools
on which they wish their work to be assessed. This is common practice in many
schools with which we have worked.
Survival. Survival is the basic need for food, shelter, and safety. How it relates
to or manifests in a science classroom is probably the most general of the needs as
it easily generalizes to all classrooms. To help students feel safe and secure in the
classroom, teachers can do a number of things from encouraging student self-care to
maintaining a safe classroom. Allowing students some autonomy and responsibility
to take care of themselves with such things as personal water bottles, nutrition, or
bathroom breaks during class can help them meet these needs. Within the classroom
environment, developing and maintaining consistent behavioral expectations, as well
as procedures and routines can add to a sense of security. These procedures and
routines may be the most suitable for the science classroom as not only does it help
maintain safety while encouraging learning but also helps extend to students that
they are important, valued, and cared for. Safety in a science classroom needs to be
paramount but this does not mean that the “rules” must always be predetermined.
Freedom. The fourth need addresses independence, autonomy, choice, and control
over one’s life. On a simple level, this need can be addressed by allowing some
choice on things like classroom seating and how groups are established for learning
opportunities. On a larger level, we have worked in schools that offered one hour
each day for “choice work.” This choice time was for students to focus on one area of
interest to explore it in depth. The teacher’s role was as facilitator, guiding students
through goal-setting, check-ins, and assistance. The science student and class benefit,
for example, when a science demonstration conducted by a student is confidently
discussed and explored; especially if the students are well prepared in their chosen
area.
Fun. The final need deals with pleasure, play, and laughter. One way to meet this
need in the science classroom is through games for learning. Herr (2008) suggests
that games are alternatives to the passive recitation type classroom activities and
allows students to be active and engaged participants. Although Herr looks at these
primarily as review sessions, the opportunity to use games of various forms, across
many aspects of science instruction, is possible as they promote “teamwork, an
attitude and skill that is invaluable in every aspect of life” (2008, p. 244). One game
that we have seen and played in our science methods course is Science Taboo. In
this game, students are broken into teams and in turn, team members select words
to describe to their peers without using the words that are identified as being taboo.
For example, the described word could be telescope and the taboo words might
be star, observatory, Galileo, and astronomy. Students are motivated to do well for
themselves and for their peers and the ability to explain concepts without using taboo
terms is an indicator of good understanding; besides, it is also quite fun.
WDEP system. Lastly, the acronym WDEP (i.e., wants and needs, direction and
doing, self-evaluation, and planning) has been employed with the practice of CT to
describe key procedures (Corey, 2005) and can be extended to an application in the
science classroom. As previously stated, RT considers unsatisfactory relationships
as the basis of human problems and therapy focuses on how to help patients make
more effective choices. One of these choices for an individual is change, and the
realization that they can control their own behavior.
The new curriculum in BC encourages more student choice in that it focuses on
personalized learning and encouraging students to learn by exploring their own inter-
ests and passions. In a science classroom, the WDEP acronym might operationalize
into the following:
• Wants and needs. Teachers can be encouraged to ask students what they want out
of a science class or unit as well as what they are expecting. Questions to guide
this process might include ones such as “What kind of science class might your
idea one look like?” and “What is it that you want to get out of science class?”
• Direction and doing. Direction and doing focuses on current behavior and asks the
question “What are you doing now?” The focus here is for teachers to encourage
students to take action in changing what they are thinking and doing.
• Self-evaluation. The core of this approach is for students to self-evaluate and asks
students if their current behavior is taking them in the direction they wish to go.
Questions such as “Is what you are doing now what you want to be doing?” can be
used to guide this evaluation process. CT is based upon the idea that individuals
will not change until they determine a change will be beneficial.
• Planning and action. Once students have determined what they want from their
science class, what they are currently doing, and if what they are doing is helping
them meet these needs, they are then in a position to determine what they want
to change (if anything) and to develop an action plan. This involves creating and
carrying out a plan as well as working with the teacher to devise a different plan
if the initial one does not work (Corey, 2005).
Because the new curriculum in BC is built upon student collaboration, investiga-
tion, problem-solving, communication, innovation, and discovery—all in an effort
to increase understanding through hands-on science—the steps that make up the
WDEP acronym could be used as a template for teachers and students to create a
plan for their science learning that is doable, positive, independent, realistic, and
ultimately, attainable.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have offered a brief overview of Glasser’s ideas associated with
RT and CT, both counseling theories that seek to address individual’s unhappiness
or dissatisfaction by improving their abilities to establish relationships. Addition-
ally, we argued for the potential application of these theories to the classroom—in
particular how they might easily mesh with the new and revised curriculum in BC.
The possibility of employing parts of CT and combining it with a personalized and
student-centered curriculum has some distinct advantages for science teachers.
Summary
• This chapter explores the work of William Glasser, an American psychiatrist and
the creator of both Reality Therapy and Choice Theory.
• Reality Therapy is a person-centered approach to counseling that primarily
addresses the present instead of dwelling in the past.
• Choice Theory attempts to explain human behavior and motivation and main-
tains that humans have five basic needs (i.e., survival, freedom, power, love and
belonging, and fun) they seek to satisfy.
• These five needs have general application from the Kindergarten to Grade 12
classroom.
• The British Columbia Ministry of Education in Canada has recently revised its
Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum to better meet the needs of learners in the
twenty-first century.
• One of the major areas of the revised British Columbia curriculum includes
personalized learning.
• Teacher efforts to meet Glasser’s five needs easily overlap with ideas of
personalization in the classroom.
Recommended Resources
http://wglasser.com/our-approach/reality-therapy/.
http://wglasser.com/our-approach/choice-theory/.
http://www.assessmentforlearning.edu.au/default.asp.
https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/support/bcs-education-plan.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade12/teach/pdfs/curriculum/
curriculum-transformation-overview.pdf.
References
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2005). Science K to 7: Integrated resource package
2005. Retrieved from www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade…/sciences/
2005scik7.pdf.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015a). British Columbia education plan. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/support/bcs-education-plan.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015b). Introduction to curriculum redesign. Retrieved
from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum-info.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2017). Core competencies. Retrieved from https://
curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2019). Curriculum overview. Retrieved from https://
curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/overview.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Corey, G. (2005). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning
outcomes, K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use
by curriculum developers. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/
commonframework00coun.
Crain, W. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Henderson, D. A., & Thompson, C. L. (2010). Counseling Children. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole.
Herr, N. (2008). The sourcebook for teaching science: Strategies, activities, and instructional
resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Irvine, J. (2015). Encting Glasser’s (1998) Choice theory in a grade 3 classroom: A case study.
Journals of Case studies in Education, 7, 1–14.
Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline from compliance to community. Alexandria: Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Louis, G. W. (2009). Using Glasser’s choice theory to understand Vygotsky. International Journal
of Reality Therapy, 28(2), 20–23.
Malone, Y. (2002). Social cognitive theory and choice theory: A comparative analysis. International
Journal of Reality Therapy, 22(1), 10–13.
Milford, T. M., Hawkey, C., Glickman, V., & Anderson, J. O. (2017). Documentation sources for the
evaluation of the British Columbia Learning Modernization Project (SRFP No. MED-GAD-003).
Research Report. May 2017. Ministry of Education, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Milford, T. M., Jagger, S., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2010). National influences on science edu-
cation reform in Canada. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
10(4), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2010.528827.
William Glasser Institute. (n.d.). Welcome to the William Glasser institute—US. Retrieved from
http://www.wglasser.com/.
William Glasser Institute (2010). Realty therapy. Retrieved from http://www.wglasser.com/the-
glasser-approach/reality-therapy.
Wubbolding, R. E. (1991). Using reality therapy with difficult and resistant people. The Journal of
Correctional Training, 12.
Wubbolding, R. E. (2007). Glasser quality school. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,
11(4), 253–261.
Todd M. Milford (BSc-1994, BEd-1997, Dip SpecEd-2000, MEd-2004, Ph.D.-2009; University

of Victoria) is an associate professor in science education and research methodologies at the Uni-
versity of Victoria. He was a lecturer in the Art, Law, and Education Group at Griffith, University
in Brisbane Australia. He has mathematics, science, and special education teaching experience at
the elementary and secondary level (Victoria and Vancouver, BC) as well as in the online environ-
ment (SIDES, Saanich, BC). He has been teaching at the postsecondary level since 2005 primarily
in the areas of science education, mathematics education, and classroom assessment. His research
has been and continues to be varied; however, the constant theme is on using data and data analysis
to help teachers and students in the classroom.
Robert B. Kiddell (BSc-1978, Cert. Ed.-1979, MA-1987; UBC) is a Ph.D. candidate in sci-
ence education at the University of Victoria. He was an elementary and middle school princi-
pal in Canada and Singapore for 23 years. He has taught science education at the University of
British Columbia and been Chief Judge of the Canada Wide Science Fair. Since 2016, he has been
teaching science methods courses and supervising science education students at the University of
Victoria.
Chapter 4
Intrinsically Motivating
Instruction—Thomas Malone
Bodil Svendsen, Tony Burner, and Fredrik Mørk Røkenes
No compulsory learning can remain in the soul…. In teaching

children, train them by a kind of game, and you will be able to
see more clearly the natural bent of each (Plato, The Republic,
Book VII).
Introduction
This chapter is about the Intrinsically Motivating Instruction Theory by Thomas

Malone. This is a manifestation which covers a wide range of in-service activities,
from the acquisition of functional information to deep philosophical reflection about
teaching and learning. A number of features of intrinsically motivating environments
will be described further in this chapter, such as curiosity, challenge, and fantasy.
Simply put, an activity bringing about intrinsic motivation is satisfying in itself,
and it is not influenced by what others will think about performance, or what kind
of reward that awaits when the task is completed. Imagine children playing and how
unaffected they are of extrinsic motivation, i.e., some kind of external reward in order
to be engaged in playing. According to Olson, Malone, and Smith (2001, pp. 334–
335) an activity is said to be intrinsically motivating if people engage in it for its own
sake and if they do not engage in the activity to receive some external reward such
as money, prizes, or status.
B. Svendsen (B) · F. M. Røkenes

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
F. M. Røkenes
T. Burner
University of Southeast, Drammen, Norway

46 B. Svendsen et al.
Intrinsic Motivation
The concept of intrinsic motivation was introduced in the 1950s in the field of ani-
mal psychology and further developed by others within human psychology. People
are motivated to bring to their cognitive structures three of the characteristics of
well-formed scientific theories: completeness, consistency, and parsimony (Malone,
1981). The way to engage learners’ curiosity is to present them with just enough
information to make their existing knowledge seem incomplete, inconsistent, or
unparsimonious. The learners will then be motivated to learn more, to make their
cognitive constructions better. Intrinsic motivation is an impetus for behavior that
the individual will perform, although it does not cause any external rewards or any
external consequences (Bailey et al., 2012; Skogen, 2014).
Extrinsic reinforcement such as external rewards may destroy the intrinsic motiva-
tion if a person should engage in an activity, and degrade the quality of certain kinds
of task performances (Condry, 1977; Lepper & Greene, 1979). An example given
by Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) regards nursery school children who liked to
play with marking pens, receiving a promised reward for doing so. Consequently,
they later played less with the marking pens compared to children in a control group
who received no promised reward.
Both Piaget (1951) and Bruner (1962) argued for the significance of intrinsically
motivated play-like activities for many kinds of deep learning. If students are intrin-
sically motivated to learn something, they may spend more time and effort learning,
feel better about what they learn, and use it more in the future. Shulman and Keislar
(1966) argued that learners may learn “better” in the sense that more fundamen-
tal cognitive structures are modified, including the development of such skills as
“learning how to learn.” Papert (1980) discusses the “power principle,” which is the
notion that the knowledge being learned should “… empower the learner to perform
personally meaningful projects that could not be done without it” (p. 54). Cognitive
curiosity can be thought of as a desire to bring better “form” to one’s knowledge
structures (Olson et al., 2001, p. 363). Finally, praise can play an important role
in enhancing intrinsic motivation (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). This is where the
teacher and the peers become important in laying the foundation for intrinsically
motivating contexts. According to a review of what type of praise enhances intrinsic
motivation, Henderlong and Lepper (2002, p. 787) point out that praise which is per-
ceived as sincere, encourages adaptive performance attributions, promotes perceived
autonomy, provides positive information about personal performance without social
comparisons, and conveys standards and expectations that are realistic and not dis-
ruptive. This is also supported by educational research on student assessment (Hattie
& Timperley, 2007).
4 Intrinsically Motivating Instruction—Thomas Malone 47
Designing Instructional Environments
We live in a digitalized world where information and communications technology

(ICT) has become deeply embedded into our lives and daily activities. Digital tools
such as computers play a significant role at work, in education, and in society in gen-
eral by modifying and transforming existing practices, and patterns of interaction.
The presence of ICT makes it possible to simulate complex systems and processes
such as the effects of gravitational forces on astronauts while on board a space shuttle
in outer space. As a result, the school curriculum can focus on “authentic” problems
parallel to those that students will be facing in real-world settings. For example, mod-
eling and visualization tools can be used to bridge experience and abstraction, and
controversial topics may be discussed with experts outside the immediate classroom
(Crosier, Cobb, & Wilson, 2002). Previous studies on ICT in schools often focus on
issues related to teachers’ and students’ lack of ICT skills, barriers, and enablers to
the uptake of ICT in schools, and the lack of computer technology in schools (Mork,
2011). Today, the focus seems to have shifted somewhat from focusing on technolog-
ical infrastructure in schools toward educational use of ICT in subject disciplines.
Here, an interesting research focus is on studies that can help us understand how
game-based learning with the use of ICT or “gamification” may be used to enhance
students’ learning (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012).
Studies of the use of ICT in educational settings have focused on issues like design,
change of classroom practices and learning outcomes (Clark & Jorde, 2004). Learn-
ing about science involves being introduced to natural science concepts, conventions,
laws, theories, principles, and how to work in science. This also means recognizing
how this knowledge can be used in social, technological, and environmental contexts.
We will further in this chapter provide examples of intrinsically motivating instruc-
tions in science, based on different environmental features such as challenge, fantasy,
and curiosity as proposed by Malone (1981).
Challenge
Challenge is captivating because it engages a person’s self-esteem. Success in an

instructional environment, like success in any challenging activity, can make people
feel better about themselves. The opposite side of this principle is, however, that
failure in a challenging activity can lower a person’s self-esteem and, if it is severe
enough, decrease the person’s interest in the instructional activity.
One simple implication of this relationship is that instructional activities should
have a variable difficulty level so learners can work at an appropriate level for their
ability. Another implication might be that performance feedback should be presented
in a way that minimizes the possibility of self-esteem damage (Henderlong & Lepper,
2002).
Fantasy
Fantasies can make instructional environments more interesting and more educa-
tional. Malone (1981, p. 337) defines a fantasy inducing environment as one that
evokes “mental images of things not present to the senses or within the actual experi-
ence of the person involved.” These mental images can be either of physical objects
or of social situations, and they may or may not be likely to occur in the learner’s
environment.
One relatively easy way to try to increase the fun of learning is to take an existing
curriculum and overlay it with a game in which the player progresses toward some
fantasy goal, or avoids some fantasy catastrophe (like hangman), depending only
on whether the player’s answers are right or wrong. These are examples of extrin-
sic fantasies, where the fantasy depends on the use of the skill but not vice versa.
Other factors such as speed of answering can also affect extrinsic fantasies (like in
the game-based digital quiz application Kahoot). In intrinsic fantasies, on the other
hand, not only does the fantasy depend on the skill, but the skill also depends on
the fantasy. This usually means that problems are presented in terms of the elements
of the fantasy world, and players receive a natural kind of constructive feedback. In
general, intrinsic fantasies are both (a) more interesting and (b) more instructional
than extrinsic fantasies (Asgari & Kaufman, 2004). One advantage of intrinsic fan-
tasies is that they often indicate how the skill could be used to accomplish some
real-world goal.
Metaphors or analogies of the kind provided by intrinsic fantasies can often help a
learner apply old knowledge in understanding new things. Another cognitive advan-
tage of intrinsic fantasies is simply that, by provoking vivid images related to the
material being learned, they can improve memory of the material. Fantasies in com-
puter games almost certainly derive some of their appeal from the emotional needs
they help to satisfy in the people who play them. It is very difficult to know what emo-
tional needs people have and, for example, how these needs might be partially met by
computer games. Computer games that embody emotionally involving fantasies like
war, destruction, and competition are likely to be more popular than those with less
emotional fantasies (Malone, 1981). One obvious consequence of the importance
of emotional aspects of fantasies is that different people will find different fantasies
appealing. If instructional designers can create many kinds of fantasies for various
kinds of people, their activities are likely to have much broader appeal. For example,
one can easily envision a math game where different students see the same problems
but can choose which fantasy they want to see. Instructional designers might also
create environments into which students can project their own fantasies in a relatively
unconstrained way. For instance, one could let students name imaginary participants
in a computer game.
It is difficult to predict what kinds of fantasies will be appealing to different people.
There are also difficult questions about whether it is sometimes bad to encourage
certain fantasies. For example, if a computer game provides an outlet for aggressive
fantasies, then that could have detrimental effects.
Curiosity
The educational environment should be neither too complicated nor too simple with
respect to the learner’s existing knowledge. It should be novel and surprising, but not
completely incomprehensible. In general, an optimally complex environment will be
one where the learner knows enough to have expectations about what will happen,
but where these expectations are sometimes unmet.
There are several parallels between challenge and curiosity. Both often depend
on adjusting the environment to the learner’s ability or understanding. Both also
depend on feedback to reduce uncertainty. Challenge could be explained as curiosity
about one’s own ability, or curiosity could be explained as a challenge to one’s
understanding. While the notion of self-esteem is central to the idea of challenge,
self-esteem is not involved in most curiosity.
Sensory curiosity involves the attention-attracting value of changes in the light,
sound, or other sensory stimuli of an environment. There is no reason why educa-
tional environments have to be impoverished sensory environments. Examples of
this are artifacts like colorfully illustrated textbooks and television. Computers pro-
vide even more possibilities for graphics, animation, music, and other captivating
audio and visual effects. These effects can be used: (1) as decoration (e.g., music
at the beginning of a game), (2) to enhance fantasy, (3) as a reward, and (4) as a
representation system that may be more effective than words or numbers.
Cognitive curiosity can be thought of as a desire to bring better “form” to one’s
knowledge structures. In particular, people are motivated to bring to all their cog-
nitive structures three of the characteristics of well-formed scientific theories: com-
pleteness, consistency, and parsimony (Malone, 1981). Cognitive curiosity is about
engaging learners and presenting exactly enough information to make the learner’s
existing knowledge seem incomplete, inconsistent, or unparsimonious. The learners
are then motivated to learn more, to make their cognitive structures better-formed.
Designing Instructional Environment by Using the 5E-Model
An example of a model to fit the features of challenge, fantasy, and curiosity is

found in the 5E-model (Bybee et al., 2006; Svendsen, 2015). The model has its
origins in the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), in which American
scholars developed educational programs and research on teaching and learning in
natural science. The five Es are the initial letters in the words engage, explore, explain,
elaborate, and evaluate.
In the 5E-model, the teachers teach by engaging the students with a starter. A
startup should be both motivating and related to phenomena that students can relate
to (like every day phenomena). The students’ prior knowledge is accessed by the
teacher or the curriculum, and helps students to become engaged in a concept using
short activities, or introduction to phenomena in order to endorse interest and provoke
prior knowledge. The activities of this phase make connections to past experiences
and expose students’ misconceptions; they should serve to ease cognitive imbalance.
Activity refers to both mental and physical activity (Bybee et al., 2006).
Once the activities have engaged the students, the students need time to explore
the ideas. Activities should be designed for the students to have common, concrete
experiences upon which they continue formulating concepts, processes, and skills.
The students work actively with the material (read, write, investigate, play, observe,
etc.) and add knowledge and skills to reach new learning goals. This level is concrete
and hands-on, and the use of touchable materials and concrete experiences is essential
but not necessary. The aim of creating cognitive curiosity is to establish experiences
that teachers and students can use later to introduce and discuss concepts, processes,
or skills. Explanation provides openings for teachers to directly introduce a concept,
process, or skill. The students explain their understanding of the concept. An expla-
nation from the teacher may guide them toward a deeper understanding, which is a
critical part of their new understanding. By facilitating activities that build on the
knowledge and skills the student already possesses, and allow students to reflect,
discuss, read, and write to achieve the learning objectives, the teacher can introduce
new concepts that challenge student’s conceptual understanding (Bybee et al., 2006).
Teachers have a variety of techniques and strategies at their disposal to stim-
ulate and develop student explanations. Once the students have explanations and
terms for their learning tasks, it is important to involve them in further experiences
which extend, or elaborate, the concepts, processes, or skills. This level facilitates the
transfer of concepts to closely related but new situations. Students’ theoretical under-
standings and skills are challenged by their new experiences and by the guidance of
their teachers. They develop deeper and extensive understanding, more information,
and adequate skills. Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting
supplementary activities. Elaborative activities provide further time and experiences
that contribute to learning.
Evaluation should be continuous, varied, and be a part of all levels. Evaluation
concerns the activities and has a meta-perspective on them. Assessment is on the
individual level and concerns self- and peer assessment, continuous assessment, and
final assessment of processes and products. It can be conducted orally, in writing or
in a combination. Students consider their own learning and understanding, and the
teacher and/or peers will assess student learning in relation to learning objectives in
a given subject or in an activity, and in relation to the objectives of the curriculum.
We will now introduce an example of cognitive curiosity, which is stimulated by
pointing out inconsistencies or paradoxes in the learner’s knowledge. Concept car-
toons are drawings that trigger students’ fantasy and curiosity about science issues.
They often show different characters arguing about an everyday situation. The char-
acters express both scientific viewpoints and common misconceptions. In debating
the ideas, students use scaffolding to articulate their thoughts (Wood, Bruner, &
Ross, 1976), challenge each other, propose claims and explanations, and justify their
reasoning. Concepts can be understood by using ICT and gaming. In lack of ICT
opportunities in classrooms, concept cartoons constitute a useful teaching, learning,
and assessment tool. For instance, students may be told that plants require healthy
soil for the process of growing, but why is that important? It raises curiosity about
what makes plants grow, and wherefrom they gain weight. One might also evoke
curiosity by giving a number of examples of a general rule before showing how (or
letting students discover that) all the examples can be explained more parsimoniously
by the new knowledge.
In conclusion, the 5E-model can be supportive in making teaching by inquiry
through the use of ICT or gaming explicit and targeted. By shaping clear learning
aims for teaching, teachers and students can use the model as a reflection tool for
designing, planning, implementing, and evaluating their teaching sequences, and
thus expand students’ learning processes.
Summary
• Malone’s theory of intrinsically motivating instruction is based on three cate-

gories:
– Challenge is hypothesized to depend on goals with uncertain outcomes. Several
ways of making outcomes uncertain are discussed, including variable difficulty
level, multiple level goals, hidden information, and randomness.
– Fantasy has both cognitive and emotional advantages in designing instruc-
tional environments. A distinction is made between extrinsic fantasies that
depend only weakly on the skill used in a game, and intrinsic fantasies that are
intimately related to the use of the skill.
– Curiosity is separated into sensory and cognitive components, and it is sug-
gested that cognitive curiosity can be aroused by making learners believe their
knowledge structures are incomplete, inconsistent, or unparsimonious.
• An activity bringing about intrinsic motivation is satisfying in itself, and it is not
influenced by what others will think about performance, or what kind of reward
that awaits when the task is completed.
• An activity is said to be intrinsically motivating if people engage in it for its own
sake.
• A way to engage learners’ curiosity is to present them with just enough infor-
mation to make their existing knowledge seem incomplete, inconsistent, or
unparsimonious.
Books
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Journals
Instructional Science: https://link.springer.com/journal/11251.
Learning and Instruction: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/learning-and-instruction/.
Internet Source
The MIT Center for Collective Intelligence conduct research on how people and computers can
work together more intelligently: http://cci.mit.edu/.
References
Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2004). Relationships among computer games, fantasy, and learning.
Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Imagination and Education.
Bailey, R., Pearce, G., Smith, C., Sutherland, M., Stack, N., Winstanley, C., et al. (2012). Improv-
ing the educational achievement of gifted and talented students: A systematic review. Talent
Development & Excellence, 4(1), 33–48.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The
BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about
thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41, 1–23.
Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 459–477.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic
literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 661–686.
Crosier, J. K., Cobb, S. V. G., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Key lessons for the design and integration of
virtual environments in secondary science. Computers & Education, 38, 77–94.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112.
Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A
review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1979). The hidden costs of reward. Morristown, NJ: Lawrence
Erl-baum Associates.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with
extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 28, 129–137.
Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4,
333–369.
Millgate House of Education: https://www.millgatehouse.co.uk/
Mork, S. M. (2011). An interactive learning environment designed to increase the possibilities
for learning and communication about radioactivity. Interactive learning environments, 19(2),
163–177.
Olson, G. M., Malone, T. W., & Smith, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration
technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
Shulman, L. S., & Keislar, E. R. (Eds.). (1966). Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal. Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Skogen, K. (2014). De evnerikebarnaogspesialpedagogikken. [High ability children and special
pedagogy]. I S. Germeten (Red.) (Ed.). De utenfor: Forskning om spesialpedagogikkogspe-
sialundervisning [Outsiders: Special Needs and Special Education] (pp. 89–101). Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
Svendsen, B. (2015). Mediating artifact in teacher professional development. International Journal
of Science Education, 37(11), 1834–1854.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100.
Bodil Svendsen (Ph.D.) works as an Associate Professor of Natural Science didacticts at the
Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), where she has taught in-service and pre-service courses to teachers and students since
2006. She has also been the Head of the Gifted Children Center at Trondheim Science Center in
the period form 2016-2019. Bodil has teaching experience from elementary school, middle school,
senior high school, and adult education teaching Natural Science, Biology, and Geography since
1997. She has broad international experience with research, among others from Finland, Scot-
land, Denmark, Sweden, and England. Her main research interests are Natural Science Educa-
tion, school development, R&D work, teacher mentoring, professional development, and gifted
children.
Tony Burner (Ph.D.) works as a Professor of English at the Department of Languages and Liter-
ature Studies at the University College of Southeast Norway, where he has taught in-service and
pre-service courses to teachers and student teachers the last 11 years. He has broad international
experience with research, among others from Finland, Australia, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Vietnam. His
main research interests are English education, classroom assessment, research and development
work, teacher mentoring, multilingualism, and professional development.
Fredrik Mørk Røkenes (Ph.D.) works as an Associate Professor of English didactics at the
Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where
he has taught in-service and pre-service courses to teachers and student teachers the last 7 years.
He has international experience with research, among others from Australia and Belgium, and
is currently leading a large-scale national project on the digitalization of teacher education. His
main research interests are professional digital competence, English didactics, literature reviews,
design-based research, and teacher education.
Chapter 5
The Bildung Theory—From von
Humboldt to Klafki and Beyond
Bildung
Bildung is the central theory of education in the German speaking part of Europe
and in Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway), and it is also influential on
traditions of education in some South American countries, like Brazil (Sjöström,
Frerichs, Zuin, & Eilks, 2017). Bildung covers a more than 200-year-long central
European tradition of education dating back to works of Wilhelm von Humboldt
in the late eighteenth century (see a translation of Humboldt’s work from 1793 in
Westbury, Hopmann, & Riquarts, 2000). Since then it has had an important role in
central and northern European educational philosophy and policy.
Bildung is a theory of defining the aims and objectives of any education. It is a
complex educational concept that has connections to both the Enlightenment and
Romanticism. In the eighteenth century, Bildung was mainly connected to humanity
and in the end of the nineteenth century it became mainly understood as a value and
commodity (Sjöström et al., 2017). There was a decline in the use of the concept
during the 1960s and 1970s, due to both the Sputnik shock and the student movement.
However, since the 1980s the concept has to some extent reappeared and during the
last two decades it has been reconsidered from late/postmodern perspectives (see for
example Sjöström, 2018).
The original version of this chapter was revised: This chapter has been changed to open access
under a CC BY 4.0 license. The correction to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-43620-9_33
J. Sjöström (B)
Faculty of Education and Society, Department of Science-Mathematics-Society, Malmö
University, 205 06 Malmö, Sweden
I. Eilks
Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute for Science Education, University of Bremen,
28359 Bremen, Germany
© The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2021 55
56 J. Sjöström and I. Eilks
Over the past two centuries, various scholars have contributed to clarify the
concept of Bildung. Some important early Bildung-theorists from Germany were
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) and Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803).
Examples of Bildung-scholars from Scandinavia are Nikolaj Frederik Severin
Grundtvig (1783–1872), Carl Adalph Agardh (1785–1859), and Ellen Key (1849–
1926). More recent German scholars in the field were Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–
2002), Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005), Erich Weniger (1894–1961), and Wolfgang Klafki
(1927–2016).
The concept of Bildung is rich and complex. Generally, it consists of two elements:
an ideal picture of desirable knowledge and skills, and free learning processes, or
in other words both “the process of personal development and the result of this
development process” (Fischler, 2011, p. 33). The seminal works leading to our
contemporary understanding of Bildung stem mainly from the 1950s to the 1970s.
Klafki and others defined Bildung (or Allgemeinbildung meaning Bildung for all and
in all human capacities; see further below) as the ability to recognize and follow one’s
own interests in society and to behave within society as a responsible citizen (see the
translated and updated contributions of Klafki in Westbury et al., 2000). This was
linked to developing the capacity for self-determination, participation, and solidarity
within society. Within this debate, Bildung was never understood as something one
can be taught, but Bildung-oriented education is suggested as a way for everyone to
support developing Bildung on their own. Bildung in a theoretical view is more of a
concept of achieving capacity and skills than a set of facts and theories to be learned.
Bildung is viewed more as a process of activating potential than a process of learning
(see a translation of Weniger’s work from 1952 in Westbury et al., 2000).
Schneider (2012) describes Bildung as a reflexive event and its function to design
and form the self, a complex meaning-making process that occurs from childhood
to advanced age. It is understood as a lifelong challenge and opportunity and is
connected to developing critical consciousness, a process of character-formation
and self-discovery. It is connected to issues of finding truth, value, and meaning. For
Bauer (2003, p. 212), Bildung covers “creative, critical and transformative processes
which change the relationship of self and world in conjunction with a changing social
and material environment.” In other words, Bildung consists of autonomous self-
formation and reflective and responsible action in, and in interaction with, society.
As a humanistic theory, Bildung theory (or better theories as will be described below)
has similarities to some of the theories described in this book in Sect. V, such as
systems thinking and transdisciplinary teaching. Contemporary ideas of critical-
reflexive Bildung, which is in focus in this chapter, adds philosophical as well as
political dimensions to the teaching and learning of science. As such, it is a vehicle
for promoting socio-political activism, that is, assisting students to become active
citizens in addressing science and technology-related issues at both local and global
levels.
Because there is no precise English translation, the German term Bildung has
been used in the international science education literature (see, for example, Elmose
& Roth, 2005; Hofstein, Eilks, & Bybee, 2011; Sjöström, 2013). The often-used
translation of Bildung as only “education” ignores its special roots and the unique
5 The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki and Beyond 57
philosophical framework behind the concept. See Westbury et al. (2000) for some
translated original contributions from the history of Bildung and the related concept
of Didaktik. It is necessary to say that the Bildung-connected meaning of the term
Didaktik in German and Scandinavian languages differs a lot from how the word
didactics is used in English (Gundem, 2010). Didaktik in German and Scandinavian
languages means the praxis knowledge about teaching and at the same time it covers
the research area about teaching and learning (Kansanen, 2009).
In the German-speaking countries there has for a long time been a debate about
what is to be meant by Bildung with its both individual and societal implications when
it comes to the teaching and learning of science (e.g., Marks, Stuckey, Belova, &
Eilks, 2014). Also in Scandinavia, there has been an interest in this debate. For exam-
ple, in 1998 Svein Sjøberg published the first edition of his teacher education textbook
Science as part of Bildung for all—a critical subject-Didaktik (our translation). It
has become a standard text in science-teacher education in the whole of Scandinavia.
In recent years, the concept of Bildung has been used to justify new philosophies
of science education, like the ideas of critical scientific literacy (Sjöström & Eilks,
2018) or eco-reflexive science education (Sjöström, Eilks, & Zuin, 2016).
Before further applying the concept of Bildung on science teaching and learn-
ing and connecting it to the concept of “scientific literacy,” we will first describe
different ideas related to Bildung and then also its connection to what is called
critical-constructive Didaktik.
Different Ideas Related to Bildung
With reference to the literature, Sjöström and Eilks (2018) and Sjöström et al. (2017)
recently identified five educational traditions directly related to the Bildung theory.
They can be called: (a) classical Bildung, (b) liberal education, (c) Scandinavian
folk-Bildung, (d) democratic education, and (e) critical-hermeneutic Bildung:
(a) Classical Bildung: Classical Bildung is based on von Humboldt’s way of under-
standing Bildung as a process of individualization, where the human being devel-
ops personality in all their human capacity. However, today von Humboldt is
often—at least at universities—more associated with free search for knowledge,
free from both the state and the market. The works of von Humboldt are also
sometimes misused. His idea that Bildung manifests itself mainly in languages,
led to a long time of devaluing the sciences for developing own worldviews in
the individual.
(b) Liberal education: The thoughts behind liberal education can also be tracked
back to von Humboldt in the means of education as character-formation. The
character-formation ideal is emphasized especially in the English version,
whereas the canon has been emphasized in the American version. A famous
representative for a more critical and cosmopolitical version of liberal educa-
tion is Martha Nussbaum (1997, 2010). She argues for ethical self-reflection and
critical approaches to the own culture and its traditions as essential part of educa-
tion. This is needed to create enlightened citizens, rather than efficient workers
and uncritical consumers. Nussbaum uses typical Bildung-type arguments for
liberal education, however, without explicitly using the term.
(c) Scandinavian folk-Bildung: From the late nineteenth century a unique tradition
called folkbildning in Swedish (might be translated as “Bildung for the whole
people”) was developed in Scandinavia. Folk-Bildung is less academically ori-
ented than the classical Bildung. In this tradition, Bildung was combined with a
pronounced benefit-approach. The political dimension was much more explicit
in folk-Bildung than in the classical German version, but it was not especially
radical.
(d) Democratic education: The idea of education for all was also developed in the
USA by John Dewey (1859–1952). The connection of democratic education
with Bildung lies in promoting social-ethical foundations of a society to promote
democratic habits. Dewey used the term Bildung in his work, although not
systematically.
(e) Critical-hermeneutic Bildung: This tradition is rooted in the works of Hans-
Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur and was developed mainly in the 1950s and
1960s by Erich Weniger and Wolfgang Klafki. They developed a new under-
standing of Bildung connected to educational practices and a democratic and
emancipatory view of society. They created the term Allgemeinbildung. Within
this concept, part of the word, Allgemein (which can be translated as “general”)
has two dimensions. The first dimension means to achieve Bildung for all persons
(like in the Scandinavian approach of folkbildning). The second dimension aims
at Bildung in all human capacities. Klafki’s thinking was based on the thought
that responsible life and action of any citizen in a democratic society needs
Bildung as the capacity to determine one’s own life, to be able to participate
in society, and to act solidary toward others. This educational philosophy has a
clear democratic and critical approach and is the most complex and advanced
concept of Bildung (Sjöström & Eilks, 2018). It has later been influenced by
late/postmodern perspectives in contrast to the other four Bildung-traditions,
which are mainly based on Western modernism (e.g., Sjöström, 2018).
Klafki’s Concepts of Material, Formal, and Categorical

Bildung
Klafki’s Bildung theory and its connected ideas of Didaktik include both episte-
mological aspects and practice-oriented concepts for use in lesson planning. Klafki
explained his view of Bildung with the term categorical Bildung (see the contribu-
tions of Klafki in Westbury et al., 2000). It was developed based on an analysis of
150 years of views of knowledge and learning in educational theory. Klafki identified
two main ideas of thought: (1) material Bildung and (2) formal Bildung, respectively.
Then he suggested the concept of (3) categorical Bildung, which includes elements
from both material and formal Bildung.
(1) In material Bildung theories, content knowledge is prioritized over developing
general competences of the learner. In other words, the objective side is priori-
tized over the subjective. There are two subgroups of material Bildung theories:
scientific Bildung and humanistic Bildung, respectively. Scientific Bildung is
based on a belief in the objectivity of knowledge, that is epistemological posi-
tivism. Humanistic Bildung focuses on cultural quality. It is about learning about
human traditions.
(2) In formal Bildung theories, competences of the learner are prioritized over learn-
ing of content knowledge. In other words, the subjective side is prioritized over
the objective. There are two subgroups of formal Bildung theories: functional
Bildung and method-based Bildung, respectively. Functional Bildung has its
roots in the philosophy of Rousseau and is also the type of Bildung emphasized
by von Humboldt. Focus is on human powers and potentials. Method-based
Bildung focuses on the processes of learning methods and ways of thinking to
“master life.” This line of thinking is connected to ideas of meta-learning and
learning strategies. It is connected to the ideas of John Dewey.
Generally, Klafki prioritized formal over material Bildung. However, there
are several arguments to why formal Bildung theories are not enough of their
own. The main problem with pure formal Bildung theories is that it is hard to
develop any competences without having any content to apply them on. How
can a teacher motivate students to develop skills without engaging in specific
content? Instead of turning back to a content-based curriculum, however, Klafki
suggested the concept of categorical Bildung.
(3) In categorical Bildung, Klafki suggested to connect both views. He suggested
that any learning activity should contribute to both material and formal gains in
the learner. He suggested selecting content that is elementary and basic for the
discipline; that is fundamental for essential experiences of and insights into the
world; and that has exemplary significance to offer structure for understanding
the field of study.
The relationship between the three different types of Bildung is illustrated in Fig. 5.1.
Material, formal, and categorical Bildung can further be connected to the five
Bildung-traditions (described above) in the following ways:
Content orienta on
Low High
Skills Low Material Bildung
orienta on High Formal Bildung Categorical Bildung
Fig. 5.1 Relationships between material, formal, and categorical Bildung

• Material Bildung emphasizes content knowledge. It is in line with the Ameri-

can version of liberal education, mainly focusing the canon of topics. Important
aspects of especially humanistic material Bildung can also be found in classi-
cal Bildung, although von Humboldt’s orientation is probably better described as
formal Bildung.
• Formal Bildung emphasizes the development of the person. For example, the
character-formation ideal is emphasized in the English tradition of liberal educa-
tion, which focuses on skills development. Both the Scandinavian “folk-Bildung”-
tradition and democratic education have many aspects that can be categorized as
formal Bildung.
• Categorical Bildung emphasizes both content and the skills development in the
learner. We would claim that critical-hermeneutic Bildung is most compatible
with categorical Bildung.
Except emancipation, Klafki’s view of Bildung can be described with terms such
as autonomy, responsibility, reason, and interdependence, but also humanity, world,
and objectivity education. He suggested the following three elements as guiding
principles that characterize Bildung:
• Self-determination ability (to be able to take up one’s own interests as part of
society).
• Ability for participation (to be able to actively participate in and contribute to the
development of society).
• Solidarity ability (to act responsibly in society with a view on those whose
opportunities for self-determination and participation are limited).
In line with the thinking of Klafki, Bildung can be suggested as a critical concept in
a late/postmodern world (Elmose & Roth, 2005; Sjöström & Eilks, 2018; Sjöström,
2018). It can form the basis for new interpretations of Bildung to come up with
challenges of our contemporary society as a risk society to make education an eco-
reflexive and transformative practice (Sjöström et al., 2016) and to provide relevant
education in all its dimensions (Stuckey, Hofstein, Mamlok-Naaman, & Eilks, 2013).
Bildung and Critical-Constructive Didaktik
For educational operation Klafki and others developed a tool called Didaktik anal-
ysis as being part of what has been called critical-constructive Didaktik (see the
contributions of Klafki in Westbury et al., 2000). According to Duit (2015, p. 325)
Didaktik “stands for a multifaceted view of planning and performing instruction.
It is based on the German concept of Bildung [… and it] concerns the analytical
process of transposing (and transforming) human knowledge (the cultural heritage)
into knowledge for schooling that contributes to Bildung.” It is about answering
the three fundamental Didaktik-questions: why? (intentions—aims and objectives),
what? (topic of instruction—content), and how? (methods of instruction and media

used) (see also for example Duit, 2012).
Klafki’s Bildung theory is, as already indicated above, connected to the German
tradition of Didaktik (also called Bildung-centered Didaktik). If the German under-
standing of Didaktik is compared to the Anglo-American concepts of curriculum
and instruction, Didaktik can be understood as teaching based on Bildung, focusing
on matter and meaning, and autonomy of teaching and learning. Kansanen (2009)
compared subject-specific Didaktik (in German Fachdidaktik) with Lee Shulman’s
idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). According to him, Didaktik is much
broader and also containing aspects of values and other characteristics related to cur-
riculum theory and pedagogy. Didaktik focuses predominantly on the why-question
(and its implication on practice), while the pragmatic Anglo-American curriculum
tradition focuses mainly on the how-question (Duit, 2015). Didaktik supports the
idea that education is not only about teaching methods but also an issue of selecting
and justifying content for education (Fischler, 2011).
Didactical analysis, originally suggested by Klafki in 1958 (see the translated
and updated contribution of Klafki in Westbury et al., 2000; see also Duit, 2015),
offers guidance to reflect whether an issue or topic is relevant enough to be taught.
It consists of five questions:
1. What wider or general sense or reality does this content exemplify and open up
to the learner? What basic phenomenon or fundamental principal, law, criterion,
problem, method, technique, or attitude can be grasped by dealing with this
content as an “example”?
2. What significance does the content in question, or the experience, knowledge,
ability, or skill to be acquired through this topic, process in the minds of the
children in my class? What significance should it have from a pedagogical point
of view?
3. What constitutes the topic’s significance for the children’s future?
4. How is the content structured? How can it be placed in a specifically pedagogical
perspective by questions 1, 2, and 3?
5. What are the special cases, phenomena, situations, experiments, persons, ele-
ments of aesthetic experience, and so forth, in terms of which the structure
of the content in question can become interesting, stimulating, approachable,
conceivable, or vivid for children of the stage of development of this class?
These questions try to identify epoch-typical relevant knowledge and key problems to
learn about, which are of importance for the individuals and the society the students
live in and operate, today and for the future. Except learning the science behind
relevant issues such as climate change, students should get “the potential to learn
about how such an issue is handled within society and one can learn about the
interplay of science with ecology, economics, politics, cultural beliefs and values”
(Marks et al. 2014, p. 287).
Connecting Bildung to Different Visions of Scientific Literacy
Roberts (2007) has suggested two different visions of scientific literacy to under-
stand science learning. The more traditional Vision I describes science learning as
mainly focusing learning science content for later application and further education.
This approach is often considered from and driven by the inner structure of the cor-
responding academic discipline. For a more student-oriented approach to science
education, Roberts suggested a Vision II. In Vision II science learning should pro-
vide the learner with understanding about the usefulness of scientific knowledge in
life and society by starting from meaningful contexts.
Inspired by the ideas of education for sustainability, a Vision III of scientific liter-
acy was recently suggested (Sjöström & Eilks, 2018; Sjöström et al., 2017). Largely
inspired by critical versions of Bildung, it emphasizes science learning for scientific
engagement and “knowing-in-action.” This point of view wants to strengthen the
learning beyond science content, contexts, and processes. It argues for general skill
development via engagement with issues of science that is relevant for a sustain-
able development of our society and global world. Figure 5.2 provides an organizer
to understand the differences between the three visions. Visions I and II focus on
individual content knowledge development and how it is applied in everyday-life
contexts. In the tradition of critical-hermeneutic Bildung, Vision III aims at critical
skills development and transformative learning for actively shaping the future society
in a sustainable fashion.
Scientific content knowledge and contextual understanding about science might
be considered necessary pre-requisites to participate in informed scientific and soci-
etal discourses on the technological applications of science and its corresponding
effects on the environment and society. However, this is not enough. Contemporary
Scientific Vision I: Vision II: Vision III:

literacy Conceptual Contextual Critical
vision Scientific Scientific Scientific
Literacy Literacy Literacy
Learning for individual Learning for individual and Science education for
Goals skills development, societal participation by values-driven
personal growth, and understanding science transformation of both
further academic education and its applications individual learners and society
Curriculum Traditional structure-of-the- Context-based science education Socioscientific issues-based

types discipline and history-of-science and classical Science-Technology- science education (”hot” type)
(examples) driven curricula Society curricula and other curricula oriented
towards critical sustainability
Focus on general educational skills development (education through science)
Focus on traditional science content learning (science through education)
Fig. 5.2 Three different visions of scientific literacy (from Sjöström et al., 2017), where vision III
can be connected to critical-reflexive Bildung
Bildung theory suggests that skills and a critical stance are also needed that promote
understanding of the responsibility of any individual and at the same time enables
and directs the individual to act accordingly within society.
Applying Bildung and Didaktik to Science Education
In this section, we will briefly describe selected theoretical and empirical works where
the ideas of categorical Bildung in a critical and reflexive interpretation according
to Sjöström and Eilks (2018) are applied to science education. Critical-hermeneutic
Bildung, or critical-reflexive Bildung, in science education adds philosophical as well
as political dimensions to the teaching and learning of science. It focuses on both
meta-perspectives and socio-political actions grounded in a problematizing stance
toward contemporary society (see for example Elmose & Roth, 2005; Hofstein et al.,
2011; Sjöström, 2013).
There is not much written about ideological assumptions that underpin different
formulations of science education, but Pedretti and Nazir (2015, p. 934) recently
wrote: “a view that science education should be focused on teaching science content
(a predominantly transmissive view) rather than focused on social reconstruction
and change (a transformative view) can produce radically different experiences and
challenges in the science classroom.” The latter view includes values, worldviews,
politicization, and actions and is connected to critical-reflexive Bildung, whereas the
first view hardly will be able to open all the learners’ corresponding perspectives.
Coming from Bildung theory, Stolz, Witteck, Marks, and Eilks (2013) have elab-
orated a set of five characteristics, including provable criteria, for identifying socio-
scientific issues (SSIs) that lead to Allgemeinbildung-oriented learning. They sug-
gested SSIs for the promotion of Bildung in science education to be: (a) authentic,
(b) relevant, (c) undetermined in evaluation in a socio-scientific respect, (d) offering
the chance for open debate, and (e) connected to science and technology (see also
column two in Fig. 5.3). In their model they suggested clear criteria: (a) concerning
authenticity, they ask whether there is an authentic debate in society on any issues,
documented in everyday-life media; (b) relevance asks whether there is any decision
to be drawn, at the individual or societal levels, that would make a difference to the
life of the learner so that any debate is worth pursuing; (c) openness asks whether
there are different points of view that are mirrored in positions by different stake-
holders in the authentic debate on the individual or societal levels; (d) offering the
chance for open debate asks whether debate is possible by exchanging arguments
without harming any individual learner; and, finally, (e) connectedness to science and
technology asks whether there are arguments from science or technology used in the
public debate. Based on this, they suggested implementing understanding of commu-
nication and decision-making practices about techno-scientific queries from society
into the teaching and learning of science (for example by mimicking corresponding
societal practices in role plays and business games).
Concept of the socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to science teaching
Criteria for selecting

Structure of the lesson
Objectives issues and Methods
plans
approaches
Allgemeinbildung/
1. Textual approach and
education through Authenticity Authentic media
problem analysis
science
Student oriented science 2. Clarifying the science

(Multidimensional)
Relevance learning and laboratory background, e.g. in a
Scientific Literacy
work laboratory environment
Evaluation Learner centred

Promotion of 3. Resuming the socio-
undetermined in a instruction and
evaluation skills scientific dimension
socio-scientific respect cooperative learning
4. Discussing and
Promotion of Allows for open Methods structuring
evaluating different
communication skills discussion controversial debating
points of view
Deals with questions Methods provoking the

Learning science from science and explication of individual 5. Meta-reflection
technology opinions
Fig. 5.3 Framework outlining the socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to science teaching
(from Marks et al., 2014, based on Marks & Eilks, 2009)
It is obvious that such critical versions of SSI-based teaching are related to Bil-
dung, but it is not fully clear how much it is still connected to democratic education
rather than with critical-reflexive Bildung. The curriculum model by Marks and Eilks
(2009), called the socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to science teaching,
uses the term Allgemeinbildung as the first instance of objectives (column one); it is
used in the meaning of Weniger and Klafki.
The curriculum model by Marks and Eilks (2009) is a Didaktik-model in the
tradition of Allgemeinbildung and the German subject-specific Didaktik. It suggests
science teaching should start with actual and authentic media from everyday life
to demonstrate the authenticity and relevance of any SSI for the individual and
society. Media is used to provoke questions on a topic and also to demonstrate
how any given topic is related to both society and science. Questions in the lesson
plans generally cover both issues of science and technology as well as corresponding
ecological, economic, and societal impacts. Learning the science behind a technology
is justified by allowing students to understand the sources and processes behind any
development and the controversy around its scale. It allows an evaluation of the issue
from a scientific point of view, but it does not stop there. Science teaching of this
type aims at understanding how the individual and the society is communicating
and deciding about the issues of science and technology in its multidimensional
relations and impacts. Therefore, the model suggests a thorough analysis of which
SSI-related questions can be answered by science and which cannot. Science cannot
answer any political or ethical questions; it can only contribute to their understanding.
In a democratic society, such questions are negotiated and decided in public forums,
media, and parliaments. Consequently, the Didaktik-model suggests moving over
to mimicking authentic societal practices of communication and decision-making
as essential parts of SSI-based science lessons with different pedagogies to make

the learner skillful for self-determination, participation, and solidarity (Marks et al.,
2014).
Typical issues that are authentic, relevant, open-ended, debatable, and science-
based often stem from the environmental and sustainability debate. The issues of
climate change, renewable energy and materials supply, green engineering, sustain-
able agriculture, preserving biodiversity, risks of chemicals in the environment, or
provision of clean water resources are only a few among many examples. However,
health and living issues are also important and highly relevant since questions of the
chemicalization of our environment, the provision of organic food, the use of chem-
icals in consumer products, or questions of genetically manipulated food growth are
all authentic, and decisions about these—all on the individual, societal, and/or global
levels—are highly relevant for our present and future and the challenge of transform-
ing our contemporary society that is thoroughly impacted by developments in science
and technology.
Summary
Bildung as a theory of education is very old. It covers a history of more than 200 years.
The meaning and understanding of Bildung in theory and practice changed over time.
It only slowly found its way into the international literature of science education. With
growing ecological and technological challenges in our current societies (and a grow-
ing number of fake news about them), however, reflecting the ideas and directions of
the concept of Bildung for science education might be considered to be more relevant
than ever. Categorial Bildung in the means of Klafki is needed for the responsible
citizen to behave and to react to challenges like climate change, the chemicalization
of our world, or the need for more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources.
It is also highly relevant in times of needed political decisions on the development
and transformation of our today’s world for a sustainable future. Both knowledge
from science and technology is needed as well as skills to apply this knowledge for
a self-determined life, participation in society, and solidarity with others. Bildung
gives guidance to how to select content and learning objectives for this direction
via its tools like Didaktik analysis or societal-oriented approaches to science teach-
ing—and in the other way around it also provides criteria to assess teaching practices
whether they are of potential to promote Bildung to enable the young generation to
become responsible citizens.
– Bildung is a unique central and northern European tradition of education that has
its roots in the late eighteenth century.
– Bildung just recently was being recognized in the international science education
literature.
– Recognizing contemporary interpretations of Bildung involves rethinking science
education toward a more critical view to allow transformative learning of science,
which promotes capabilities in the student for self-determined life and responsible
citizenry.
– Contemporary interpretations of Bildung suggest a more thorough operation of
current and controversial socio-scientific issues as drivers for modern science
education.
References
Bauer, W. (2003). On the relevance of Bildung for democracy. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
35, 212–225.
Duit, R. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction—A framework for improving teaching
and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in
Europe (pp. 39–61). Rotterdam: Sense.
Duit, R. (2015). Didaktik. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 325–327).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Elmose, S., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in risk society. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37, 11–34.
Fischler, H. (2011). Didaktik—An appropriate framework for the professional work of science
teachers? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of
science teaching (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gundem, B. (2010). Didactics–Didaktik–Didactique. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum
studies (pp. 293–294). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary
science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the
USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.
Kansanen, P. (2009). Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should
it be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17, 29–39.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-
oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal
of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 131–145.
Marks, R., Stuckey, M., Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). The societal dimension in German science
education—From tradition towards selected cases and recent developments. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10, 285–296.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2015). Science, technology and society (STS). In R. Gunstone (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 932–935). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schneider, K. (2012). The subject-object transformations and ‘Bildung’. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 44, 302–311.
Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, 22,
1873–1890.
Sjöström, J. (2018). Science teacher identity and eco-transformation of science education: Com-
paring western modernism with confucianism and reflexive Bildung. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 13, 147–161.
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science
education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition,
metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65–88). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Zuin, V. G. (2016). Towards eco-reflexive science education: A critical
reflection about educational implications of green chemistry. Science & Education, 25, 321–341.
Sjöström, J., Frerichs, N., Zuin, V. G., & Eilks, I. (2017). Use of the concept of Bildung in the
international science education literature, its potential, and implications for teaching and learning.
Studies in Science Education, 53, 165–192.
Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science
education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 9, 273–282.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in
science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education,
49, 1–34.
Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The
German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jesper Sjöström is trained as an upper-secondary school teacher oriented toward chemistry and
general science teaching. After a Ph.D. in chemistry in 2002 at Lund University, Sweden, he
was a post-doc for three years in the area of Science and Technology Studies. He joined Malmö
University in Sweden in 2007 and since 2015 he is an Associate Professor of Science Educa-
tion at the Department of Science-Mathematics-Society. His current research interests encompass
socio-oriented science education, with a particular focus on chemistry and its links to philosophy,
media and environmental and health issues. He is also interested in teacher education research and
development.
Ingo Eilks studied chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, and education. He is a full-trained gram-
mar school teacher, having a Ph.D. and habilitation in chemistry education. Since 2004, he is
a full professor for chemistry education at the Institute for Science Education at the Univer-
sity of Bremen, Germany. His research interests encompass societal-oriented science education,
action research in science education, teaching methodology, ICT in education, teacher educa-
tion, and innovations in higher chemistry teaching. Recently, he led the EU-ERASMUS+ project
ARTIST—Action Research to Innovate Science Teaching.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Part II
Behaviourist Theories
Chapter 6
Classical and Operant
Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov; Burrhus
Skinner
Ben Akpan
Introduction
Learning refers to a process in which a person acquires a relatively permanent change

in behaviour as a result of experience (Kuppuswamy, 2013; Driscoll, 2000; Schunk,
2005). This definition excludes changes due to physical growth and development.
The focus of attention in any school is on learning. The student, school and the
teacher are the most important factors in the learning process. Through all the ages,
educationists have been pre-occupied with learning how the learning process itself
occurs.
One approach to learning is behaviouristic in outlook. Central to behavioural
learning theories is a focus on the ways in which desirable and undesirable conse-
quences of behaviour change people’s behaviour over time and ways in which people
model their behaviour on that of others (Slavin, 2009). In this chapter, I will be pre-
senting two behavioural theories and their applications in science education. These
are classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
Classical Conditioning
Ivan Pavlov (see Box 6.1) is credited with the development of classical conditioning.
In his study of the process of digestion in dogs, Pavlov observed that a hungry dog
would salivate automatically if powdered meat was placed in its mouth or near to
it. The salivation occurred without any previous training. Pavlov and his team of
scientists named the powdered meat unconditioned stimulus—meaning a stimulus
B. Akpan (B)

72 B. Akpan
that naturally brings about a particular response. The salivation was named uncon-
ditioned response—a behaviour that is an automatic result of a stimulus, in this case
salivation occurred automatically in the presence of powdered meat. Pavlov and his
team further observed that there were some other stimuli which could not produce
salivation automatically.
Box 6.1
Ivan Pavlov Bio
Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) author of Lectures on the Work of the Principal Digestive
Glands (1897), Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes (1928), and Conditioned Reflexes
and Psychiatry (1941) hailed from Ryazan, Russia. He was a natural science graduate
of the University of St. Petersburg when he got admitted into the Academy of Medical
Surgery. After obtaining his doctorate, he joined the Military Medical Academy serving
as director in the department of physiology in the Institute of Experimental Medicine.
In 1904, his work on the digestive secretions of dogs at the Institute earned him the
Nobel Prize. Pavlov passed on in 1936 having suffered from pneumonia.
An example of these is a bell. The bell is said to be a neutral stimulus—a stimulus

that does not evoke a particular response. Pavlov demonstrated that by presenting the
powdered meat and the bell together salivation was observed. Interestingly, salivation
was equally evoked when the bell was later presented alone meaning that the bell (a
previously neutral stimulus) when paired with an unconditioned stimulus (powdered
meat) became a conditioned stimulus—a previously neutral stimulus that gives rise
to a specific response after having been paired with an unconditioned stimulus. This
kind of conditioning is commonly referred to as classical (or Pavlovian) conditioning.
For a schematic representation, see Fig. 6.1.
Here is an example of classical conditioning:
A particular tone might be paired with a puff of air to the eye. The tone is initially neutral
in that it elicits no response from a person. The puff of air to the eye however, does elicit a
response—an eye blink. After repeated pairing of the tone with the puff of air, eventually the
tone will produce an eye blink even without the puff of air. In this example, the puff of air is
referred to as the unconditioned stimulus and the tone as the conditioned stimulus. (Tiwari,
2016, p. 238)
Terminologies Associated with Classical Conditioning
Acquisition
Acquisition refers to the initial stage of learning where a response is elicited and
gradually strengthened. According to Cherry (2017), during the acquisition phase
a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus following
6 Classical and Operant Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov; Burrhus … 73
Bell No specific response
Neutral Stimulus (NS)
Meat Salivation
Unconditioned Stimulus (US) Unconditioned Response (UR)
Meat & Bell Salivation

NS + US UR
Bell: after being Salivation

paired with meat
Conditioned Stimulus (CS) Conditioned Response (CR)
Fig. 6.1 Classical conditioning process
which the subject elicits a behaviour in response to the previously neutral stimulus,
which is now known as the conditioned stimulus. Cherry (2017, p. 2) provides the
following example:
…imagine that you are conditioning a dog to salivate in response to the sound of a bell. You
repeatedly pair the presentation of food with the sound of the bell. You can say the response
has been acquired as soon as the dog begins to salivate in response to the bell tone. Once the
response has been established, you can gradually reinforce the salivation response to make
sure the behaviour is well learned.
74 B. Akpan
External and Internal Inhibition
A conditioned response may be temporarily suppressed or inhibited. Imagine a situ-

ation in which salivary CRs emerged when the CS was consistently followed within
1–5 s by the US. If an external stimulus occurred while the CS was on, the indi-
vidual could stop salivating. However, the salivary CR would take place on future
trials provided there are no interruptions. This phenomenon is referred to as external
inhibition (Frieman, 2002).
In other situation, there may be an internal process which prevents a person from
carrying out some actions which ordinarily the person would have performed. This
may happen if there is a process that opposes the original process which was meant
to produce the conditioned response. This phenomenon is referred to as internal
inhibition.
Disinhibition and Extinction
If a dog is no longer salivating when the CS is presented alone for a certain number of
trials, the conditioned response may suddenly reappear following the presentation of
another stimulus. This phenomenon is termed disinhibition. It basically refers to the
reappearance of salivary CR in the presence of an external stimulus when the person
or animal is in a procedure of extinction. The procedure of extinction is attained,
for example, if after an individual has produced salivary CRs consistently, the CS is
presented alone for a number of trials (without the US). Therefore, extinction is said
to take place when the occurrences of a conditioned response decrease or disappear.
Spontaneous Recovery
Pavlov discovered that behaviour that has become extinct may reappear if the person
returns to that situation after some time has passed. This is referred to as spontaneous
recovery.
It should be noted that Pavlov used the phenomena of disinhibition and spon-
taneous recovery to demonstrate that extinction could not undo the effects of
conditioning.
Figure 6.2 gives a schematic representation of Pavlovian extinction and recovery.
Extinction
Quantity of Saliva
Spontaneous recovery
Fig. 6.2 Schematic representation of Pavlovian extinction and recovery
Assessing Pavlov’s Contribution
In a critique on Pavlov’s work, Frieman (2002) writes:

His dogs were strapped in harnesses in isolation rooms, and everything the dogs experienced
was controlled by the experimenter who stayed in an adjoining room. Even the saliva was
collected in tubes that carried it to the experimenter. What can we possibly learn from such an
artificial and sterile arrangement that is relevant to us? The answer is that we can learn a great
deal… Pavlov showed us how we can use systematic observation and experimentation to
explore psychological processes, and he provided a way to measure behaviour objectively…
He did not deny that humans have an inner world; his objection was to those who explained
the behaviour of animals in terms of these mental states. Pavlov believed that we can come
to understand the behaviour of animals by studying how they react to their environment.
(pp. 34–35)
Indeed, the principle behind classical conditioning hinged on Pavlov’s experimen-

tal strategy provided a ground-breaking initiative for the development of psychology
as a truly scientific discipline as opposed to its hitherto philosophical orientation.
Pavlov was to greatly influence many leading behaviourist psychologists including
John Watson and Burrhus Skinner.
Classical conditioning has also led to the understanding of specific areas of the
brain that are vital in learning memory. Some sections of the brain such as the
cerebellum, prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala are said to play vital
roles in the conditioning process. Also, certain behavioural therapies make use of
classical conditioning. An example is aversion therapy which is programmed to
ensure patients stop an unwanted habit by linking such habit with an unconditioned
stimulus that is not pleasant. Other uses of classical conditioning are in the areas of
drug tolerance, conditioned hunger, and conditioned emotional response. These are,
however, outside the scope of this book.
76 B. Akpan
Classical conditioning has thus, for instance, been used to explain the phenomenon
of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)—a serious anxiety disorder which devel-
ops after an exposure to a traumatic event, such as an automobile accident. PTSD
takes place when an individual develops a strong association between factors involved
in the traumatic event, the trauma (US). Due to the conditioning, being exposed to,
or even contemplating a repeat of the situation that produced the trauma (CS), is suf-
ficient to bring about the CR of serious anxiety. It is thought that PTSD occurs when
the emotions experienced during the event produce neural activity in the amygdala
and thus create strong conditioned learning (University of Minnesota, n.d.).
The most cited example of classical conditioning is John Watson’s experiment
where a fear response was conditioned in a boy who has come to be known as
Little Albert. Initially, Little Albert showed no fear of a white rat but, as reported
by Cherry (2017), after the rat was paired repeatedly with scary and loud sounds, he
would cry when the rat was present. The boy’s fear also generalised to other fuzzy
white objects including the mother’s fur coat. In this experiment, the white rat was
the neutral stimulus prior to conditioning while the unconditioned stimulus was the
scary loud sound. The fear response caused by the noise (unconditioned stimulus)
was the conditioned response and resulted from repeated pairing of the white rat
(now the conditioned stimulus) with the unconditioned stimulus. The Little Albert
experiment demonstrates how phobias can be formed through classical conditioning.
University of Minnesota (n.d.) reports a research by Lewicki (1985) which demon-
strated the influence of stimulus generalisation and the speed at which it can occur.
In that experiment, students were first made to have a brief interaction with a female
experimenter who had short hair and eye glasses. The study was designed in such a
way as to ensure students asked the experimenter a question, and (based on random
assignment) the experimenter either responded in a neutral or negative manner to
the questions. Thereafter, the students were directed to go into another room where
two experimenters were present, and to approach any one of them. The researchers
ensured that one of the two experimenters looked a lot like the original experimenter,
while the other one did not (she was made to appear with longer hair without eye
glasses). The results showed that the students were significantly more likely to avoid
the experimenter who looked more like the earlier one that responded negatively to
them. The students thus showed stimulus generalisation.
In everyday life, it has been shown that forming associations through conditioning
can have survival benefits for the individual or organism. If people take a meal
that makes them sick, they will learn to avoid such meals in order to prevent the
reoccurrence of the sickness. Cherry, (2017) reports one study where researchers
injected sheep carcasses with a poison that made coyotes ill but not kill them. This
helped sheep ranchers to reduce the number of sheep coyote killing. The experiment
worked by lowering the number of sheep that died and also made some of the coyotes
to develop such a strong aversion so much that they actually ran away on scenting or
sighting a sheep. Even so, it bears to state quite clearly that in many instances people
do not respond exactly in the same way as Pavlov’s dogs.
By way of implications, Mangal (2015, p. 191) posits that

In our everyday life, we are usually exposed to simple classical conditioning. Fear, love
and hatred towards an object, phenomenon or event are created through conditioning…a
teacher with his defective methods of teaching or improper behaviour may condition a
child to develop a distaste and hatred toward him, the subject he teaches and even the school
environment. On the contrary, affection, a loving attitude and sympathetic treatment given to
the child by the parents at home or by the teachers at school may produce a desirable impact on
him through the process of conditioning. Most of our learning is associated with the process of
conditioning. A child learns to call his father ‘daddy’, his mother ‘mummy’…(and) as a result
of stimulus generalization, he may attribute the name of daddy to all adult males, mummy
to all adult females…Gradually, he comes to the stage of stimulus discrimination and then
learns to discriminate and recognise and attribute different names to different persons…What
is termed as abnormality in one’s behaviour may…be taken as learned…Thus, much of our
behaviour in the shape of interests, attitudes, habits … is fashioned through conditioning.
Systematic desensitisation, a behaviour therapy, draws on principles of classical

conditioning. The main principle in this therapy is to teach the patient how to relax
as the session progresses. For instance, if students have intense fear for carrying out
experiments with toads in the laboratory, they can undergo systemic desensitisation.
As a first step, a mild fear situation will be created in relation to toad such as by
holding a picture of toad far away from the students. The students are taught to relax
in the presence of the distant picture. When it is obvious that they have been able
to relax sufficiently without any fear, the picture of the toad is brought nearer so
the level of fear is increased. Again, they are made to relax sufficiently to overcome
the fear. Next, the therapist can bring in a toad at a distance. This should create
more fear and again the students are made to relax sufficiently in order to overcome
the fear. This process will go on and at each stage the level of fear is increased
followed by relaxation on the part of the students until the students are able to carry
out experiments involving toads without any more fear. If there is fear at any stage,
the therapist will return to a previous stage before proceeding. The process may
be repeated over long intervals of time to assure there is no more fear. Essentially,
relaxation has been substituted for phobia for toads as the conditioned response. In
practice, there may just be one student as the patient. Where possible also, rather
than use physical objects, the patient may be made to imagine various scenarios that
will create graduated levels of fear of toad.
Operant Conditioning
As discussed above, classical conditioning is an automatic conditioning of reflex-like

responses as in the case of salivation (Woolfolk, 2014). In real-life settings, many
human behaviours are not automatic. In several cases, people have to deliberately
act on the environment; and such deliberate efforts are termed ‘operant’, thus giving
rise to operant conditioning first proposed by B. F. Skinner (see Box 6.2). This
kind of conditioning emphasises the role of external stimuli in determining human
behaviour. Essentially, Skinner (1953) contends that humans and animals repeat acts
78 B. Akpan
if such produce outcomes that are favourable. Conversely, humans and animals will
suppress acts that give rise to outcomes that are not favourable. For an example, if
a rat obtains a pellet of food that is delicious by pressing a bar, it may like to repeat
the action of pressing the bar. The bar-pressing is referred to as an operant while the
pellet of food is known as the reinforcer.
Box 6.2
Burrhus Frederic Skinner Bio
Author of The Behaviour of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (1938), Walden
Two (1948), Science and Human Behaviour (1953), Verbal Behaviour (1957), and
Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971), Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904–1920) hailed
from Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, USA. An English graduate from Hamilton College,
New York, Skinner later enrolled for a psychology programme in Harvard where he
earned a doctorate. Skinner later worked in the University of Minnesota (1936–1946),
Indiana University (1946–1947), and Harvard (1948–1990). He died of leukaemia in
1990.
Terminologies Associated with Operant Conditioning
Reinforcement
In operant conditioning terms, behaviours are sustained by reinforcers (see Fig. 6.3).
Reinforcers are stimuli that strengthen or weaken the behaviours that produced them.
This implies that there are two types of reinforcement.
Positive and Negative Reinforcement
In positive reinforcements new stimuli are produced. This is irrespective of whether

or not the behaviour in question is appropriate or inappropriate. According to Wool-
folk (2014), if the consequence that strengthens a behaviour is the appearance of a
new stimulus, positive reinforcement is said to occur. Conversely, in negative rein-
forcement, the consequence that strengthens a behaviour is the disappearance of
a stimulus. In practical terms, positive reinforcement is done by providing desired
stimulus after the behaviour is exhibited, whereas removal of irritating or unpleasant
stimulus when behaviour occurs will lead to negative reinforcement.
aviour
Fig. 6.3 Behaviour
Be h
reinforcement is a cyclic
process
rcer
o
i n f
Re
By way of examples, some pupils may develop the habit of being empathetic
towards more disadvantaged peers if their friends consistently reinforce that kind of
behaviour by praising them. Also, pupils may put in more effort in studying particular
science subjects if their efforts result in grades that are high.
Primary and Secondary Reinforcers
There are two types of reinforcers: primary and secondary reinforcers. Primary rein-
forcers are about basic needs of people such as water, food, warmth, security, and sex.
On the other hand, secondary reinforcers are valued when considered in conjunction
with primary reinforcers or other very important secondary reinforcers. Examples
include money, school grades, smiles, hugs, games, and toys.
Extinction
It is generally observed that the possibility of a specific response occurring increases if

the response is followed by a positive reinforcer. Conversely, if positive reinforcement
does not follow the response, the possibility of it occurring decreases. This means
that responses which are not advantageous tend not to be elicited. This procedure
which results in not reinforcing a specific response is termed extinction.
80 B. Akpan
Punishment
The objective in punishment is always to decrease, suppress, or stop observed

behaviour. When someone is punished for a particular behaviour, it is assumed that
such behaviour will not be repeated in the future. This is contentious, though, as
people perceive punishment differently—a particular student may be unhappy with
supervision from laboratory activities while another student may be glad about it.
There are two types of punishment.
Type I Punishment: this involves the presentation of an unpleasant stimulus
after the behaviour. For example, if a rat that has been reinforced with meat when
it presses a bar receives a painful shock each time it presses the bar, it will begin to
avoid pressing the bar.
Type II Punishment: this involves the removal of a pleasant stimulus after the
behaviour. For example, a student who is prevented from the laboratory activity due
to lateness may try to report in time for laboratory activities in future.
Even so, it should be noted that punished behaviour is not forgotten but only
suppressed and so behaviour easily returns when the punishment is no longer in
place. Punishment leads to aggression; creates fear which can generalise to other
situations such as phobia for schools; and, in general, does not provide a good guide
toward desired behaviour (McLeod, 2015).
Stimulus Generalisation and Discrimination
It is possible for a response to be obtained in a situation that is a little different from

the one in which original reinforcement occurred. In such an instance, the strength
of the response will decrease in the new situation. Should the new situation be very
different from the original situation, the response may not occur. In everyday life, a
situation may be a little different from another and still be possible to produce the
same reinforcement for the same response. Thus, it is possible for the original stim-
ulus situation to generalise to new situations. This phenomenon is termed stimulus
generalisation. Conversely, it is clearly impossible for an individual to completely
generalise from one situation to all other situations. Perfect stimulus generalisation
is clearly not possible otherwise inappropriate responses would be the order of the
day. As a result, individuals usually demonstrate stimulus discrimination.
Morgan et al. (1993) give the following example for a discrimination experiment:
The experimenter, on some trials, pairs one stimulus (called the CS+ ) with an unconditioned
stimulus. On other trials, another stimulus (called CS– ) is presented alone, without the
unconditioned stimulus. In other words, while responses to the CS+ are being conditioned
on some trials, extinction of any tendency to respond to the CS– is occurring on other trials.
As a result, the learner forms discrimination; conditioned responses are made to the CS+ but
not to the CS– . (p. 147)
A Note on Operant Conditioning
Operant conditioning can be used to explain a large variety of human behaviour such
as learning, drug addiction and acquisition of new language. According to Mangal
(2015, pp. 199–200):
A response or behaviour is not necessarily dependent…upon a specific known stimulus. It is
more correct to think that a behaviour or response is dependent upon its consequences…The
individual’s behaviour should get the reward and he should in turn, act in such a way that
he is rewarded again and so on…The principle of operant conditioning may be successfully
applied in behaviour modification…The development of personality can be successfully
manipulated through operant conditioning…The theory … does not attribute motivation to
internal processes within the organism. It takes for granted the consequences of a behaviour
or response as a source of motivation to further occurrence of that behaviour.
Indeed, its applications in educational settings, prisons and certain hospitals have
been established. Nonetheless, operant conditioning is unable to take into account
the role played by inherited as well as cognitive factors in the teaching and learning
process. Consequently, it offers an incomplete explanation of the process of learning.
The over-justification effect is another issue to be considered in operant condi-
tioning. Studies have reported a drop in performance following a period of reward
especially if the tasks were just performed for their own sake and the rewards were
given in ways that showed they were purposely for motivating the persons to carry out
the tasks. Gray (2007) calls this the over-justification effect which arises ‘because the
reward presumably provides an unneeded justification for engaging in the behaviour.
The result…is that the person comes to regard the task as work (the kind of thing
one does for external rewards such as money, certificates or improved resume) rather
than play’. (p. 117)
Application of Classical and Operant Conditioning

in Science Education
The following are guidelines for the implementation of classical and operant
conditioning in science teaching and learning:
1. Set goals for student behaviours and ensure those behaviours are reinforced
whenever they occur. In science classes, endeavour to reward good work and
provide feedback on assignments as well as practical exercises. When new sci-
ence experiments are conducted, endeavour to provide reinforcement at different
stages until completion.
2. Let students know in advance what desirable behaviours you expect from them
and how they may be rewarded. In science practical classes, for instance, let
them know which aspects will attract more marks and thus where much premium
should be placed.
82 B. Akpan
3. Act promptly in reinforcing behaviours. When reinforcements are delayed, they

may be counter-productive.
4. If students have submitted their science assignments for review, action should
be expedited on the teacher’s part and the students are provided with feedback
as soon as possible.
5. Teach students to praise themselves and appreciate their strengths especially
when they have successfully concluded a science task.
6. Listen carefully to what students tell you in the science class and provide
reinforcements where necessary.
7. Lay great emphasis on group work instead of individual competition.
8. Ensure that learning tasks are associated with events that are both positive and
pleasant.
9. Explore ways and means of ensuring that students are capable of decipher-
ing similarities and differences in various settings such that they are able to
discriminate and generalise from one situation to the other.
10. Publicise good effort in the science class. For example, the best science project
can be on display in the classroom. Also, the best written assignment can be
displayed on the notice board.
11. Where possible, let parents know about their wards’ attainment in science
classes. Some occasional notes to parents may be a good way to go.
12. Enlist the help of parents in reinforcing good behaviour at home. This way, the
effort of the school is complemented.
13. Create a positive classroom learning environment in order to assist students
overcome fear and anxiety. For example, in the science class, experiments that
provoke anxiety can be performed in laboratory environments that help the
students focus on the subject matter rather than becoming unnecessarily anx-
ious and tensed up. Laboratory demonstrations that are observed by students
in relaxed mood will be far more beneficial than those carried out in rowdy
situations.
14. Undesirable behaviours such as tardiness and dominating class discussion is
easily prevented by being ignored by the teacher instead of being reinforced by
having attention drawn to them.
15. It is necessary to vary the type of reinforcement provided in order to ensure
desired behaviour is elicited.
16. Use Integrated Learning Systems (ILS): This is a computerised system that
combines tutorial programmes with programmes which track the performance
of students and give feedback to both the teacher and the student. The system
produces some measure of positive results, especially for students achieving
below average.
17. Make use of Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) Drill-and-practice programmes,
tutorial programmes, and problem-solving programmes such as simulations and
games.
18. Shape behaviour by reducing complex behaviours into a sequence of simpler
behaviours; reinforcing successive approximations to complex behaviour.
Summary
• In classical conditioning, an individual learns to associate a neutral stimulus (CS)

with a stimulus (US) that usually elicits a behaviour (UR). Due to this association,
the previously neutral stimulus comes to produce the CR. Extinction occurs if
the CS is repeatedly presented in the absence of US such that the CR ultimately
disappears, even though it may reappear in future in a process termed spontaneous
recovery. Stimulus generalisation takes place if the individual produces the same
response as the original stimulus does. Conversely, when the individual learns to
differentiate between the CS and another similar stimulus, stimulus discrimination
takes place.
• In operant conditioning, it is theorised that if a behaviour is followed by rein-
forcement, that behaviour is very likely to be elicited in the future but if it is
followed by punishment, it is not likely to be elicited. Burrhus Skinner carried out
his research on rats and pigeons using positive reinforcement, negative reinforce-
ment, or punishment. He explained operant conditioning on the basis of learned,
physical aspects of the world such as the organism’s life history and evolution.
• Both classical and operant conditionings have wide applications in psychology,
medicine, education, and science education.
Further Reading
McSweeney, F., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.). (2014). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and
classical conditioning. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/book?id=g9781118468180_9781118468180.
Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1992). Skinner, B. K: Legacy to human infant behavior and
development. American Psychologist, 47, 1411–1422.
Stricker, J. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Garlinghouse, M. A., Deaver, C. M., & Anderson, C. A. (2001).
Evaluation of an awareness enhancement device for the treatment of thump sucking children.
Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 34, 77–80.
References
Cherry, K. (2017). What is classical conditioning?—A step-by-step guide to how classical con-
ditioning really works. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from https://www.verywell.com/classical-
conditioning-2794859.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Frieman, J. (2002). Learning and adaptive behavior. California: Wadsworth Group.
Gray, P. (2007). Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Kuppuswamy, B. (Ed.). (2013). Advanced educational psychology. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers
Private Limited.
Lewickki, P. (1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563–574.
84 B. Akpan
Mangal, S. K. (2015). Advanced educational psychology. Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Morgan, C. T., King, R. A., Weisz, J. R., & Schopler, J. (1993). Introduction to psychology (7th
ed.). New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.
McLeod, S. (2015). Skinner—Operant conditioning. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from https://
www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The education legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational
Psychologist, 40(2), 85–94.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. New York: Macmillan.
Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc.
Tiwari, N. M. (2016). Child Psychology. New Delhi: Saurabh Publishing House.
University of Minnesota. (n.d.). Learning by association: Classical conditioning. Retrieved
September 3, 2017, from http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/7-1-learning-by-association-
classical-conditioning/.
Woolfolk, A. (2014). Educational psychology. Noida, India: Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.
Ben Akpan a Professor of science education is the Executive Director of the Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria (STAN). He served as President of the International Council of Associa-
tions for Science Education (ICASE) for 2011–2013 and currently serves on the Executive Com-
mittee of ICASE as the Chair of World Conferences Standing Committee. Ben’s areas of inter-
est include chemistry, science education, environmental education and support for science teacher
associations. He is the editor of Science Education: A Global Perspective published by Springer
and co-editor (with Keith S. Taber) of Science Education: An International Course Companion
published by Sense Publishers. Ben is a member of the Editorial Boards of the Australian Journal
of Science and Technology (AJST), Journal of Contemporary Educational Research (JCER) and
Action Research and Innovation in Science Education (ARISE) Journal.
Chapter 7
Social Learning Theory—Albert
Bandura
Anwar Rumjaun and Fawzia Narod
We human beings are social beings. We come into the world as

the result of others’ actions. We survive here in dependence on
others. Whether we like it or not, there is hardly a moment of our
lives when we do not benefit from others’ activities. For this
reason, it is hardly surprising that most of our happiness arises
in the context of our relationships with others.
—Dalai Lama XIV.
Introduction
From the above quote, it is evident that interactions with others play an important
role in our lives as social beings. As early as the conception of a being (the formation
of zygote) in the mother’s body, the zygote is dependent on the mother for growth
and development to become a full-fledged baby. Even the initial informal learning
of toddlers and pre-school children start through their interactions with others like
identifying their body parts, their parents, and siblings. It is thus not surprising that
researchers trying to understand about learning have put forward theories which are
based upon learners’ interactions with other people—teachers, peers, parents, and
siblings among others.
Such theories include the Vygotsky’s Social Development theory, also called
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural theory, (Chen, 2015; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; McDe-
vitt & Ormrod, 2002; Ormrod, 2008), and the Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
(Jarvis, Holford, & Griffin, 2003), among others. According to Vygotsky’s theory,
cognitive development is dependent on the child’s social and cultural environments
and as such interactions with others impact learning and cognition as would be
elaborated in Chap. 19.
A. Rumjaun (B) · F. Narod

Department of Science Education, Mauritius Institute of Education, Moka, Mauritius
F. Narod

86 A. Rumjaun and F. Narod
On the other hand, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory postulates that people learn
from each other through observation and modeling. His theory is often referred to
as a junction or bridge between cognitive and behaviorist theories (McLeod, 2016).
According to his theory, learning is based on a social behavioral approach—people
learn from others (social element) by observing and modeling their behavior (behav-
iorist approach), but Bandura also brings into picture cognitive processes to explain
learning. He proposes observational learning as opposed to direct imitation: people
learn by observing others’ behavior, but their cognitive processes or internal mental
states will determine whether they will “imitate” the behavior or not (Boundless
Psychology, 2016).
This chapter seeks to document SLT in its historical and educational perspectives.
It also discusses the importance of the theory and its relevance in relation to current
educational debates and reforms occurring worldwide. Drawing from current prac-
tices, the chapter furthermore emphasizes the relevance of the theory in supporting
the teaching and learning of science and analyses to what extent the twenty-first-
century science curriculum reconciles itself with SLT (Bandura, 1977). Some ideas
and examples of science teaching and learning using SLT will also be provided.
Finally, the chapter seeks to provide a critical lens of embedding SLT in science
classes including the issues and challenges thereof.
Historical Perspective of the Social Learning Theory
The origin of the Social Learning Theory can be traced back to the work of Miller
and Dollard (1941; Culatta, 2015; Huitt & Monetti, 2008), who made an attempt “to
develop a theory that would encompass psychodynamic theory, learning theory, and
the influence of sociocultural factors” (Kelland, 2015). Using the Hull’s stimulus-
response theory of learning, Miller and Dollard (1941) postulated that motivation and
need could lead people to learn particular behaviors through observations and imita-
tions; this is positively reinforced through social interactions (Kelland, 2015). Later,
Rotter stretched the behaviorist theories and studied personality as an interaction
between the individual and the environment (Kelland, 2015); this was viewed as the
first step to cognitive approaches to learning. Rotter’s work thus hinted that learning
is also dependent on cognitive factors (Willard, 2015). In addition, Chomsky (1959)
believed that the stimulus-response behaviorist theories alone were not sufficient to
explain language acquisition, invoking some “unknown cognitive mechanism” to
help people acquire language. The works of both Rotter and Chomsky were thus the
first attempts to show that behaviorist approaches were not strong enough to explain
learning; they believed that cognitive factors also played a role in people’s learning
(Kelland, 2015; Kihlstrom, 2014; Stone, 1998; Wikipedia, 2017).
Dollard and Miller based themselves on the Hullian Theory (Kelland, 2015) and
Rotter made an attempt to explain learning from “generalized expectancies of rein-
forcement and internal/ external locus of control (self-initiated change versus change
influenced by others)” by examining cognitive social learning (Kelland, 2015; Stone,
7 Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura 87
1998). However, only Bandura was able to establish social learning as a theory step-
ping away from the long-acclaimed behaviorist approaches (Kihlstrom, 2014). Even
though Bandura placed great focus on cognitive aspects, he was of the view that
cognitive development alone could not explain behavioral changes and believed that
people can learn by watching and observing others (referred to as “observational
learning” or “modeling”; Huitt & Monetti, 2008; Kelland, 2015). Indeed, by analyz-
ing the ways in which people function cognitively on their social experiences and
the influences of the latter on behavior and development, Bandura put forward his
Social Learning Theory. This theory was a pioneering one in that it was the first one
to include “modeling” or “vicarious learning” as a form of social learning (Kelland,
2015). The origin of his theory was also based on his famous Bobo doll study which
clearly highlighted the importance of modeling on behavior. This study showed that
children who watched a film showing adults mistreating and aggressive toward a
Bobo doll, displayed similar aggressive behavior with the Bobo doll when placed in
a room with toys including the doll (Huitt & Monetti, 2008). Nevertheless, though
Bandura acknowledged the importance of modeling and reinforcement in learning
social skills, he also reported children’s predisposition to imitate others of higher
prestige or status (e.g., parents, teachers, and national figures). According to Fontana
(1995), Bandura’s theories are referred to as social learning theories because “they
suggest that social contact in itself produces learning.”
Essential Features of the Social Learning

Theory—Observational Learning and Modeling
Let us now focus on the educational perspective of Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
and its applications. Two important aspects of the Social Learning Theory include
observational learning and modeling (also called vicarious learning; Edinyang, 2016;
Kelland, 2015). As far as observational learning is concerned, it does not limit itself
to observing a live model (another person displaying or acting the behavior), but
it can also involve a “verbal instructional” model (descriptions and explanations of
the behavior) or a” symbolic” model (children observing characters demonstrating
the behavior in books, films, television or other media; Kelland, 2015). The term
modeling in the Social Learning Theory can either imply the model demonstrating the
behavior for the learner or the learner observing and imitating the displayed behavior
(Ormrod, 2008). Distinction has also been made between the terms “imitation” and
“modeling” in the SLT (Edinyang, 2016). The ability of the learner to reproduce
or replicate the behavior which has been observed again and again is referred to
as imitation, while modeling is a more complex process involving four important
steps to ensure effective observational learning according to SLT. The four steps in
the modeling process comprise attention, retention, reproduction (also referred to as
production by some authors) and motivation as illustrated in Fig. 7.1. If any one of
these steps is missing, observational learning and modeling will not take place.
Attention - Attention and consideration be given to the

displayed behaviour in the model.
Retention - The behaviour observed in the model must be

remembered.
Reproduction - The learner must be able to enact the
learned behaviour
Motivation - There must be a need or motivation for

the learner to reproduce the learned behaviour.
Fig. 7.1 Observational learning and the modeling process
The learner must pay attention to the model for observational learning to take
place. Observing a model without any particular attention is unlikely to result in
learning. Further, the information must be stored and remembered (retention). This
implies that when required, the learner must be able to retrieve the information and
re-enact or reproduce the observed and learned behavior (reproduction). Last but not
least, to complete the modeling process the need for reproducing the observed and
learned behavior must be felt by the learner. In other words, there must be a stimulus
or a reason (motivation) for the learner to reproduce the observed behavior. The
motivation can be in the form of reinforcement or punishment. Thus, this motivational
aspect of the SLT is regarded as the most important factor that would drive the learner
to perform the learned behavior. Sternberg and Williams (2009) have reported three
types of reinforcement, namely:
(i) direct reinforcement which involves rewarding the person for enacting or
modeling the learned behavior.
(ii) vicarious reinforcement occurs when the learners are motivated by observing
the model being rewarded on displaying the behavior.
(iii) self-reinforcement which implies the learners rewarding themselves for enact-
ing the learned behavior.
The latter type of reinforcement is reported to encourage “self-regulation”.
Implications of the Social Learning Theory on Science

Education
As highlighted earlier in this chapter, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory stresses a lot
on cognitive concepts and is considered a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive
approaches to learning. Indeed, Bandura believes that modeling will not occur with-
out the learners engaging themselves cognitively by paying attention to the model
or without an incentive. With this first leap toward cognitivism, the Social Learning
Theory has important implications on science education as elaborated below.
Different definitions have been attributed to science; nevertheless, most of them

lay emphasis on “observation” as an important aspect of science. For example,
according to the English Oxford living dictionaries (2017), science is defined as “The
intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure
and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
In addition, learning science is reported to be essential to prepare twenty-first-century
learners into responsible citizens who would not only be capable of understanding
their world but would also function effectively in the science-driven world both at
the personal and professional levels (Science Education for Responsible Citizenship,
2015; Ministry of Education, 2008). In view of the above, it can be seen that science
acknowledges the importance of observation to gain knowledge and understanding
and that science education has an important contribution in preparing learners for
their roles as social beings. On the other hand, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory puts
forward that children can acquire and enact behaviors from hierarchically important
individuals (models) in society through observation and modelling. Thus, in such a
learning scenario as presented by Bandura, it is only natural to expect that his theory
would have interesting and positive implications on science education. In view of
the above, the SLT is expected to contribute positively to learners both in terms of
science learning and in preparing them as twenty-first-century citizens. First, engag-
ing learners in observation of their natural environment and its components as from
the early years can be instrumental in arousing interest in the learning of science
and in developing the right attitude toward the environment. This would, in turn,
enhance conceptual understanding of science as an increase in interest will impact
positively on student motivation and learning. Second, increased interest in science
and enhanced conceptual understanding would promote awareness and understand-
ing of the applications of science in real-life situations thereby preparing learners to
perform effectively as twenty-first-century citizens.
Given that learning science involves the acquisition and development of necessary
inquiry skills and processes, it is thus important for science educators to ensure that
they display these skills correctly during the science lessons. Furthermore, practical
work is an integral part of science and requires the proper and safe handling of
various apparatus and measuring instruments by learners. It cannot be denied then
that SLT can play a crucial role in science learning as it lays emphasis on learning
through observation and modeling by learning. Indeed, continually observing and
paying attention to how science educators and/or more abled peers display these skills
correctly would enable learners to embrace (retain) and enact (reproduce) them as
and when required (motivation) in line with the SLT. Science educators should thus
aim at being “worthy” models for their learners by virtue of their role and also by
virtue of their hierarchical position as Bandura asserts that children are more likely
to observe and imbibe behaviors exhibited by individuals who are higher in status
than themselves.
Problem-solving skills are considered to be essential for all citizens of the modern
and increasingly complex scientifically-driven world. Thus, development of problem-
solving skills among our learners is imperative to prepare them for their role as
future responsible citizens (Mukhopadhyay, 2013; Wismath, Orr, & Zhong, 2014).
Though various definitions have been attributed to problem-solving, it is generally

acknowledged that problem-solving is a process that involves several clearly-defined
steps to be followed in the right order (Facione, 2007). It is often asked how science
educators can promote the development of problem-solving skills among learners
(Wismath, Orr, & Zhong, 2014), given skills cannot be taught directly. In this context,
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory can have positive implications for helping science
educators to promote the development of problem-solving skills among their learners.
Applying the Social Learning Theory, science educators need to present students with
problem-solving situations—the Educators then clearly work out the steps to solve
the problems in the classrooms. In so doing, Educators would be “modeling” the
desired behavior for solving problems and thus helping students to learn and replicate
the behavior as and when required. Furthermore, Educators can also model the correct
problem-solving behavior by making use of problem-solving as an instructional
method. Being regularly exposed to such problem-solving behavior as displayed by
science educators would allow students to observe, retain and re-enact their roles as
problem-solvers when motivated as claimed by Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.
As far as problem-solving is concerned, the SLT can be applied both in the cases of
solving mathematical problems in science and in proposing solutions for science-
related real-life problems such as global warming and the provision of pure safe
water. Science educators need to clearly model out how they work the mathematical
problems or how they carry out the step-wise procedures to propose solutions to
science-related problems so that students can develop such problem-solving skills
through observation, retention, and reproduction.
At this stage, it needs to be highlighted that we have considered science educators
as “live models” to discuss the implications of the Social Learning Theory on science
education. However, we would also like to argue here that both “verbal instructional
models” and “symbolic models” are equally pertinent to science education. As high-
lighted above, verbal instructional models include people who explain and describe
the desired behavior—they do not actually perform the behavior. Science educators
therefore also represent verbal instructional models when they actually explain con-
cepts, skills, and attitudes pertaining to science. In the same line of thought, science
educators also act as verbal instructional models to help learners recognize when
to invoke these concepts, skills, and attitudes, how to apply and reproduce them
correctly in the event of an appropriate stimulus (motivation).
Symbolic models can also have positive implications on science education. Let us
now consider some ways in which symbolic models can be applied in science educa-
tion as postulated by the Social Learning Theory. Symbolic models include fictitious
or real characters in textbooks, novels, movies, cartoons, television programs or
other media sources displaying certain types of behaviors that can be observed and
modeled. Encouraging children to read about the lives and discoveries of renowned
scientists (symbolic models) can enhance their interest in science and support the
acquisition of the right disposition (in terms of attitudes and skills) toward science.
Attributes that can be observed and modeled from the renowned scientists (as sym-
bolic models) include curiosity, persistence; fair testing, observation, hypothesizing,
hypothesis-testing, accuracy, and precision among others. Other ways in which sym-
bolic models can be applied in science education include relevant videos of practical
work being carried out. Educators can make use of ICT to project appropriate videos
with symbolic models carrying out practical work, properly handling apparatus.
Symbolic models can also be in the form of resource persons sharing their science-
related career experiences with students. Most interestingly, symbolic models can
also involve people in different situations (from movies, cartoons, case studies, true
stories, events in the newspapers among others) demonstrating the right kinds of
attitudes or behaviors that are in line with the aims of science education.
In view of the above discussions, it is evident that the Social Learning Theory
can support the teaching and learning of science and have interesting implications on
science education. Nevertheless, to ensure that the Social Learning Theory helps in
achieving the aims and objectives of science education, it is important for the Educa-
tors to expose learners to the right types of models (whether live, verbal instructional
or symbolic models) and provide the correct incentive to focus their attention to the
desired behaviors, skills, and attitudes. In the next two sections, we elaborate more
on embedding the Social Learning Theory in science teaching and learning.
Social Learning Theory Versus Socio-Constructivist Theory

in Relation to Science Education
In this section, we would like to contrast the Social Theory with the Socio-
constructivist Theory as proposed by Vygotsky (Amineh & Asl, 2015). Both of
these theories claim that learning can occur as a result of interactions with others,
in other words as a social process. Nevertheless, there is a huge disparity between
the two theories in terms of student involvement in the learning process. The Socio-
constructivist Theory claims that learners construct knowledge or develop under-
standing when they actively work and interact with others (peers or teachers in the
classroom), for example by being involved collaboratively in activities or by asking
questions and sharing ideas and discussing. This allows learning to take place as stu-
dents can “make better sense of information and events” (Ormrod, 2008) when they
actively work with others. Thus, Socio-constructivists view knowledge-construction
and learning as a social process that is based on active interactions with others.
The Socio-constructivist Theory will be more elaborated and discussed in detail in
Chap. 18.
On the other hand, the Social Learning Theory is sometimes criticized in that
it views learning as a passive process that is based on the observation of models
(Laliberte, 2005). However, it can also be argued that passive observation of models
will not lead to learning unless the learner focuses “active” attention on the desired
behavior of the model(s) to be able to retain and remember the behavior. Furthermore,
according to the Social Learning Theory, the learner must also be able to recognize a
relevant or an appropriate stimulus to be “actively” motivated to display the learned
behavior. As an ending note to this section, it can also be highlighted that learners
can be encouraged to discuss about the observed behavior(s) in the models (live,
verbal instructional or symbolic) during science teaching and learning. This would
not only promote social interactions in line with the Socio-constructivist views but
also render learning of the desired behaviors more meaningful.
Embedding Social Learning Theory in Science Teaching

and Learning
Knowledge in science is built upon basic science concepts learnt during early child-
hood. Through science activities, concepts are developed and cognitive development
is supported. In that way students learn about events and things in their surround-
ing and daily life through performance and experience, their observation skills are
improved, they become more sensitive to the environment and their problem-solving
skills are boosted (Saçkes et al., 2011). It is interesting to relate concept acquisi-
tion and concept development in science to Bandura’s social learning theory which
includes four stages in observational learning which are described in the sections
which follow.
Attention
Observers cannot learn unless they pay attention to what’s happening around them.
This process is influenced by characteristics of the model, such as how much one
likes or identifies with the model, and by characteristics of the observer, such as the
observer’s expectations or level of emotional arousal.
Retention/Memory
Observers must not only recognize the observed behavior but also remember it at
some later time. This process depends on the observer’s ability to code or structure
the information in an easily remembered form or to mentally or physically rehearse
the model’s actions.
Initiation/Motor
Observers must be physically and/intellectually capable of producing the act. In many

cases, the observer possesses the necessary responses. But sometimes, reproducing
the model’s actions may involve skills which the observer has not yet acquired.
Motivation
This relates to both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The extrinsic includes the model
observed and the extent to which the model has been capturing the attention and
elicit the engagement of learners. Intrinsic relates to the perception and interest of
students toward the tasks or activities being put in place.
How do the above stages relate to science teaching and learning? This section will
consider typical lessons in science and will make a correlation with the four stages
of Bandura’s social learning theory.
Science teaching and learning is a dynamic activity where teachers and pupils are
engaged in a process of constructing new knowledge or concepts. However, teach-
ing students about science means more than teaching scientific concepts. There are
three dimensions of science that are all important, namely, science content, science
processes, and science attitudes.
Science Content
This dimension of science includes the scientific knowledge and the scientific con-
cepts to be learnt. It is the dimension of science that most people first think about,
and it is certainly very important.
Science Processes
The science processes include skills that scientists use in the process of doing sci-
ence. Thus, science processes are also referred to as “doing science”. It means that
science is about asking questions and finding answers to questions, these are actu-
ally the same skills that we all use in our daily lives as we try to figure out everyday
questions. When we teach students to use these skills in science, we are also teach-
ing them skills that they will use in the future in every area of their lives. One of
the main science skills which we promote among learners “doing science” is to
make decisions on data and evidence. This skill is very fundamental in this century
since UNESCO is encouraging and supporting education systems to make provisions
for developing informed decision-making skills among their school youth in their
national curriculum.
Science Attitudes
The third dimension of science focuses on the characteristic attitudes and dispositions
of science. These include such things as being curious and imaginative, as well as
being enthusiastic about asking questions and solving problems. To sum up, it can
be argued that to ensure acquisition and development of science-related concepts,
the environment that the child interacts with should be enriched in a way allowing
the acquisition and development of science-related concepts (Greenfield et al., 2009;
Oğuz, 2007).
Characteristics of Science Teaching and Learning

from a Social Learning Theory Perspective
The ability to make good observations is essential to the development of other science
process skills: communicating, classifying, measuring, inferring, and predicting. The
simplest observations, made using only the senses, are qualitative observations.
Qualitative observation is the driving element in Social Learning Theory. The first
step in this theory is attention capture. Unless there is focused observation, there will
not be attention capture. This first stage in Social Learning Theory, attention capture,
is also the first step in an active learning situation. For example, in an inquiry and
problem-solving-based learning, the first step is to present the learners with a relevant
context whereby they have to explore and formulate ideas. These ideas are then used
to engage the learners in seeking information. This search for information could be
either a documentary search or an investigation by experiment within laboratory set
up or investigation out of the classroom such as fieldwork or surveys.
Scientific investigations form an integral part of science education and involve
a number of steps or activities such as asking questions, hypothesizing, planning
and carrying out experiments, collecting data and making conclusions (Hackling,
2005). In other words, implementing scientific investigations in science lessons allow
learners to work like scientists. Engaged in this type of teaching and learning, learners
feel like they are wearing the hat of a typical scientist. They are made to enact
the behavior and model out the work of a real scientist. They will have to explore
an event, a phenomenon or an object which will lead them to ask questions and
generate hypotheses. In this way, learners with the help of the teacher will conduct
investigation, collect data, analyze and interpret the same to make inferences.
The importance of modeling to promote understanding of science has earlier
been reported by various authors (Jonassen & Strobel, 2006). Models can be used
Fig. 7.2 Increased

engagement and enhanced
performance. Source
Blunsdon, Reed, McNeil,
and McEachern, (2003)
to explain a concept and are used as a tool for student interactions and they are
perceived by teachers as physical representations. Such types of models are more
likely to be physical objects that can help learners to better visualize concepts or
phenomena. These physical models can be used to explain a concept to students, or
as a way for students to explain a concept to themselves or each other. In addition,
computer simulations or animations may also be used to model science concepts or
phenomena. However, these models contrast with Bandura’s models which display
desirable behavior, skills or attitudes pertaining to science while the former is used
to represent science concepts or phenomena.
It has been reported that students are more likely to “engage with a problem” if
it is based on something or an issue that interests and makes sense to them (Hung &
Swe Khine, 2006). They are thus more likely to focus their attention on such issues or
related problems and this would ultimately lead to increased engagement in learning
and enhanced performance as illustrated in Fig. 7.2. In such a context, it is important
for science educators to expose learners to live or symbolic models with whom they
can relate to or have some sort of affinity or interest. Such models may be national
or international figures in various fields like sports, cinema, medicine, politics and
technology and dealing with issues that are of interest to the science learners. This
would help to “capture” the learner’s attention to the desired behavior displayed by
the models and lead to retention and reproduction of the behavior in the event of a
stimulus.
Learners can be made to interact with each other around the models’ behavior
through discussions and sharing of their points of view and ideas. In this way, models
can support learning and allow students to learn from each other during group or
whole-class discussions about the behavior displayed by the models.
Social Learning in Science Using Digital Technologies
The section below will document some insights into Social Learning Theory in
technologically-based science teaching and learning. We are living in a technology
era and our youth are considered to be digital natives. They are very inclined to
technology, gadgets, tablets, cell and smart phones.
Science education does not exist in isolation in schools. Outside schools there are
many contexts where students are exposed to and learn about science such as televi-
sion, films, newspapers, museums, internet, and so on. Digital technologies provide
an interface between the learners and the concept to be understood. For example,
when learners are engaged with animations, short videos or explanations by scien-
tists about science concepts such as photosynthesis, solar system, global warming
or water cycle, this can enhance learning of the concepts. Such situations represent
examples of symbolic or verbal instructional models in accordance with Bandura’s
Social Learning Theory. Thus ICT can provide a means of exposing learners to sym-
bolic and verbal instructional models thereby facilitating integration of the Social
Learning Theory in the teaching and learning of science. This may ultimately result in
increased student engagement and motivation and support their learning (UNESCO,
2012) which will help as future youth and citizens to participate fully and actively
in decision-making related to any socio-scientific issue thus ensuring a scientifically
literate citizenry.
Conclusion
Social learning theories emphasize changes in behavior and learning through the
observation and imitation of the actions and behaviors in the environment. Social
Learning Theory is still a valid theory in science education. Today science education
is not solely limited to learning scientific concepts. More importantly, it englobes
the science process skills and scientific attitudes. These competences are a requisite
for all learners to address and face local and global challenges such as food security,
energy crisis, and climate change. These issues and challenges are the very concrete
contextual situations that should be embedded in science teaching and learning.
Teaching and learning in science involve knowledge acquisition through learning
processes put in place by science educators and owned by the learners whereby the
latter are engaged in quality or systematic observation of natural phenomena or lived
models. Learners then collectively find the most appropriate means to make sense
and meaning of the phenomenon and models understudy and they will be required to
argue on their findings and come up to a conclusion under the facilitating processes of
the educator. Though these transactions of science teaching and learning corroborate
with problem-based and inquiry learning strategies, this chapter documented how
these current practices of teaching and learning in science align with Bandura SLT.
The chapter also elucidated some features of Bandura SLT. It also showcased, using
examples, that today, the theory has still its significance in teaching and learning of
science.
Further Reading
Crittenden, W. F. (2005). A social learning theory of cross-functional case education. Journal of

Business Research, 59, 960–966.
Mesoudi, A. (2017). Pursuing Darwin’s curious parallel: Prospects for a science of cultural evolution.
Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7853–7860.
References
Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal
of Social Sciences, Literature & Language, 1(1), 9–16.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Blunsdon, B., Reed, K., McNeil, N., & McEachern. (2003). Experiential learning in social science
theory: An investigation of the relationship between student enjoyment and learning. Higher
Education Research & Development, 22(1).
Boundless Psychology. (2016). Bandura and observational learning. Boundless Psychology.
Retrieved from https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-
textbook/learning-7/cognitive-approaches-to-learning-48/bandura-and-observational-learning-
203-12738/.
Chen, M. (2015). Social development theory. University of Victoria. [E-book]. Retrieved
from https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/learningdesign/wp-content/uploads/sites/1178/
2015/06/Mingli-Chen-ebook.pdf.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of skinner’s verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.
Culatta, R. (2015). Social learning theory. Innovative Learning. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://
www.innovativelearning.com/teaching/social_learning_theory.html.
Edinyang, S. D. (2016). The significance of social learning theories in the teaching of social studies
education. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Research, 2(1), 40–45.
Facione, P. A. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.telacommunications.com/nutshell/cthinking7.htm.
Fontana, D. (1995). Psychology for teachers (3rd ed.). Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.
Greenfield, D. B., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science
in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early
Education and Development, 20(2), 238–264.
Hackling, M. W. (2005). Working scientifically. Implementing and assessing open investigation
work in science: A resource book for teachers of primary and secondary science. Published by
Western Australia: Department of Education and Training. Perth.
Huitt, W., & Monetti, D. (2008). Social learning perspective. In W. Darity (Ed.), International ency-
clopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 602–603). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Refer-
ence USA/Thompson Gale. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/soclrnpers.
pdf.
Hung, D., & Swe Khine, M. (2006). Engaged learning with emerging technologies. New York, NY
10013 USA: Springer.
Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The theory and practice of learning (2nd ed.). London:
Kogan- Page.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist., 31(3/4), 191–206.
Jonassen, D. H., & Strobel, J. (2006). Modeling for meaningful learning. In D. Hung & M. Swe
Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 1–27). Springer.
Kelland, M. (2015). Learning theory and personality development. OpenStax-CNX module:

m58073. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://cnx.org/contents/R3cpfhGP@1/Learning-Theory-
and-Personalit.
Kihlstrom, J. (2014). The evolution of cognitive social learning theory. [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm//MemoryWeb/learning/SocialLearningTheory.html.
Laliberte, M. D. (2005). A (very) brief history of learning theory. Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NERCOMP SIG. Presentation Retrieved from http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPIPS/JUR._PEND._
SEJARAH/195704081984031-DADANG_SUPARDAN/BRIEF_HISTORY_OF_LEARNING.
pdf.
Oğuz, A. (2007). A look at the theories on the formation of science concepts via samples from
theory to practice. Education, Science, Society Journal, 5(19), 26–51.
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2002). Child development and education. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
McLeod, S. A. (2016). Bandura—Social learning theory. [Blog post]. Retrieved from www.
simplypsychology.org/bandura.html.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. In R. Culatta (Ed.), (2015) Innova-
tive learning. New Haven: Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.innovativelearning.
com/teaching/social_learning_theory.htm.
Ministry of Education. (2008). The Ontario curriculum grades 11 & 12, science. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/2009science11_12.pdf.
Mukhopadhyay, R. (2013). Problem solving in science learning—Some important considerations
of a teacher. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(6), 21–25.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. 6th Ed.
Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., Bell, R. L., & O’Connel, A. A. (2011). The influence of early science
experience in kindergarten on children’s immediate and later science achievement: Evidence from
the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 217–235.
Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. (2015). Report to the European Commission of
the Expert Group on Science Education. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Euro-
pean Commission B-1049 Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_
science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2009). Educational psychology. Merrill. Pennsylvania State
University.
Stone, D. (1998). Social cognitive theory. Article Retrieved from http://mrspettyjohn.pbworks.com/
f/SocialCognitiveTheory.pdf.
UNESCO. (2012). The positive impact of eLearning—2012 update, white paper. Education Trans-
formation. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/The%
20Positive%20Impact%20of%20eLearning%202012UPDATE_2%206%20121%20(2).pdf.
Wikipedia. (2017). Social learning theory. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Social_learning_theory.
Willard, E. (2015). Origins of social learning theory. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.
tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/origins-of-social-learning-theory.
Wismath, S., Orr, D., & Zhong, M. (2014). Student perception of problem solving skills.
Transformative dialogues. Teaching and Learning Journal, 7(3), 1–17.
Anwar Bhai Rumjaun is an Associate Professor in the Science Education Department at the
Mauritius Institute of Education in Mauritius. He is engaged in teaching and teacher programme,
school curriculum and textbook development, and research in education. He is currently a Senior
Honorary Research Associate at the UCL Institute of Education. He also supervises Master and
Doctoral students registered with MIE and with University of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) and
University of Brighton (UK). His research interests are in Science/Biology Education, Environ-
mental Education/ESD, and Policy responses to Science Education.
Fawzia Narod is an Associate Professor in the Department of Science Education at the Mauri-
tius Institute of Education. In addition to teaching and coordination of courses and programmes,
she is actively engaged in research in education and development of curriculum and curriculum
materials. Dr. Narod also supervises MA and Ph.D. research dissertations for the University of
Brighton (UK) and University of Kwazulu-Natal (South Africa). Her research interests include
the use of ICT as a pedagogical tool, Chemistry Education, teacher development, and educational
management among others.
Chapter 8
Connectionism—Edward Thorndike
Richard Brock
Introduction and Chapter Map
Edward Thorndike’s research was hugely influential in the United States for at least
half a century and he is still regarded by many contemporary psychologists as a
significant thinker. He produced over 500 publications across a diverse range of top-
ics, many related to education (Mayer, 2009). In a survey of 1,725 members of the
American Psychological Society, psychologists were asked to name the greatest psy-
chologist of the twentieth century in their specialisation; Thorndike was ranked in
joint ninth position with Carl Rogers (Haggbloom et al., 2002, p. 144). Thorndike’s
revered status may be linked to his championing of the assumption that learning
could be studied and theorised, and that classroom practice should be influenced by
research evidence. Though Thorndike has been classified as a behaviourist thinker
(see Chapters 6 and 7), and his early writings contain descriptions of learning as
the association between stimulus and response, in this chapter I will argue that he
might additionally be conceptualised as a proto-constructivist (see Section IV) as his
model of learning also contained themes that pre-empted the ideas of later construc-
tivist thinkers. His work contains proposals that remain pertinent for teachers and
researchers interested in learning science.
This chapter begins with a description of Thorndike’s early research into learning
in animals and the ‘laws’ he developed from this empirical research will be discussed.
The experiments sparked Thorndike’s interest in moments of insight which will be
considered in comparison to research into conceptual change in science education.
Finally, the relevance of Thorndike’s ideas for contemporary science educators and
researchers will be considered. It is hoped that this chapter will encourage readers to
engage with the prescient and wide-ranging research of one of the founding figures
of educational research.
R. Brock (B)
King’s College London, London, UK

102 R. Brock
Thorndike’s Early Research
Thorndike was born in Williamsburg, Massachusetts and studied at Wesleyan and

Harvard Universities. Whilst at Harvard, he worked with the philosopher and psychol-
ogist William James and developed an interest in animal learning. Due to personal
and financial difficulties, he left Harvard to continue his research at Columbia Uni-
versity. Having previously carried out research on learning with chickens in William
James’ cellar (Mayer, 2009), Thorndike switched his attention to studying how cats
and dogs learn. Perhaps the most well-known of Thorndike’s animal experiments
are his investigations using puzzle boxes. In these experiments, a hungry cat, dog
or chick was placed in a specially designed puzzle box in which the door was fitted
with an unlatching device, for example, a loop of wire or a handle, that the animal
would learn to manipulate in order to escape and gain access to some food. Thorndike
(1898, p. 30) remarked that: ‘Never will you get a better psychological subject than
a hungry cat.’ He recorded the amount of time it took the animal in the puzzle box
to perform the required action that would release the door and allow it to escape.
Typically, the animal’s initial attempts took relatively long periods of time as they
engaged in a series of unsuccessful behaviours before they tripped the latch, some-
times in an accidental manner. Thorndike noted that, over subsequent trials, the time
taken to escape slowly and irregularly decreased and, after around 10 or 20 attempts,
tended towards a stable, relatively short escape time.
His observations of the gradual decrease in escape times led Thorndike to hypothe-
sise that animals were not capable of moments of insight, that is, sudden progressions
in learning. Rather, he argued, animal learning proceeded gradually through the pri-
oritisation of actions that were rewarded. Perhaps because of such work, Thorndike
would later develop an interest in the effects of punishment and reward on learning
in school and therefore may be seen as a pioneer of the study of the role of motivation
in learning.
Thorndike’s Model of Learning
The puzzle box experiments allowed Thorndike to formulate three principal ‘laws’ of
learning: the laws of effect, exercise and readiness (Thorndike, 1898, pp. 244–250).
The law of effect proposes that a response followed by a satisfactory outcome will be
repeated whereas a response that leads to discomfort is less likely to be repeated (see
Section II: Behaviourist Theories). Thorndike initially argued that punishment and
reward were equally effective in modifying behaviour but, in a later text (Thorndike,
1932), argued that rewards more dependably shifted behaviours than punishments.
The law of exercise states that the connection between a stimulus and response will
grow as the two events repeatedly co-occur. For example, if a student is frequently
rewarded for good behaviour, they are likely to develop a strong connection between
the behaviour and a satisfactory outcome. In later writing, Thorndike (1905, p. 207,
8 Connectionism—Edward Thorndike 103
original emphasis removed) added that the connection may be ‘…with the total
frame of mind in which the situation is felt’ suggesting a broader view than a simple
connection between stimulus and response. The law of readiness suggests that a
learner has a greater likelihood of acquiring certain stimuluse-response connections
than others due to their pre-existing frame of mind (Thorndike, 1913). One student
may, for example, have a stronger predisposition to learn the skill of drawing than
another.
Though he labelled his conclusions as ‘laws’, the statements appear to be con-
clusions that Thorndike felt had some general applicability rather than the status
of absolute and universal principles (Hilgard & Bower, 1975). In addition to the
three principal ‘laws’, Thorndike (1913, pp. 23–31) proposed five ‘subordinate laws’
which can be conceptualised as pre-empting some ideas in later models of learning
in science education.
(a) The law of multiple response (Thorndike, 1913) suggests that a learner, when
faced with a challenge, will attempt a number of alternative responses until they
find the most appropriate behaviour for that context. Experience may lead the
student to come to prefer one type of approach over others and that behaviour
may then be used more frequently as a result. The law of multiple response
might be seen to foreshadow the notion that learners possess multiple ways
of understanding the world, for example, they may possess several coexisting
models of heat (Mortimer, 1995). An important facet of learning science is
the appropriate activation of one conception, from amongst multiple possible
alternatives, in a given context.
(b) The law of set or attitude. As will be discussed in detail below, Thorndike
goes beyond a conceptualisation of learning as a direct connection between
stimulus and response. Thorndike argued learning is more than a ‘simple equa-
tion’ linking a learner with their environment and that learning is influenced
by the ‘mind’s set’ at the time of learning (Thorndike, 1913, p. 13). In his
model, mental connections have a complex structure and, though they might
be modelled simplistically in experiments, students’ learning in the classroom
requires a richer conceptualisation than a simple stimulus–response connec-
tion. Thorndike acknowledged that previous experiences may influence current
learning and that: ‘The things connected may be subtle relations or elusive atti-
tudes and intentions’ (Thorndike, 1932, p. 353). Thorndike’s stance seems to
prefigure contemporary models of conceptual structure which acknowledge the
systemic nature of conceptual change (Amin, Smith, & Wiser, 2014) and the
significance of tacit knowledge elements (Brock, 2015).
Thorndike’s version of connectionism might be interpreted as an intermediate
step between purely behaviourist models, which conceptualised learning as the
development of links between stimuli and responses, and models that represent
learning as changes to the relationships between abstract concepts in conceptual
structure, as the extract below indicates:
104 R. Brock
Learning is connecting, and man is the great learner primarily because he forms so
many connections. The processes described … change the man into a wonderfully
elaborate and intricate system of connections. There are millions of them. They include
connections with subtle abstract elements or aspects or constituents of things and
events, as well as with the concrete things and events themselves. (Thorndike, 1913,
p. 54)
Thorndike (1913) called for the production of a volume showing the connec-
tions that would be developed during different classroom activities prefiguring
representations such as concept maps and learning progressions that are now
available for a wide range of topics in science education.
(c) The Law of partial activity suggests that responses may be triggered by certain
elements of a situation or that one element of a context may be dominant in
determining a response (Thorndike, 1913). This ‘law’ pre-empts science educa-
tion researchers’ reports that expert and novice learners may perceive different
elements of problems as significant: experts tend to focus on the ‘deep structure’
of a problem (for example, underlying principles such as energy conservation)
whilst novices may fixate on surface features that may not be relevant to solv-
ing the problem (such as the shape of a moving object) (Chi, Feltovich, &
Glaser, 1981). The law highlights that students may, in some contexts, possess
appropriate knowledge to answer a problem but fail to activate it in that situation.
(d) The law of assimilation or analogy. Thorndike was an early proponent of the
value of analogical thinking for making sense of novel situations. He argued
that developing scientific thinking was a ‘struggle’ because it required learners
to treat perceptibly different entities, for example, coal dust and diamonds, as
sharing some abstract properties (Thorndike, 1913, p. 29). He argued that an
important element of learning is the ability to appreciate qualities, or groups
of qualities, that are shared by concepts, even when other differences exist.
Thorndike (1913, p. 37) advanced a model of transfer that argued learners
should develop the ability to separate ‘a subtle element’ from the totality of
a situation and thereby become able to transfer those principles to novel con-
texts. This notion anticipated researchers in science education who have noted
that students’ thinking may become grounded in particular contexts leading
to an inability to apply ideas to novel situations (e.g. Brock & Taber, 2017a).
Thorndike emphasised the importance of introducing students to concepts in
a range of different contexts and providing explicit support to enable them to
perceive underlying commonalities between different situations. He proposed
that textbook authors should avoid problems set in unrealistic situations and that
abstract ideas should be grounded in familiar contexts.
(e) The law of associative shifting suggests a response can be shifted from one
stimulus to another (Thorndike, 1913). In particular, a response that is initially
triggered by the totality of a context may, with appropriate interventions, become
associated with a single element of the context. Recent models of learning in
science education have emphasised that the appropriate contextual triggering of
knowledge elements is an important element of learning (e.g. Brock & Taber,
2017a). In addition to introducing students to novel concepts, science teachers
might aim to reduce the inappropriate triggering of some conceptual resources

in certain contexts and promote their application in others. For example, the
belief that motion requires a resultant force might be appropriately triggered
in the case of accelerated motion but suppressed for the context of an object
travelling at constant velocity.
Thorndike and the Progression of Learning
Thorndike had a particular interest in how learning progressed over time, which arose
from his experiments with puzzle boxes. Studies of the manner in which learning or
the acquisition of skills occurs over time have become common in developmental
psychology and a growing number of studies in science education have sought to
understand the progression of learning over time (Brock & Taber, 2017b). From his
observations of animals in puzzle boxes, Thorndike concluded that their learning
tended to be gradual, and that animals did not experience sudden progressions in
learning.
The notion of the rate of change of learning is one that is of interest to researchers
in science education. Though a number of researchers have noted that conceptual
change, in general, appears to be a gradual process, a number of incidents of rapid
changes to understanding, moments of insight, have been reported (Brock, 2015).
Thorndike (1913) argued that moments of insight in humans are not the result of a
special form of processing but that they occur through the formation of connections
between pieces of information that have eluded other thinkers. He suggested that
learning might plateau when certain habits are insufficiently automated to allow the
learner to engage with higher order tasks. For example, Thorndike (1913) described
how a chemistry learner may initially need to gain familiarity with a large number
of pieces of information, a process that takes time. Once the knowledge elements
are sufficiently familiar, more rapid progress may result as the various resources
are fluently applied to problems. Thorndike therefore suggested that learning may
involve periods of gradual and apparently limited change, punctuated by periods of
more rapid learning.
Thorndike’s Assumptions About the Nature of Learning
Thorndike, at least at some points in his writings, explicitly adopted assumptions

associated with behaviourist models of learning (see Section II). Behaviourist models
suggest that the focus of researchers’ interest should be on learners’ behaviours and
that speculation about mental processes and entities, such as conceptual structure,
is fruitless. Though Thorndike referred to ‘mental functions’, he argued that the
term was simply a label for an ‘actually or possibly observable event in behavior’
106 R. Brock
(Thorndike, 1913, p. 66, italics in original). He tended to link learning to physical

changes on the structural level of the brain, for example, he argued that gaining
the ability to spell the word ‘cat’ is represented by ‘actual bonds between neurones’
though admitted that it would be impossible to know which ‘neurones’ were involved
or the nature of the ‘bonds’ between them (Thorndike, 1913, p. 66). He reasoned
that an understanding of learning was best achieved through observations of students
and warned that introspection does not present a privileged route to understanding
learning. Whilst the formulation of learning presented in Thorndike’s laws is founded
on behaviourist assumptions that link stimuli with responses, there are elements of
his theories that prefigure the ideas of constructivist thinkers.
Thorndike as a Proto-Constructivist
Constructivist models of learning (see Section IV) propose that humans actively build
personal understandings of the world and it is expected that learners’ experiences
of the world lead them to develop personal and idiosyncratic constructs of scientific
concepts prior to formal teaching (Taber, 2009). These arguments are hinted at in
Thorndike’s writing. He reported that individuals develop unique understandings and
though it is framed in the language of behaviourist psychology, the constructivist
notion of an interaction between intuitive and formal concepts (see Chapter 19) is
found in Thorndike’s writing:
Science, as we know it, is often a struggle to educate the neurones which compose man’s
brain to act similarly toward objects to which, by instinct and the ordinary training of life,
they would respond quite differently, and to act diversely to objects which original nature
and everyday experience assimilate. (Thorndike, 1913, pp. 29–30)
Thorndike suggested that students have an ‘original fund of tendencies’

(Thorndike, 1912, p. 91) and that the goal of education is to work with such capa-
bilities to modify them into the desirable outcomes of learning. For example, he
suggested that children’s interest in collecting and organising objects might be nur-
tured into an understanding of scientific classification. There are several further hints
that Thorndike’s model of learning is not incompatible with several themes of con-
structivist writing. Thorndike believed that the process of coming to know about
the world is partial and does not generate a perfect copy of the information being
studied (Thorndike, 1913). He argued that students do not respond to stimuli like
electrical instruments, that is, they cannot be expected to have easily predictable and
reproducible responses to stimuli. Therefore, whilst the fundamental principles of
associative learning might be used to model the acquisition of complex sets of knowl-
edge, such as physics or geometry, the processes involved in learning in classrooms
situations are likely to be different from his proposed laws.
Thorndike was ahead of his time in his desire to produce resources for teachers
grounded in research evidence, for example, his book: The Principles of Teaching
Based on Psychology (Thorndike, 1906). His recommendations for practitioners
differ from the recommendations that might be expected of a behaviourist thinker.

Though his law of association might be assumed to lead to the recommendation
of drill-like practice, his position was somewhat more nuanced. He argued that:
‘…practice without zeal …does not make perfect …little in human behaviour can be
explained by the law of habit; and by the resulting practice, unproductive or extremely
wasteful forms of drill are encouraged’ (Thorndike, 1913, p. 22). For Thorndike
(1932, p. 64) ‘mere repetition’ did not, in all cases, lead to effective learning.
Thorndike critiqued the ‘evils of rote-memorizing’ (Thorndike, 1912, p. 166) and
argued that teaching should aim for knowledge of fundamental principles in prefer-
ence to mere facts or knowledge of statements derived from them (see Chapter 12).
In what might be taken to be an early call for the teaching of metacognitive skills,
Thorndike (1912) recommended that teaching students how to educate themselves
was of equal value to teaching them knowledge or skills. Thorndike’s teaching
handbook advocates for a form of democratic student-centred education:
Good teaching recognizes the variety of human nature, fits stimuli to individuals as far as
possible, and, when that is not possible, chooses those stimuli which are for the greatest
good of the greatest number… (Thorndike, 1906, p. 98)
As has been noted above, Thorndike was interested in developing novel forms
of educational texts and published an influential series of mathematics textbooks
(Mayer, 2009). The books were highly successful and provided Thorndike with a
larger income than his salary from Columbia. He argued that, rather than simply pre-
senting information, textbooks ought to support students in developing conclusions
for themselves. A student is less likely to understand information, Thorndike (1912)
suggested, when it is simply presented to them, and more effective texts encour-
age students to engage with ideas in some manner. He argued that books should
provide ‘just enough’ support to guide a student’s learning as ‘economically’ as pos-
sible (Thorndike, 1912, p. 164), pre-empting the notion of scaffolded teaching (see
Chapter 19).
Thorndike’s Connectionism for Science Teaching
In addition to his laws of learning and the general recommendations he made for
teaching, Thorndike made a number of comments specific to science teaching. He
recommended that assessment should, as much as possible, build on students’ expe-
riences. For example, he listed examples of good problems set in contexts that would
be familiar to students:
• Rain drops are coming straight down. Will a car standing still or one moving rapidly
receive in one minute the greater number of drops on its roof and sides?
• It is harder to keep your hands clean in the winter than in the summer? Why?
• Does an iron ball weigh more when it is hot than when it is cold?
• Is an incandescent lamp film on fire?
108 R. Brock
• Will a pound of popcorn gain or lose weight or stay the same after it has been popped?
(Thorndike, 1911, pp. 216–217)
Though one might expect a psychologist who claimed that educational mea-
surements are identical to scientific measurements (Thorndike, 1918) to argue that
assessment of learning is objective, instead, the problems listed above exemplify
Thorndike’s nuanced recommendations for effective assessment:
• Distrust the repetition of words as a test of anything more than verbal memory.
• …the power to define may exist without the knowledge of the term and knowledge of a
term may exist without the power to define it.
• Distrust any one particular kind of problem as a test of appreciation of a law.
• Distrust especially problems that are familiar or of a well-known type.
• Do not take it for granted that the ability to handle certain elements when isolated implies
the ability to handle the same elements in complex connections.
(Thorndike, 1906, pp. 263–264)
Thorndike (1912) made a case for the use of authentic practices in the science class-
room. He argued that time should not be wasted on practical tasks that are not con-
ducive to learning and cautioned teachers against setting learning through practical
work that could be taught more efficiently through theoretical discussion. Thorndike
(1912, p. 195) was critical of certain kinds of discovery learning in science edu-
cation and argued that, though discovery learning might be a means of cultivating
skills such as creativity and self-directed investigation, the requirement that students
‘rediscover facts’ was ‘absurd’ and hence he asserted that discovery learning was not
an effective approach for the acquisition of knowledge (see Chapter 13). Thorndike
(1912) was interested in the nature of representations in science textbooks and argued
diagrams could, in some cases, more effectively represent information if their form
differed from a faithful representation. For example, a diagram of neurons might be
distorted from its anatomical geometry to more clearly represent the function of the
cells. Thorndike commented on many facets of science education and contemporary
science teachers might find much useful guidance for their practice in his writing.
Thorndike’s Contribution to Educational Research
Thorndike has had a profound influence on manner in which educational research is

conceptualised. He helped to establish the Journal of Educational Psychology (Smith,
2001) and had an admirable commitment to disseminating his research beyond aca-
demic psychologists. He published a popular introduction to psychology (Thorndike,
1901) and a guide to teaching based on psychological principles (Thorndike, 1906).
Thorndike argued that, at the beginning of the twentieth century, writing about edu-
cation had largely relied on ideas drawn from philosophy or anecdote rather than
on empirical observation (Thorndike, 1906) and he became an early advocate of the
notion that teaching should be influenced by empirical research, an idea that is expe-
riencing a resurgence in contemporary calls for evidence-based teaching. Though
Thorndike asserted that educational ‘products’ might be measured with the same
‘clearness and precision’ as variables in the physical sciences (Thorndike, 1918,
p. 279), he nevertheless displayed a sensitivity to the challenging nature of assessing
learning in a meaningful manner.
Thorndike felt that an overly simple transfer of methods from the physical sciences
to the study of learning would result in crude or mistaken measurements (Thorndike,
1904). He argued that an individual’s reports of perceptions, images and emotions
would be subjective and that the complexity of mental functions suggested that units
or scales developed to measure them would be necessarily imperfect (Thorndike,
1913). Hence, Thorndike (1913) concluded that his quantitative experimental inves-
tigations of learning were necessarily limited. Though Thorndike can be charac-
terised as a researcher who focused on developing quantitative models of learning,
for example, his learning curves, he was sensitive to the partial nature of the models
he produced and accepted the complexity of the challenge of representing learning.
Critiques of Thorndike’s Work
As is the case with any influential body of work, a number of critiques of Thorndike’s
model of learning have been put forward (Mayer, 2009). Firstly, the foundation
of his work on the development of links between stimuli and responses might be
seen to present too narrow a view of learning. It is difficult to imagine how the
laws of learning Thorndike proposed can account for the kind of creative learning
that scientists engage in when studying new phenomena. Secondly, Thorndike’s
conception of general laws of learning neglected the complex factors that impinge
on learning. For example, it has been noted that the effects of rewards on behaviour
are not as simple as Thorndike imagined and, under certain circumstances, rewards
may lessen a student’s motivation (Mayer, 2009). Thirdly, despite his own caveats
discussed above, Thorndike’s quantitative representations of progression in learning
have been challenged and subsequent educational researchers have used a wide range
of qualitative and mixed methods approaches to develop enriched conceptualisations
of learning.
Concluding Thoughts
It is perhaps the case that, more than his learning theories, Thorndike’s argument that
learning is worthy of methodical investigation and that teaching ought to be informed
by the outcomes of such research, will be his most enduring legacy. Thorndike was
a pioneer of the idea that teaching should be based upon a body of research evidence
and his desire to make psychological theories relevant and accessible to the practicing
110 R. Brock
teacher has been profoundly influential. Thorndike’s proposition that education could
and should be improved through the application of research findings might seem a
truism in contemporary society but it was a significant change to the status quo at
the time he began his research.
Thorndike’s desire to create an empirically supported pedagogy was underpinned
by the high esteem in which he held teachers. He argued that students of education
should be widely read and be aware of psychological, neurological, sociological and
ethical aspects of pedagogy (Thorndike, 1912), a vision that was well ahead of its
time. That he took the time to create texts that presented research in a format that was
accessible to teachers and relevant to their practice is a lesson that many educational
researchers would do well to follow. Though Thorndike’s championing of a stimulus-
response model of learning may lead some readers to dismiss his ideas on education
as irrelevant to a field that has largely adopted alternative constructs, Thorndike’s
writings nevertheless contain much valuable insight about learning and teaching
that emerged from his extended and deep engagement with the subject. His prolific
writings contain a wealth of research that will spark the interest of contemporary
students of education and further the practice of science teachers.
Summary
• This chapter examines Thorndike’s research into learning in animals and humans
and introduces his principal laws of learning: the laws of effect, exercise and
readiness.
• It is argued that many themes in his writing suggest that his model of learning
goes beyond a behaviourist view and prefigures some ideas found in the writings
of constructivist thinkers.
• Thorndike’s enduring legacy is the foundation of a programme that seeks to use
research to develop more effective approaches to teaching and learning.
An excellent summary of Thorndike’s work and legacy may be found in Mayer’s chapter:
Mayer, R. E. (2009). E. L. Thorndike’s enduring contributions to educational psychology. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions
(pp. 113–154). New York, NY: Routledge.
Thorndike’s own writing on teaching and learning are well-written and, though they contain some
ideas that are of their time, remain engaging reads for teachers and researchers. His guides to
teaching are a good place to begin:
Thorndike, E. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology. New York, NY: A. G. Seiler.
Thorndike, E. (1912). Education. A first book. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
For readers interested in the details of Thorndike’s theories, The Fundamentals of learning provides
a good introduction:
Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
References
Amin, T. G., Smith, C., & Wiser, M. (2014). Student conceptions and conceptual change: Three
overlapping phases of research. In N. G. Lederman & S. A. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 57–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: Two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 127–167.
Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2017a). Making-sense of “making-sense” in physics education: A micro-
genetic collective case study. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.),
Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research—Selected papers from the ESERA
2015 conference (pp. 167–178). Dordrecht: Springer.
Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2017b). The application of the microgenetic method to studies of
learning in science education: Characteristics of published studies, methodological issues and
recommendations for future research. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 45–73.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics
problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., …
Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General
Psychology, 6(2), 139–152.
Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). E. L. Thorndike’s enduring contributions to educational psychology. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions
(pp. 113–154). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mortimer, E. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4(3),
267–285.
Smith, W. A. (2001). E. L. Thorndike. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), Twentieth century thinkers in adult and
continuing education (2nd ed., pp. 77–93). London: Kogan Page.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme
into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Thorndike, E. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in
animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), i–109.
Thorndike, E. (1901). The human nature club. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Thorndike, E. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York,
NY: The Science Press.
Thorndike, E. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York, NY: A. G. Seigler.
Thorndike, E. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology. New York, NY: A. G. Seiler.
Thorndike, E. (1911). Testing the results of the teaching of science. The Mathematics Teacher, 3(4),
213–218.
Thorndike, E. (1912). Education. A first book. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational psychology. Volume II. The psychology of learning. New York,
NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Thorndike, E. (1918). The nature, purposes, and general methods of measurement of educa-
tional products. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The measurement of educational products (pp. 16–24).
Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
112 R. Brock
Richard Brock is a lecturer in science education at King’s College London. After working as a
secondary science teacher in the UK, Richard now lectures on the teacher training programme and
supervises MA and doctoral students at King’s College London. His research interests include:
conceptual change in science education, the nature of scientific understanding, and teacher well-
being.
Part III
Cognitivist Theories
Chapter 9
New Media Technologies
and Information Processing
Theory—George A. Miller and Others
Patricia J. Stout and Mitchell D. Klett
Introduction
Technological advancements have been a constant part of the growth of human

societies. Throughout history, technology has changed virtually every aspect of our
lives, from how we communicate to how we learn. Learning theories that describe
basic behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist approaches should take into account
the shifting cultural paradigms. According to a Pew Research Center Fact Sheet
published in June 2019, 81% of adults in the United States own a smartphone.
This number increases to 96% for young adults in the U.S. between the ages of
18- and 29-years-old. In addition to this, 74% of U.S. adults own a desktop or
laptop computer and 52% own a tablet computer (Pew Research Center, 2019). A
more extensive Pew Research Center study released in 2018 surveyed 27 different
countries, 18 countries with advanced economies and 9 countries with emerging
economies. From this study, Taylor and Silver (2019) concluded “Younger people
in every country surveyed are much more likely to have smartphones, access the
internet and use social media.” According to the report, ownership of smartphones
among young adults between the ages of 18- and 34-years-old in emerging economies
during 2013–2018 increased drastically, from 23 to 85% in Brazil, 21 to 74% in the
Philippines, 22 to 75% in Tunisia, 17 to 66% in Indonesia, 29 to 66% in Mexico, 39
to 73% in South Africa, 25 to 51% in Kenya, 23 to 48% in Nigeria, and 16 to 37%
in India (Taylor & Silver, 2019). Out of the 18 advanced economies surveyed, the
top five countries with the largest ownership of smartphones among adults included
South Korea (95%), Israel (88%), the Netherlands (87%), Sweden (86%), and both
P. J. Stout (B)
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
M. D. Klett
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, USA

116 P. J. Stout and M. D. Klett
Australia and the U.S. (81%) (Taylor & Silver, 2019). While people in advanced
economies are still more likely to utilize smartphones, have access to the Internet,
and actively participate in social media, the above statistics suggest that more and
more people every day are becoming connected to these new technologies. This
means that students and their instructors often come to class with their smartphones
and other Internet-connected devices, such as tablets or laptop computers, making
these devices an essential component of 21st century learning. Today, whether one is
studying for a test, conducting research, writing a paper, or preparing lecture slides,
students as well as educators are constantly utilizing these new devices. With the use
of these new devices comes greater accessibility to new media technologies, such
as blogs, wikis, discussion boards, social networking, podcasts, video sharing, and
more. So, what draws us to new media technologies and content, and what can they
tell us about the learning process? Cognitive scientists have been discussing these
questions long before smartphones, tablets, and computers became an extended part
of our daily lives.
In the first section of this chapter, we offer an overview of the information process-
ing theory, focusing on three fundamental works that contributed to the development
of the theory, as well as highlight one recent trend in criticism of this particular
learning theory. We then outline how new media technologies and their content fit
into our modern society. After introducing both of these key topics, we examine the
impact that new media technologies have on learning and teaching practices. As a
concluding argument, we suggest that understanding the participatory nature of new
media technologies, as well as their individual learning functionalities, is crucial
to their successful implementation in the classroom. With this in mind, we include
specific examples throughout the chapter of how science educators can integrate new
media technologies into the design of their lesson plans and the development of their
classroom environment to promote long-term learning.
Information Processing Theory
The information processing theory is a cognitive learning model that attempts to out-
line the method in which the human mind observes, stores, and retrieves information.
The central premise of the theory rests on the assumption that the mind functions
similar to a computer—information is input, processed, and output. In the twentieth
century, many well-known cognitive psychologists influenced what became known
as the information processing theory. In this section of the chapter, we would like to
focus on three particular works: George A. Miller’s “The Magical Number Seven”
(1956), Richard C. Atkinson and Richard M. Shiffrin’s “Human Memory” (1968),
and Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart’s “Levels of Processing” (1972). These
three works build upon each other, further developing the claim that the human brain
applies a computer-like approach to learning. Today, the manner in which we pro-
cess the information around us remains a topic of interest in academic research.
This is especially true within the six disciplines that George A. Miller (2003) claims
9 New Media Technologies and Information Processing … 117
worked together to create an interdisciplinary understanding of cognition in the late

1950s and early 1960s: Psychology, Linguistics, Computer Science, Neuroscience,
Anthropology, and Philosophy (p. 143). Senanan’s (2016) TED-Ed video entitled
How Computer Memory Works demonstrates the interconnectedness of cognitive
science and the information processing theory to computer science. Along these
same lines, Dawson (1998) claims that the information processing theory serves as
a connection between disciplines, providing cognitive scientists from a variety of
fields with the opportunity to communicate with each other (p. 13). Even though dif-
ferent understandings of the information-processing perspective have emerged, the
acknowledgement of an underlying method continues to promote dialogue between
disciplines.
The American psychologist George A. Miller (1920–2012) is most often associ-
ated with the development of the information processing theory. Even though Miller
was educated at Harvard University in the early 1940s, when behaviorism was at its
prime in the United States, he went on to play a major role in the formation of cog-
nitive psychology in the early 1950s (Miller, 2003, p. 141). In his personal account
of the cognitive revolution, Miller (2003) notes that it was only in the U.S. that
experimental psychologists strongly advocated behaviorism, and that when he and
others began focusing on the inner-workings of the mind, it renewed communication
with psychologists abroad such as Sir Frederic Bartlett, Jean Piaget, and A.R. Luria
(p. 142).
In 1956, Miller published the famous article entitled “The Magical Number Seven,
Plus or Minus Two,” in which he claimed that there exist specific limitations to
the human capacity to process information. Prior to Miller’s well-known article on
the magical number 7, Ebbinghaus is reported to have made a similar discovery in
1885 (Wagoner, 2012). Miller (1956) defines the human subject as a communication
system; and, as such, he hypothesizes a correlation between the amount of input and
output information (p. 82). Throughout the well-known article, Miller examines three
different categories of tasks in which the human capacity for immediate memory is
tested: (1) tasks pertaining to absolute judgment; (2) tasks focusing on memory span;
and (3) tasks centered on the act of subitizing (Cowan, 2015, p. 537). Subitizing is
defined as the quick, correct, and confident identification of numbers performed for
just a few items. Simply put, it is the ability to recognize a small group of objects
without counting. In the examples of tasks measuring absolute judgment, researchers
first asked individuals to study a range of categories, and then to place each stimulus
presented into the appropriate category (Cowan, 2015, p. 537). The findings from the
experiments that Miller references indicate that an individual is capable of working
with roughly five to nine different categories at a time (Cowan, 2015, p. 537). Cowan
(2015) points out that the most popular section of Miller’s (1956) article is that which
is devoted to the human memory span (p. 537). The experiments referenced in this
segment test the individual’s ability to remember lists of digits, letters, or words.
Similar to the previous results, Miller’s synthesis of findings suggests that the human
ability to memorize the correct items in order within a list weakens around plus or
minus seven as well. It is here that Miller (1956) introduces the concept of “chunks,”
or groups of recognizable letters or words; if individuals identify “chunks” within
the list, they are able to memorize substantially longer lists (p. 93). In the ultimate
category of tasks centered on subitizing, Miller concludes that an individual can
assess, without counting, up to seven objects (Cowan, 2015, p. 537). However, in the
concluding paragraph of the article, he likens the findings between all three types
of tasks to coincidence. According to Cowan (2015), this mention of coincidence
is one reason why Miller’s 1956 article, despite its vast popularity, inspired little
further research on item capacity limits (p. 538). Instead, research shifted toward the
structural layout and systemic workings of the human mind.
In 1968, psychology professors Richard C. Atkinson and Richard M. Shiffrin
proposed a theoretical model of how the mind processes information, in which they
outlined three specific components of a linear process in the human memory system:
the sensory register, the short-term store (STS), and the long-term store (LTS) (p. 92).
See Fig. 9.1. The Atkinson–Shiffrin model, also referred to as the multi-store model
of memory, illustrates that information is first recognized by the sensory register via
sight, sound, touch, smell, or taste. It then either remains in the sensory register until
External Input
SENSORY REGISTER
VISUAL
LOST FROM SR
SHORT-TERM STORE
AUDITORY
VERBAL
LINGUISTIC
LOST FROM STS (A. V. L.)
LONG-TERM STORE
A. V. L. VISUAL etc. TEMPORAL

DECAY, INTERFERENCE, AND
LOSS OF STRENGTH IN LTS
Fig. 9.1 Structure of the memory system (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968, p. 93). This figure has been
redrawn and was originally published by Atkinson and Shiffrin to explain their three permanent
components of the memory system
decaying, or is copied into the short-term store, or “working memory.” Information

that is ultimately copied to the long-term store becomes permanent, while information
that remains in the sensory register or the short-term store deteriorates according to
each store’s decay rate. Thus, while it is possible for the information to transfer
from one compartment to the next, the information does not simply flow between
the two compartments, but rather is duplicated so that it simultaneously remains in
the previous store as well until it decays (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968, p. 94). The
dotted line from the sensory register to the long-term store in Fig. 9.1 illustrates
the possibility that information is able to transfer directly into the long-term store,
although Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) noted that they do not know whether this in
fact occurs (p. 94). When the subject engages in intellectual activities, information
is often transferred in the reverse order (i.e., from the LTS to the STS) (Atkinson &
Shiffrin, 1968, p. 94).
In addition to focusing on the three memory stores, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
also discuss the rehearsal process, which aids in the transferring of information from
short-term memory to long-term memory. During the rehearsal process, information
is repeated to initiate this movement. A very basic example of rehearsal occurs when
the instructor has students repeat numerous names in a class or group intentionally
in order to commit this information to their long-term memory. If repetition does not
occur, then information is far more likely to be forgotten, or displaced from one’s
short-term memory.
Following the work of Atkinson and Shiffrin, as well as others who supported
the multi-store model of memory, Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart (1972)
questioned the structural focus of the model and proposed a new framework of
memory based on different levels of processing. Craik and Lockhart (1972) claim
that the rate at which information decays, or is forgotten, depends less on the notion
of memory stores, and more on the manner in which the information is encoded
(p. 675). The levels of processing framework suggest that information is encoded
on a continuum, and it introduces the concept of “depth of processing,” in which
information that is processed at a greater depth undergoes a higher level of analysis
(Craik & Lockhart, 1972, p. 675). The greater the depth, the more likely one is able
to remember, or learn, the information. Craik & Lockhart (1972) further explain the
retention rate of information by stating, “when attention is diverted, information is
lost at a rate which depends essentially on the level of analysis” (p. 677). Information
processing levels in this framework are split into two types. Type I includes levels
where processing of physical or sensory features occurs. Type II includes levels where
pattern recognition and the extraction of meaning take place (Craik & Lockhart, 1972,
pp. 675–676). Thus, the levels of processing framework place slightly more emphasis
on how information is processed than that of the multi-store model.
Since we will be focusing on new media technologies in the sections that follow,
we would like to point out three examples of new media content that can be used to
learn about the information processing theory. The first example is a Crash Course
(2014) video entitled How We Make Memories. This educational video is part of an
online series that is dedicated to Psychology topics and is available to watch on the
Crash Course YouTube channel created by John Green and Hank Green. The second
example is a Khan Academy Medicine (2013) video entitled Information processing

model: Sensory, working, and long-term memory that is available to watch on the
Khan Academy YouTube channel. In addition to these two videos, a synopsis and
outline of the key components of Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multi-store model and
Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing framework are available on the Simply
Psychology website created by Saul McLeod.
While the information processing theory demonstrates that the manner in which
material is presented to students has an effect on whether long-term learning is
achievable (Gurbin, 2015, p. 2337), there are arguably some limitations to a theory
that equates human cognition to computer processing. In recent years, the informa-
tion processing theory has been criticized for failing to consider social and cultural
influences that undoubtedly affect the manner in which one processes information.
Gurbin (2015) argues that the information processing theory does not acknowledge
these individualistic aspects of cognition, and that learning and teaching methods
must take into account student’s social and cultural influences (p. 2337). Gurbin
claims, “Even before any real thinking begins, social and cultural influences affect
sensory input as foundational material for cognitive processes” (2015, p. 2333). For
instance, depending on the values prevalent in one’s culture or social groups, an indi-
vidual may decide that certain stimuli are relevant or not relevant for the task at hand,
causing different sensory inputs to be discarded or retained in the sensory register
(or sensory memory), which suggests that social and cultural influences affect all
eight of the components associated with the information processing model—sen-
sory input, sensory memory, attention, pattern recognition, working memory, encod-
ing, retrieval, and long-term memory (Gurbin, 2015, pp. 2333–2337, as depicted
in Fig. 9.2). With this in mind, Gurbin presents a redefined information processing
model in which social and cultural influences act as an umbrella over the traditional
model, potentially serving as an interim model until one defines a new model (2015,
pp. 2336–2337). However, even with these criticisms, the multi-store model and the
levels of processing framework cannot be discounted entirely, as they serve as a
starting point for us to begin to consider how new media technologies can be used
in the classroom to promote learning.
Social / Cultural Influences
sensory working long term

attention encoding
memory memory memory
sensory input
pattern recognition retrieval
Fig. 9.2 Redefined information processing model with social/cultural influences (Gurbin, 2015,
p. 2337). This figure has been redrawn and was originally published by Gurbin to outline a pro-
posed model of information processing, which begins to take into consideration social and cultural
influences
New Media Technologies in the Classroom
The Internet provides students and teachers with constant access to information,
creating controversy over the role of new media and emerging technologies in the
classroom. In the second edition of the book New New Media (2013), Paul Levinson
claims that 21st century media consists of three categories: old media, new media, and
“new new media.” Old media, which includes print, radio, and television, employs
a one-directional flow of information; it allows audience members to obtain, but not
publish information. The term new media, on the other hand, commonly refers to that
which exists online. However, as Levinson (2013) points out, new media does not
necessarily dismantle or break away from the old media approach of communication.
Many online websites continue to reinforce the “gatekeeper” mentally, in which the
information published or objects sold are controlled by a select few in corporate
management positions. For this reason, Levinson finds it necessary to distinguish
between online platforms, such as Amazon, iTunes, and The New York Times, which
transfer the old media approach to the web, and blogs or social networks, such as
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, which establish a new interactive component in
the dissemination process of information. The second category of blogs or social
networks, or “new new media,” encourages one to act as both a consumer and a
producer (Levinson, 2013, p. 3). Here it is important to note that “new new media”
has not replaced old media; rather, in many cases, it has become a common practice to
post or tweet hyperlinks to online newspaper or magazine articles and television video
clips in order to create an interconnected dialogue that flows effortlessly between
medium boundaries.
It is precisely for this reason that the term new media is also commonly utilized
to represent the notion of an evolving and overarching culture particular to the web.
Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, and Robison (2009) describe the web culture
as a “participatory culture,” in which members exercise the freedom to create and
express themselves, under the pretext that their work will be viewed and valued
by other community members with whom they share a social connection (pp. 5–
6). Thus, the perception of literacy within the emerging online participatory culture
moves from individual expression to community involvement (Jenkins et al., 2009,
p. xiii).
Levinson’s distinction between new media and “new new media” is helpful in
understanding the current digital landscape of the web because it promotes the recog-
nition that what constitutes “new” today is rapidly changing. The accelerated pace
at which the understanding of new media changes into something different appears
to be linked to the quick and constant development of new interactive technology
associated with Web 2.0. Similar to the conceptualized stages of media, the World
Wide Web has evolved over the years from the read only capabilities of Web 1.0
to the intersecting read-write availability of Web 2.0. Thus, the concept of Web 2.0
corresponds to Levinson’s (2013) definition of “new new media,” and Jenkins et al.’s
(2009) notion of the development of a “participatory culture.” While we think that it
is important to recognize Levinson’s concept of “new new media,” for this chapter,
we employ the term new media technologies to refer to the online apparatuses that
currently enable users to participate in the ever-changing and ongoing online discus-
sions of our time if they so choose. Likewise, we utilize the term new media content
to refer to the information that is created and communicated through these online
apparatuses. Levinson claims, “…this empowerment of everyone as producers and
disseminators of information is continuing to change the ways all of us live, work,
and play” (2013, p. 2). With this in mind, the next logical question is to ask ourselves
whether it changes the ways in which students learn and retain information in their
long-term memory.
Hew and Cheung (2013) separate the most common new media technologies
available for educators to use with students into the following categories: weblog
(blog), wiki, audio discussion board, social network, video sharing, podcast, social
bookmarking, game virtual worlds, and social virtual worlds (p. 49). They then
propose a classification system in which these technologies are cataloged by their
functionality and determined to be either synchronous in nature, promoting imme-
diate outside feedback to students, or asynchronous, encouraging students to reflect
individually on their work. For example, Hew and Cheung claim that blogs tend to
promote online reflection by allowing students to review previous blog posts and
analyze the chronological progression of their thinking, whereas, wikis and audio
discussion boards enable online collaboration and communication among students
(2013, p. 49), which can be especially beneficial when working on group projects.
Social networks, such as Facebook, continue to serve primarily as social spaces,
while Twitter can potentially relay information from a professor to a student (Hew
& Cheung, 2013, p. 49). In addition, they explain that podcasts and video sharing
sites, such as YouTube, create a repository of easily accessible information that edu-
cators can use as a free source of content to engage students in class work (Hew &
Cheung, 2013, p. 49). After reviewing 27 studies that examined the impact of new
media technologies on K-12 and higher education student learning, Hew and Cheung
found that while the use of these technologies does appear to have a positive impact
on student learning, further research is needed before specific learning effects can
be outlined (2013, p. 57). Unfortunately, weak methodological approaches in the
establishment of experimental controls, along with the lack of longitudinal studies
conducted at the time, limit the concrete analysis of results (Hew & Cheung, 2013,
p. 57). Nonetheless, it is important to note that these studies revealed no negative
effects or hindrances to the student learning process (Hew & Cheung, 2013, p. 57). In
conclusion, Hew and Cheung suggest that it is not necessarily the technology itself
that improves student learning, but rather the ways in which they are implemented
in the classroom setting (2013, p. 58).
Likewise, Kalantzis and Cope (2015) claim that new media does not inherently
create new learning; rather, it often serves to further extend didactic pedagogies
(a.k.a. traditional teaching) (p. 376). Instead of textbooks, we now have e-books,
but the content remains relatively unchanged. Similarly, it is not the testing that has
changed, but rather the convenience of being able to take the test at any time or place
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2015, p. 375). Gan, Menkhoff, and Smith (2015) reinforce this
notion by focusing on the fact that iPad applications are allowing students to have
access to information while they are outside the classroom (p. 653). In other words,
it might appear that education (schools, teachers, and communities) has adopted the
integration of new media technologies and content in the classroom, but the reality is
that new technological devices have the overwhelming capacity to perform outdated
instructional strategies. For this reason, a hands-on pedagogical approach must be
implemented in combination with new media technologies.
Utilizing Technological Tools and New Media Technologies

in Science Education
When analyzing the inclusion of educational technology into STEM classrooms,

Connell and Abramovich (2017) highlight the fact that problems arise when edu-
cators are not adequately proficient in how to apply such technology (p. 222). The
need to overcome and avoid this particular scenario often leads to the development
of computer-based content as “a teacher replacement model,” in which standardized
content that requires little outside instruction is created and distributed to educa-
tors (Connell & Abramovich, 2017, p. 222). Computer-based content such as this
generally focuses on memorization, resorting back to behaviorist views of teaching
(Connell & Abramovich, 2017, p. 222). Technology, or the computer, then serves to
provide instant results to online quizzes and exams, which eliminate the time nec-
essary for students to engage in critical thinking and analysis. If we think back to
Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing framework, it is this deep analysis
that promotes long-term learning. Connell and Abramovich (2017) claim, “Effective
STEM teaching, with its focus on critical analysis and problem solving, should not be
reinforcing student beliefs that all that counts is the correct answer” (p. 223). Rather,
when implemented properly, educational technology in the classroom can create
an environment in which students mimic the current practices of today’s scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers (Connell & Abramovich, 2017, p. 223). Professionals
in these three fields rely heavily on computer-based programs to assist in collecting,
displaying, and analyzing data. For more information on Project and Problem-Based
Teaching and Learning, see Chap. 23.
One method to promote and use Web 2.0 tools in science is to develop online
learning communities for teachers and students that encourage the sharing of knowl-
edge across cultural boundaries. An example of an organization to capitalize on this
aspect is the GLOBE Program, “an international science and education program that
provides students and the public worldwide with the opportunity to participate in
data collection and the scientific process, and contribute meaningfully to our under-
standing of the Earth system and global environment” (GLOBE, 2019). In 1995,
GLOBE was launched to provide opportunities for students and teachers to collabo-
rate with scientists from around the world. The program facilitates students to input
and analyze environmental data relevant to ongoing scientific research and to partici-
pate in current academic discussions within the field. An embedded video describing
the program can be viewed on the GLOBE website “About” page (GLOBE, 2019).
GLOBE protocols and learning activities are aligned with the U.S. national and
state science education standards and the U.S. Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). Educators around the world are easily able to fit GLOBE into their existing
curriculum to promote student involvement in collaborative international research.
The incorporation of new media technologies into science education and teaching
strategies should promote a “participatory culture” both within and outside the class-
room. This means that rather than being solely receivers or watchers of new media
content, students should also create their own podcasts, wikis, blogs, and videos
as a means to demonstrate content knowledge, which promotes long-term learning.
Therefore, we suggest that 21st century science learning should extend its focus
beyond scientific and mathematical technological tools to include new media tech-
nologies and their content. For more information about 21st Century Learning, see
Chap. 32. Considering the findings from Hew and Cheung (2013), we believe that the
individual functionalities of new media technologies must be taken into consideration
by educators when developing science-teaching strategies. In the science classroom
and lab setting, science educators can use blogging as a means to promote individual
reflection on experiments and readings conducted in the classroom. A course wiki,
in which students have the ability to create and edit content collaboratively with their
fellow classmates, becomes a tool that can be utilized in small groups or as an entire
class in order to explore how the understanding of scientific processes and concepts
change for the class throughout the semester, with the goal of developing a more
thorough explanation of the topic at hand as the semester progresses. Twitter can
be employed as a means for the educator to communicate with students, as well as
for students and the educator to follow scientists and scientific organizations. Sim-
ilarly, Facebook and Instagram can be used as tools to stay informed and to collect
information about what new happenings are occurring in the science world.
An Experiment for Consideration: Popular Culture

in the Science Classroom
Generally speaking, today’s students are fluent in the intertextuality of Web 2.0. For
this reason, we encourage science instructors to explore the use of new media tech-
nologies, such as YouTube and podcasts, as a means to make scientific connections
between popular culture, including films, television shows, and current issues with
which students engage, interact, and discuss on a daily basis. Since the use of these
new media technologies are free upon receiving access to the Internet, and acces-
sible to students through their smartphones, laptops, and/or tablets, utilizing such
tools allows educators to incorporate visual and audio components into their lesson
plans that students can re-watch or listen to on their own to review the material
discussed in class. This inclusion of new media technologies has the potential to
aid in the rehearsal process of information processing that is essential to learning.
Furthermore, due to the fact that such a large percentage of young adults around
the world own a smartphone, watching YouTube videos and listening to podcasts
becomes not only convenient, but also second nature for students whose devices
are never far behind. The increased accessibility to free WiFi, which is available in
most coffee shops, restaurants, and bookstores, not to mention on college campuses,
makes connecting to the Internet on smart devices even easier than before.
While academics and scientists alike often dismiss popular culture, its incorpora-
tion in the classroom is currently being explored in other disciplines as a pedagogical
method to increase student engagement and critical thinking. Trier (2006) posits that
instructors of higher education English courses have taught with media and popular
culture for eight decades (pp. 434–435). In one of his own English methods courses,
Trier assigns his preservice teachers with the task of creating lesson plans that incor-
porate media and popular culture, which he claims they complete enthusiastically
(2006, p. 436). According to a blog post by OnlineUniversities.com (2013), students
in the U.S. that grew up watching educational television series, such as Sesame
Street, are now accustomed to learning through entertainment. According to a recent
HBO Kids video, Sesame Street is available in over 150 different countries around
the world, with characters unique to the countries in which it is broadcast (HBO
Kids, 2018). Since most countries around the world also have their own educational
programming, this trend is most likely applicable to students internationally as well.
Thus, activities similar to Trier’s have the potential to be explored not only in science
methods courses, but also in science labs, in which higher education students should
be given the opportunity to brainstorm how popular culture texts reinforce or counter
the curriculum they are teaching or learning. In this way, popular culture serves as
a means to reiterate information learned in the classroom and to promote outside
dialogue of science topics with family and friends.
In our search for current examples of the integration of new media technologies
and popular culture in science education, we discovered The Science Of website and
blog, created by STEM Educators Matt and Shari Brady (2018; see Recommended
Sources—New Media Content). In their blog, Brady and Brady provide examples of
popular culture references that they have incorporated into high school science lesson
plans. In the blog post “Engagement with Pop Culture in Your STEM Classroom,”
they offer insight into how to begin utilizing popular culture in the classroom, noting
that the key is not to show an entire film or graphic novel, but rather to make sure that
the content is short and directly related to the lesson (Brady, 2016). In addition, the
goal when teaching with popular culture is to use content that the students are familiar
with, so that these references can serve as a quick hook into the science lesson of
the day. In the humorous and blatantly true online writing style of a blogger, they
remind us, “If your references are more than ten years old, they’re not cool, and you
suck” (Brady, 2016).
One of the highlighted stories on The Science Of, entitled “Getting ‘Spaced’
in Guardians—How Long Would You Live?,” serves as an excellent example of the
intertextual capabilities of new media technologies (Brady, 2017). The article utilizes
a photograph of Peter Quill from the hit film Guardians of the Galaxy to peak interest
in the science behind what really happens when the human body is exposed in space.
After a detailed explanation of the scientific process that the body goes through, a
hyperlink is provided to a Facebook post in which the writer and director of Guardians
of the Galaxy, James Gunn, addresses frequently asked questions about the film. This
hyperlink to a conversation on a popular social networking site serves two purposes:
(1) It reconnects the science lecture back to the initial film image, or popular culture
reference; and (2) It allows students, or readers, to see that the scientific discussion
ties directly into the current trending chatter on Facebook. The article ends with
an embedded YouTube video clip of Astronaut Jim LeBlanc testing a pressure suit
for NASA. This last video clip demonstrates how the video-sharing site YouTube is
able to link new and old media by making available online a video clip from Moon
Machines, a collection of documentaries released on the Science Channel about the
Apollo program space equipment. The assimilation of new media, old media, and
the traditional scientific lecture support a more flexible and organic approach to
teaching, in which the use of new media technologies is dependent on the individual
response from each class. As such, the popular culture content that is presented
through new media technologies in the classroom can be increased or decreased
with a click of the mouse. Jenkins et al. (2009) assert, “We can move in and out
of informal learning communities if they fail to meet our needs; we enjoy no such
mobility in our relations to formal education” (p. 11). An interview with Matt Brady,
entitled “Using Pop Culture to Teach Science,” was released on April 24, 2017 and
is available through the Lab Out Loud podcast series. Lab Out Loud is a podcast
hosted by science teachers Dale Basler and Brian Bartel, which is supported by the
U.S. National Science Teaching Association (NSTA).
Student Culture in Urban Science Education
Throughout this chapter, we have emphasized the importance of thinking of students

as active participants in the science classroom. New media technologies, thus, serve
as tools that enable students to have access to classroom materials outside of school
and to develop new ways of sharing information learned with fellow students and
the outside world. This essentially provides students with an opportunity to be heard
inside and outside the science classroom. By utilizing new media technologies to
incorporate popular culture into science lesson plans, students begin to understand
how science is relevant to their daily lives. When students and teachers share the same
culture and cultural references, the challenge of utilizing new media technologies in
the classroom becomes one that is centered on whether the teacher and students have
access to the Internet, laptops, projectors, smartphones, tablets, and other necessary
technology. However, when students and teachers do not share the same culture and
cultural references, there are many considerations that must be taken into account
prior to introducing and implementing new media technologies into science teaching.
Here, we would like to acknowledge the recent findings and studies of Christopher
Emdin, an Associate Professor of Science Education at Teachers College, Columbia
University. In his book Urban Science Education for the Hip-hop Generation (2010),
Emdin points out that in urban schools, student culture is often very different from that
of the teachers and school. He claims that today’s urban science classrooms contain
multiple cultures that are often at odds with one another. According to Emdin (2010),
“These cultures can be grouped into four categories: the culture of science, the culture
of urban teaching, the culture of urban students, and the culture of the urban teacher”
(pp. xi–xii). It is the last category of culture, that of the teacher, that has the power
to unite the other categories to create an environment in which learning is possible
(Emdin, 2010, p. xii).
Emdin outlines hip-hop culture as a means through which science teachers can
connect to urban youth. Drawing from his experiences teaching public school sci-
ence in New York City, he states, “…I realized that under normal circumstances,
students had to subdue parts of their hip-hop identity, or ignore their experiences
that could support their learning in order to be considered a ‘good science student.’ I
had to learn that there are parts of the students’ hip-hop identities that are conducive
to, and supportive of, success in science” (Emdin, 2010, p. 101). Emdin’s Reality
Pedagogy is based on the recognition that students’ experiences with hip-hop can
serve as a positive entrance into the study of science. The first step for urban science
teachers is to be transparent with their students and create “cogenerative dialogues,”
in which students learn about the teacher, the teacher learns about the students, and
they discuss the classroom environment (Emdin, 2010, 105). This autobiographical
element is similar to what students would hear on a rap album; however, teachers
must also convey how science became an integral part of their lives (Emdin, 2010,
108). Taking the time to listen to what is occurring outside the classroom in the stu-
dents’ neighborhoods provides science teachers with the opportunity to link science
concepts to the experiences of their students (Emdin, 2010, p. 111). One way in which
Emdin builds on the students’ own ties to hip-hop is by inviting community members
into the classroom to join discussions on related science topics. For instance, rap-
pers or producers may discuss “the physics of soundproof booths in studios and the
recording process,” whereas graffiti artists may discuss “the chemistry of containers
made of tinplated steel or aluminum used to store aerosols,” or “the chemistry of the
dyes and pigments used in their artwork” (Emdin, 2010, 112). The uniqueness to
Emdin’s (2010) approach that distinguishes him from others who have focused on
the importance of understanding student culture is that he argues that there are innate
characteristics in hip-hop culture, such as hip-hop lovers’ passion for hip-hop and its
value of creativity, that lend itself well to the learning of science. Emdin’s approach
to teaching science in conjunction with the acknowledgment of the power of hip-hop
falls in line with the STEAM movement, in which the Arts are incorporated into
STEM learning. This approach further calls for a deeper understanding of the Arts
in STEAM that includes art and culture, rather than solely a highbrow understand-
ing of art (Teachers College, Columbia University, 2016). For more information on
STEAM, see Chap. 31.
Edmin has created a buzz around his teaching pedagogy through the #HipHopEd
social movement, in which educators discussed connections between hip-hop and
education on Twitter. As the movement gained momentum, #HipHopEd developed
into a nonprofit organization that “focuses on inspiring and empowering a movement
that reimagines education through the use of hip-hop as text, theory, philosophy and
practice in the pursuit of emancipatory schooling” (Emdin, 2018). Emdin claims,
“This focus on hip-hop as a tool for transforming science education reform has an
international scope because of the visibility and accessibility of the culture to many
groups of marginalized people across the globe” (2010, p. 115). Thus, this approach
is useful and relevant to teachers and students internationally.
Media Literacy in the Twenty-first Century
The importance of media literacy is paramount. We live in a world immersed in tech-

nological innovations. We use smartphones, tablets, and laptop computers to access
new media content on a daily basis. The information processing theory allows us
to see that students must have the opportunity to think critically about the informa-
tion that is presented to them in class if they are to store this information in their
long-term memory. Gurbin (2015) states, “Matching new information to information
that is already in existing memory is important in learning. New information must
have some meaning for a person or it will not be retained” (p. 2334). Since today’s
students are generally fluent in the use of new media technologies, such as blogs,
wikis, audio discussion boards, social networks, video sharing, podcasts, and more,
incorporating their use into classroom learning is not farfetched. The reality is that
most students today already use new media technologies on their own to review and
learn new information. By applying the idea of new media technologies to the infor-
mation processing theory, we can see that these new devices and their content serve
as a means for instructors to bring meaning into lessons that apply specifically to the
younger generation. As highlighted in the previous section, new media content often
utilizes popular culture. Therefore, incorporating new media content into science les-
son plans allows today’s students to make the connections necessary for long-term
memory to be established by linking it to information that they perceive to be of
social value. By teaching students to also be creators of new media content, rather
than just receivers, they are able to become familiar with the positive and negative
aspects of new media content.
One downside to new media content is that while this information is highly acces-
sible through the Internet, information accessed one day may not necessarily be
available the next. For instance, URLs change and online content can be removed
or revised without warning. Furthermore, with an abundance of new media content
available, it is critical that students and instructors learn to differentiate between
accurate, or credible information, and false information. Teaching with new media
technologies and content requires careful planning on the part of the instructor.
Nonetheless, when the instructor is able to update and adapt new media content
specifically to fit with the information and interests of the class as a whole, an organic
approach to teaching is possible, which we therefore suggest represents a means to
incorporate social and cultural values into the information processing model.
At the end of this chapter, we have included a list of new media content that may
be of use to science educators and students, and that we believe deserves further
exploration. In your search for online science-related content, and upon reviewing
the additional new media content at the end of this chapter, we suggest that you follow
the sites of your choosing via their connected social networking pages (Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter), so that you can receive instant notification when they produce
new content. By utilizing new media technologies in this manner, you will be able
to gather content that may be relevant to future lesson plans or studies.
As a final note, we would like to mention the fact that a new media approach
to teaching may simultaneously call for an interdisciplinary approach to learning,
in which the boundaries between related fields become less defined and students
question the very nature of how their areas of study relate to others, both academically
and in the real world. Accessing prior knowledge and the transfer of knowledge from
one learning situation to another is a way to further ideas and concepts to develop
stronger processes and application in future studies. Future research should examine
the benefits and disadvantages of applying an interdisciplinary approach to science
learning through the incorporation of new media technologies and content in the
classroom.
Summary
• The information processing theory is a learning model that equates human cog-
nition to computer processing. It allows us to see that students must have the
opportunity to think critically about the information in order to achieve long-term
learning.
• The Internet provides students and teachers with constant access to information,
creating controversy over the role of new media technologies and content in the
classroom.
• Utilizing new media technologies and content in the classroom can promote a more
flexible and organic approach to teaching that can appeal to today’s students.
• Understanding the participatory nature of new media technologies, as well as
their individual functionalities, is crucial to their successful implementation in
the classroom.
Recommended Resources—Books
Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood…and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy
and urban education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (Eds.). (2017). Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM
learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lin, T. B., Chen, V., & Chai, C. S. (Eds.). (2015). New Media and Learning in the 21st Century: A
socio-cultural perspective. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Recommended Resources—New Media Content
Bartel, B., & Basler, D. (2019). Lab out loud: Science for the classroom and beyond [blog and
podcast]. Retrieved from http://laboutloud.com.
Brady, M., & Brady, S. (2018). The Science Of [website and blog]. Retrieved from https://www.
discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/.
Crash Course. (2014, May 5). How we make memories—Crash course psychology #13 [video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSycdIx-C48.
Discovery Channel. (2019). Myth Busters. Retrieved from https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/
mythbusters/.
Emdin, C. (2012, June 18). Urban science education for the hip-hop generation [video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9x_IlNFvqo.
HBO Kids. (2018, February 17). Sesame street season 48: Muppets from around the world [video
file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ4x6N1JBcg.
Hill, K. (2019). Because science. Retrieved from http://nerdist.com/videos/because-science/.
Khan Academy Medicine. (2013, October 24). Information processing model: Sensory, work-
ing, and long term memory [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
pMMRE4Q2FGk.
Lab Out Loud: Science for the Classroom and Beyond. (2017, April 24). Using pop culture
to teach science [podcast]. Retrieved from http://laboutloud.com/?s=using+pop+culture+to+
teach+science.
McLeod, S. (2018). Simply psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/.
National Geographic. (2019). StarTalk [video files]. Retrieved from http://channel.
nationalgeographic.com/startalk/.
Office Depot, Inc. (2014, April 18). Teacher Chris Emdin finding ways to make math fun [video
file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4wrMBZEMk.
Senanan, K. (2016, May 10). How computer memory works [video file]. Retrieved from https://ed.
ted.com/lessons/how-computer-memory-works-kanawat-senanan#watch.
TED-Ed: Lessons Worth Sharing (Science & Technology). (2019). Retrieved from http://ed.ted.
com/lessons?category=science-technology.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195.
Brady, M. (2016, June 23). Engagement with pop culture in your STEM classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.thescienceof.org/teaching/engagement-science-classroom/.
Brady, M. (2017, May 16). Getting ‘spaced’ in guardians—How long would you live Retrieved
from http://www.thescienceof.org/topstories/getting-spaced-guardians/.
Connell, M. L., & Abramovich, S. (2017). STEM teaching and learning via technology-enhanced
inquiry. In I. Levin & D. Tsybulsky (Eds.), Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM
learning (pp. 221–251). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Cowan, N. (2015). George Miller’s magical number of immediate memory in retrospect: Observa-
tions on the faltering progression of science. Psychological Review, 122(3), 536–541.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Crash Course. (2014, May 5). How we make memories—Crash course psychology #13 [video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSycdIx-C48.
Dawson, M. R. W. (1998). Understanding cognitive science. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers.
Emdin, C. (2010). Urban science education for the hip-hop generation. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Emdin, C. (2018). #HipHopEd. Retrieved from https://chrisemdin.com/hiphopeds/.
Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R. (2015). Enhancing students’ learning process through interactive
digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51,
652–663.
GLOBE. (2019). About GLOBE. The GLOBE program: Global learning and observations to benefit
the environment. Retrieved from https://www.globe.gov/about/overview.
Gurbin, T. (2015). Enlivening the machinist perspective: Humanising the information processing
theory with social and cultural influences. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2331–
2338.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education:
The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47–64.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2015). Learning and new media. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of learning (pp. 373–387). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Levinson, P. (2013). New new media (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
McLeod, S. (2018). Simply psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity
for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7(3), 141–144.
OnlineUniversities.com. (2013, March 5). Cool teachers’ guide to pop culture in the class-
room. Retrieved from http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2013/03/cool-teachers-guide-
pop-culture-classroom/.
Pew Research Center. (2019, June 12). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.
org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
Senana, K. (2016, May 10). How computer memory works. TED-Ed [video file]. Retrieved from
https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-computer-memory-works-kanawat-senanan#watch.
Taylor, K., & Silver, L. (2019, February 5). Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the
world, but not always equally. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/
smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/.
Teachers College, Columbia University. (2016, April 11). For white folks who teach in the
hood…and the rest of y’all, too—A book talk [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=AG7YO7nIuY4.
Trier, J. (2006). Teaching with media and popular culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
49(5), 434–438.
Wagoner, B. (2012). Learning and Memory. In R. Harre & F. M. Moghaddam (Eds.), Psychology
for the Third Millennium: Integrating cultural and neuroscience perspectives (pp. 116–138).
London: Sage.
Patricia J. Stout is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Dallas, where she is special-
izing in Cultural Studies. She holds a Masters of Art in Communication and has over 5 years of
experience in Marketing and Public Relations. She has worked firsthand with the development
and customization of new media technologies for both corporate clients and science education
programs, as well as focused on how such technologies are changing modes of communication
from an academic perspective. Her research interests lie in art as a means of communication across
cultures and the use of new media technologies in the classroom.
Mitchell D. Klett is a Professor of science education and educational technology at Northern

Michigan University. Dr. Klett holds a BA and MAT in geoscience and science education from the
University of Texas at Dallas and a Ph.D. in education from the University of Idaho in Moscow.
His teaching experience has taken him from the suburbs of Dallas, the hills of the Palouse,
metropolitan Chicago, to the isolated Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He has been invited to con-
sult with educational partners in Brazil and Colombia. His current areas of research are in the
assessment and evaluation of students, faculty, and programs.
Chapter 10
Stage Theory of Cognitive
Development—Jean Piaget
Brinda Oogarah-Pratap, Ajeevsing Bholoa, and Yashwantrao Ramma
Introduction
The stage theory of cognitive development is the first cognitivist theory developed
by Jean Piaget almost a century ago. This chapter sets out with a brief professional
profile of Jean Piaget as a cognitivist theorist. It then provides some of the historical
antecedents to the Stage Theory of Cognitive Development. The key ideas underpin-
ning the theory, such as schema, adaptation, assimilation, accommodation, stage and
operations, are described subsequently. The chapter also addresses the importance of
the four different stages of the cognitive development theory, namely sensorimotor,
pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational. An outline of each of
the four stages is given, with a more detailed focus on the formal operational stage
which we support by a specific example—the motion of a golf ball—that reflects
application of selected advanced level physics concepts by physics trainee teachers
enrolled in a post graduate certificate course in education (PGCE) in a teacher train-
ing institute. The findings of the study are analysed and discussed to highlight the
practical applications and shortcomings of the theory, especially in relation to the
appropriateness of the theory for acquisition and development of science concepts,
and for fostering scientific inquiry.
B. Oogarah-Pratap (B) · A. Bholoa · Y. Ramma

Mauritius Institute of Education, Moka, Mauritius
A. Bholoa
Y. Ramma

134 B. Oogarah-Pratap et al.
Background Information
Jean Piaget (1896–1980) was a Swiss biologist who initially started studying how
molluscs adapt to their environment through experience. His interest in genetic epis-
temology led him to observe children, talk to them and listen to them while they were
working on specific exercises he had set (Satterly, 1987). He also studied children’s
understanding of space, speed, time and motion which then resulted in the first major
theory of cognitive development (Barouillet, 2015). The key focus of the theory was
the role of biological maturation in children’s capacity to understand and interact
with their world. Thus, according to Piaget, intelligence is not a fixed trait; children
can only undertake a task until they have reached a certain level of psychological
maturity.
Piaget identified a number of key ideas underpinning his theory, namely schemas,
assimilation, accommodation, adaptation, equilibrium, stage and operations. These
are described in subsequent sections of this chapter.
Schemas
Schemas (also referred to as schemes) are one of the key ideas underpinning Piaget’s
Theory and are usually referred to as the building blocks of knowledge. They include
both simple and complex actions, ideas and a set of perceptions. They help individu-
als to make sense of their world by organising and giving structure to their thoughts.
An innate reflex of a baby is considered to be a simple schema while the ability to set
up and conduct a scientific experiment constitutes a complex schema. According to
Piaget, older children can perform more complex actions than younger ones since the
number of schemas increases as children grow up. The ability to perform an increas-
ing number of complex actions is the result of two key processes—assimilation
and accommodation. Adaptation is the outcome of assimilation and accommodation
which leads to the building of schemas (intellectual growth).
Assimilation, Accommodation and Equilibrium
Assimilation occurs when children encounter new information which they add to the
existing schemas of what they are already familiar with. On the other hand, a state
of disequilibrium is created when children come across new information they have
never encountered before. The new information is either ignored or children will try
to match it to some pre-existing schemas. Accommodation occurs when children try
to do the matching, in which case the existing schemas are either modified or new
ones are created to make room for the new information, thereby reinstating a state
of equilibrium.
10 Stage Theory of Cognitive Development—Jean Piaget 135
Fig. 10.1 Factors

influencing equilibrium
Heredity
Physical
Experience
Social
Transmission
Equilibrium
Assimilation and accommodation are processes that occur automatically. They

are acted upon by heredity, physical experience and social transmission. Heredity
influences time and provides tools for cognitive growth. Physical experience involves
concrete, hands-on experiences with objects encountered while social transmission
relates to the reception of information from parents, schools and the community.
The balance that is created by the forces from these three factors is referred to as
equilibrium (Thomas, 1992; see Fig. 10.1).
During assimilation, equilibrium occurs as a child’s schemas deal with most of the
new information. When exposed to new information that does not match the existing
schemas, to avoid disequilibrium, the child’s schemas change to accommodate the
unmatched information (accommodation). The shift from a state of disequilibrium
to equilibrium is referred to as equilibration.
Stages of Cognitive Development
According to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, knowledge construction

occurs through four hierarchical phases, referred to as stages. A stage refers to a
period in children’s development during which their thinking process allows for the
understanding of a given situation. The four stages are the sensorimotor period, the
pre-operational period, the concrete operational period and the formal operational
period. Each stage has specific features that explain the thinking process at different
periods in an individual’s life (see Fig. 10.2). The assumption is that each child goes
through the different stages in the same order.
Sensorimotor (Birth-2 yrs)
•Differentiates self from objects.

•Realises that things continue to exist even when they can no longer be
detected by the senses (object permanence).
Pre-operational (2-7 yrs)

•Starts to use language and to represent objects by images and words.
•Finds it difficult to take the point of view of others (egocentric thinking).
•Classifies objects by a single attribute, e.g., colour, shape, size.
Concrete operational (7-11 yrs)

•Starts to think logically about objects and events.
•Classifies objects by several features/characteristics and can order them in
series along a single dimension such as size.
Formal Operational (11 yrs and up)

•Develops logical thinking about abstract propositions.
•Tests hypotheses systematically.
•Shows concern with hypothetical and ideological problems.
Fig. 10.2 Key features of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development
Operations
Operations are described as organised, formal and logical mental processes (Feldman,
2001). Children develop the abilities to carry out various mental operations during
the last 2 stages, that is, during the concrete operational stage (concrete operations)
and the formal operational stage (formal operations).
Concrete Operations
Piaget’s concrete operations stage involves a number of mental operations, namely

seriation, transitivity, classification, decentering, reversibility and conservation. Seri-
ation is the ability to order objects by a quantitative dimension such as size, weight
or height. Transitivity refers to the ability to identify relationships among various
items in a serial order, and perform transitive inferences. For instance, if item A is
related to item B and item B is related to item C, then item A must be related to
item C. Classification involves the identification and sorting of groups or a subset of
another group of objects according to specific characteristics, e.g., appearance, size.

Decentering is the ability to take into consideration the multiple aspects of a situation
rather than focusing on only one aspect. Reversibility involves the ability of the child
to recognise that numbers or objects can be changed, then returned to their original
condition. Conservation is the child’s ability to recognise that the quantity, length or
number of an object or an item is unrelated to its arrangement or appearance of the
object.
Children are able to perform all the above mentioned mental operations when they
are closer to eleven years of age. As the age of children progresses, so does their ability
to perform more complex operations. For instance, 7-year old children can classify
or sort objects according to specific characteristics (seriation and classification), but
they would be able to recognise logical relationships among elements in a serial
order, and perform transitive inferences (transitivity) closer to the age of 11.
Formal Operations
According to Piaget, children have the ability to think scientifically in the formal
operational stage. They can perform more complex mental operations (formal oper-
ations) such as drawing conclusions and constructing tests to evaluate hypotheses.
The formal operations, also known as formal reasoning, include theoretical rea-
soning, combinatorial reasoning, proportional reasoning, control of variables and
probabilistic and correlational reasoning (see Table 10.1). Children in the concrete
operational stage are not able to perform these complex operations. According to
Piaget’s Theory, it is in the formal operational stage that adolescents and adults
can think in an abstract manner through mental processes without dependence on
concrete manipulation.
These formal reasoning patterns have been identified as essential abilities that stu-
dents should develop to better perform in Science and Mathematics (Bitner, 1991;
Lawson & Snitgen, 1982). Hence science activities should be designed to promote
these reasoning patterns. According to Piaget, students acquire reasoning abilities
through the process of equilibration rather than following direct and/or short-term
teaching interventions (Valanides, 2006). Thus, the teaching and learning processes
should provide opportunities for equilibration to take place. Furthermore, teachers
should develop lessons that draw on their students’ prior experiences and knowl-
edge, design tasks and activities to promote higher-level thinking (Lutz & Huitt,
2004). Galotti (1989) draws our attention to the ambiguity in the usage of the term
‘reasoning’ which has a direct relationship with ‘critical thinking’ and where all
information is specified in advance. This is usually the case in teaching-learning
transactions. Thus, reasoning should not be confused with thinking, problem-solving
and decision-making.
Exposing students to problem-based scenarios from different contexts can foster
the formal operational reasoning patterns through the equilibration process, involv-
ing both assimilation and accommodation. The use of an interdisciplinary approach
Table 10.1 Reasoning patterns during the formal operational stage

Reasoning patterns Explanation
Theoretical reasoning Ability to apply multiple classifications,
conservation logic, serial ordering, and other
reasoning patterns to relationships and properties
that are not directly observable
Combinatorial reasoning Ability to consider all possible combinations of
concrete or abstract items, thereby enabling the
formulation of an alternative hypothesis
Proportional reasoning Ability to state and interpret functional
relationships in mathematical form
Ability to construct and interpret data in tabular and
graphical forms
Ability to formulate a hypothesis and to interpret
potential relationships between variables
Control of variables Ability to recognise the necessity to control all
relevant variables in an experimental design, except
the one under investigation
Probabilistic and Correlational reasoning Ability to interpret observations that show
unpredictable variability to identify relationships
among random variables
whereby the reasoning patterns are addressed in different subject areas by curricu-
lum developers and teachers is another viable option to promote the development
of the reasoning patterns. Valanides (2006) asserts that for successful implementa-
tion of the interdisciplinary approach, curriculum developers and teachers need to
receive the appropriate pre-service and in-service training on how to develop an inte-
grated curriculum and use teaching-learning approaches that facilitate the process of
equilibration.
Criticisms of Piaget’s Theory
Although Piaget’s theory is recognised for being systematic in its approach and is
considered to be one of the most influential theories of developmental psychology
(Beilin & Pufall, 1992), it has nevertheless received some criticisms. The theory has
been described as being too rigid and limited in the number of constructs (Barouil-
let, 2015). It tends to put too much emphasis on the maturation process of a child
while overlooking the influence of culture, social setting and language. These fac-
tors, according to Bruner and Vygotsky, contribute substantially to the intellectual
development of a child. Furthermore, interest and motivation which have a substan-
tial role to play in the child’s affective and cognitive development are ignored (Hidi,
2006; refer to Chap. 22 for an insightful perspective). Piaget’s Theory also fails to
recognise that children may have different intelligences as per Gardner’s theory of
multiple intelligence.
Moreover, it is argued that chronological ages do not always correspond to stages
of development as defined by Piaget (Bastable & Dart, 2008). On the one hand,
Piaget’s theory is believed to underestimate the abilities of young children as it has
been found that some children are able to perform concrete operations before the age
of 7 years. On the other hand, the theory may be overestimating the abilities of ado-
lescents and adults. There is evidence that formal reasoning patterns are not always
demonstrated by all adults, who according to Piaget should have developed these
abilities given their age (Eggen & Kauchal, 2000). The task content and instructions
have been found to influence the ability of students to demonstrate formal reasoning
patterns (Valanides, 2006).
Teachers’ content knowledge (CK) has also been found to influence students’
achievement in science (Diamond, Maeten-Rivera, Rohrer & Lee, 2014). Poor CK
tends to favour expository teaching whereby the teacher relies heavily on textbooks
and makes limited use of participatory approaches (Nixon, Campbell & Luft, 2016).
Thus, although according to Piaget’s theory, teachers should have developed the
formal reasoning abilities, they may, nonetheless, not demonstrate these abilities due
to limited CK. Moreover, they are more likely to use teacher-centered approaches in
their class which does not favour the development of reasoning abilities among their
students who are at the concrete and formal operational stages.
In the next section, we describe a study that was conducted in relation to the
reasoning patterns of a group of physics trainee teachers who as per their age were
expected to operate at the formal operational stage.
Methodology
Participants
The participants in this study were six physics trainee teachers who had embarked on a
professional development course, namely the Post Graduate Certificate in Education
(PGCE) programme. All the trainees had obtained their first degree in physics at
a local university and had, after their graduation, joined the local teacher training
institute on a one-and-a-half-year full-time course. The trainees were informed that
research data would be used from only those who would have given their permission.
They all consented to participate in the classroom-based study on a voluntary basis
and showed much interest during the lesson delivery.
A golf ball rolls on grass towards the hole after it was hit with a club. The hole is situated on the
left hand side of the pitch. Identify and draw all the forces acting on the ball. Justify your
answer. [The required information expected from the trainees is illustrated in the diagram.]
Fig. 10.3 Forces acting on a rolling golf ball
The Task
For the purpose of this paper, we illustrate a task that was set to the trainees during one
of the Subject Didactics modules. The participants were individually administered
a problem-based scenario involving a golf ball (see Fig. 10.3) during a three-hour
session of the Subject Didactics module. This module was taught by the third author
and it ran over 15 weeks. The task was implemented in the 14th week and its aim was
to determine to what extent the trainee teachers could demonstrate selected reasoning
patterns of Piaget’s formal operational stage, namely, theoretical reasoning, combi-
natorial reasoning and proportional reasoning. The concepts under consideration
for the given task were weight, normal reaction, air resistance and friction (road).
The trainee teachers were required to identify and draw all the forces acting on the
ball and to provide the appropriate justifications of their thinking in conjunction with
Piaget’s formal operational stage (see Table 10.1). Our intention was to identify the
extent to which the three reasoning patterns were explicitly framed while they were
engaged in the given task.
Upon completion of the task, each trainee made an oral presentation (8–10 min)
to communicate and justify their thinking. The presentations were video recorded.
The recordings were then analysed and discussed by the three authors from the next
day. The unit of analysis for the coding was any instance in the video that focused
on the specificity of the reasoning elements of the formal operational stages. During
the coding process, the authors met regularly to discuss, check and refine the codes
until a final agreement was reached. Table 10.2 illustrates the expected responses in
relation to the selected reasoning patterns.
The average scores for the reasoning items for all six participants are given in
Table 10.3. The scores were computed by assigning a value of ‘1’ to a valid response
and a value ‘0’ to either an invalid statement or a case of no response. The scores
were then computed for each type of reasoning and expressed as a percentage. To
illustrate our approach, the following exemplifies a valid theoretical reasoning state-
ment involving air resistance which scored 1 mark: ‘The air resistance opposes the
motion of the ball’.
Table 10.2 Piaget’s theoretical, combinatorial and proportional reasonings

Factors Formal operational elements
Theoretical reasoning Combinatorial reasoning Proportional
(T) (C) reasoning (P)
Weight (W) • The gravitational • The magnitude of the W = mg
force of attraction of weight vector equals to W =N
the Earth on the ball that of the normal
(mass) and it acts reaction. The lengths of
vertically downwards both vectors are the
• It acts at the centre of same
gravity of the ball
Normal reaction • It acts vertically • Normal reaction and N = mg = N
(N) upwards weight constitute the
• It acts from the point action-reaction pair in
of contact with the Newton’s 3rd law of
surface through the motion
centre of gravity of
the ball (mass)
Air resistance (R) • It opposes motion as • At low speed, the air f α v, low speed
a result of the resistance varies with f α v2 , high speed
collision of air speed v
molecules with the • At high speed, this
ball force varies with v2
• This force depends
on the size of the ball,
nature of ball and
weather condition
(windy/rainy)
Friction-road (F) • It originates from • Road friction depends F = µN
contact between ball on the coefficient of for motion to
and surface (grass) friction between ball occur:
• It opposes the motion and surface (grass) and F> f
and acts opposite to normal reaction
the tangential
velocity
Table 10.3 Reasoning (%) of participants for the golf ball problem
Reasoning Variables
Weight (W) Normal reaction Air resistance (R) Road friction (F)
(N)
Theoretical 91.7 75.0 25.0 41.7
Combinatorial 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Proportional 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Findings and Discussion
The average scores obtained for the reasoning (theoretical, combinatorial and propor-
tional) patterns of the six participants in working out the golf ball task are summarised
in Table 10.3.
It can be observed from Table 10.3 that the trainees were mostly successful in
providing theoretical explanation and representation of weight (92%) and normal
reaction (75%). However, they were unable to provide adequate theoretical justi-
fication related to air resistance and road friction. Elements of combinatorial and
proportional reasonings were comprehensively missing. For instance, none of the
participants analysed the golf ball problem from the perspective of multiplicative rela-
tionships (e.g., f = kv and f = kv 2 ) that characterise the structural relationships
in mathematics and physics through proportional reasoning.
An in-depth analysis of the components of the theoretical reasoning revealed that
the trainees performed well in identifying, representing and/or justifying weight,
normal reaction and air resistance (see Fig. 10.4). For the convenience of analysis, we
have adopted the following notations in conjunction with the information contained
in Table 10.2. Three examples of such notations are illustrated:
• TW1: 1st theoretical reasoning statement related to weight.
• TW2: 2nd theoretical reasoning statement related to weight.
• TN1: 1st theoretical reasoning statement related to the normal reaction.
Analysis of the written works submitted by the trainees and oral presentations also
revealed that the trainees could not justify and represent the road friction (TF2) and
explain the nature of the air resistance (TR2). The findings suggest that the trainees’
difficulty with reasoning involves the faulty identification of a ‘forward force’ (as a
result of the impact of the club on the ball) to sustain the forward motion of the ball
Theoretical Reasoning
100
Percentage (%)
80
60
40
20
0
TW1 TW2 TN1 TN2 TR1 TR2 TF1 TF2
Components of theoretical reasoning
Code: T - Theoretical; W – Weight; N – Normal force; R – Air resistance
Fig. 10.4 Bar chart representing the components of theoretical reasoning for the golf ball problem
(n = 6).
Case (a) Case (b)
Case (c) Case (d)
Fig. 10.5 Response from trainees (redrawn, for clarity, from their scripts) T1 (a), T2 (b), T3 (c)
and T5 (d)
and a misinterpretation of the direction of the force of friction on the rolling golf
ball.
In the remaining part of this section, we provide an examination of some individ-
ual attempts by the four trainees (T1, T2, T4 and T5) to solve the golf ball problem by
analysing snapshots (see Fig. 10.5) of written works and excerpts from the oral pre-
sentations. The four trainees were selected on the basis of their elaborate explanations
during the oral presentations.
T1 rightly identified the force due to gravity (TW1) and the normal reaction (TN1).
However, the trainee erroneously considered a driving force responsible to sustain
the motion. The notion of an impetus force, represented by the ‘forward force’ or
‘force with which the ball was pushed’ or ‘propelling force’ is still rooted in the
trainees’ minds (Michael, 2014).
Trainee T3 did not show this ‘impetus force’ in her diagram. During the oral
presentation, however, she explained that she had overlooked that idea but would
have considered the existence of such a force. T1 and T2 justified the presence
of that force by relating it to Newton’s 1st law. Despite the trainees’ knowledge
of the underlying theory, they nevertheless could not reconcile their fragmented
knowledge into a combinatorial reasoning response. In this situation, it would have
been expected that the trainees would make a conceptual analysis of Newton’s 1st
law which stipulates that a body is either in a state of uniform motion or at rest and
that the change in state results from the action of an external force (combinatorial
reasoning). The golf ball, being in a state of uniform motion, implies that there is no
‘internal force’ or ‘impetus force’ that causes the body to move.
Another pertinent issue that captured our attention relates to the force due to grav-
ity (Fgravity ) and normal reaction (Fnormal ). From the trainees’ works—cases (a) and
(c)—the two forces do not appear to emanate from two different bodies which con-
tradict Newton’s 3rd law of motion. It is necessary for the trainees to make explicit
the point of contact of the forces which constitute an action-reaction pair. We argue
that the inability to transform theoretical reasoning by making reference to concrete
examples, such as the golf ball, into meaningful combinatorial reasoning can pave the
way for the development of alternative conception. In all the four cases, proportional
reasoning was missing in relation to the length, representing the magnitude of the
force vectors, which should have been equal. Proportional reasoning can be strength-
ened by considering the integration of mathematics and physics (Bholoa, Walshe, &
Ramma, 2017) in a timely manner. An interdisciplinary approach that addresses the
formal reasoning patterns in different subject areas has been found to be effective
in fostering the development of reasoning patterns, including proportional reasoning
(Valanides, 2006).
Moreover, in all the four cases, the trainees have set the road friction in the wrong
direction. During the course of the oral presentations, they all argued that since
friction opposes motion, the road friction then had to act in a direction opposite to
the direction of motion of the ball. Although the trainees possess theoretical and
declarative knowledge, they nonetheless lack combinatorial reasoning due to their
inabilities to link the various perspectives of the inherent concepts, such as circular
motion and tangential velocity at the point of contact. Upon analysing the situation,
the trainees could have related the slowing down or deceleration of the golf ball to
the action of the road friction which acts in a direction opposite to the tangential
velocity vector of the ball.
Conclusion
If teachers were to apply Piaget’s stages of cognitive development in teaching and

learning, then the various mental operations which relate to concrete and formal oper-
ational should be developed along a repeated continuum rather than merely through
repeating patterns of linear causality which qualifies the knowledge acquired at the
formal operational stage as complete or as an end-point of a hierarchy (Seltman &
Seltman, 2006). As an alternative to linear thinking, the prospective trainee teacher
needs to revisit the acquired knowledge for continual growth in thinking. Knowl-
edge acquisition being a dynamic process, the development of reasoning patterns
by the trainees demand that the two stages be reviewed and refined continuously.
Figure 10.6 illustrates the dynamism that should thus exist between concrete and
formal operational stages.
Fig. 10.6 Cyclic interaction

between concrete and formal
operational stages
formaL
concrete operational
(logical (theoretical,
reasoning) combinatorial,
proportional)
In relation to the golf ball problem, we contend that Piaget’s stages of cognitive
development overestimate the reasoning ability of the trainees. We share the views of
a number of researchers that cognitive development is more complex than predicted
by Piaget. Moving from the concrete operational to the formal operational stage is a
cyclic process whereby adult trainees can, through the manipulation of real examples,
improve or review their logical understanding.
In science, knowledge construction is largely influenced by contextual factors and
its acquisition in a given domain may not be commensurate to operate in another
domain be it in the same field of study or across fields. Despite the fact that the trainees
had developed theoretical reasoning, they were, nevertheless, not able to apply com-
binatorial and propositional reasoning in a novel situation. In this particular case, a
new concept—circular motion—has added to the difficulty of the trainees to inte-
grate, by the logic of formal structures, Newton’s 1st law of motion, frictional forces
and change in tangential velocity to the motion of the rolling ball. Piaget’s stages
of cognitive development do not explicitly deal with the complex nature of logical
reasoning which undergoes refinement continuously under the influence of changes
happening in the areas of physical experience and social transmission (Fig. 10.1).
The application of Piaget theory in teacher training has provided sufficient opportu-
nities for the authors to identify inadequacy in the trainees’ understanding and use
of concepts. In fact, researchers (e.g., Tom, 1997) have reported that Piaget’s theory
is particularly useful for trainee teachers as it provides a framework for intertwining
theory and practice of curricular and instructional significance to develop teaching
and research methods that relate directly to how learning takes place. As a result of
Piaget’s ideas on the stages of cognitive development, new and innovative teaching
methods are explored during training rather than focusing on the introduction of
professional knowledge in the form of a deterministic set of procedures or generali-
sations hinged on the traditional beliefs consisting of teacher transmitting knowledge
to learners. When teachers are allowed to experience the Piagetian theory, they facil-
itate learners’ construction of their own knowledge. Moreover, Piaget’s ideas led to
the notion of ‘readiness’ so that concepts can be taught in a specific order. In addition,
Piaget theory has influenced professional development towards cultivating, strength-

ening and/or consolidating training of experimental, scientific, reasoning and logical
skills.
This study has a number of implications for teacher training. Programmes have
to be designed in such a way to support trainees to re-organise and further augment
their logical reasoning (within the concrete developmental stage) schemas through a
variety of activities and learning experiences. In this way, interconnections between
the concrete and formal operational stages will be established in a cyclical mode.
The interplay between the components of the two stages will pave the way towards
the reflexive engagement of learners.
Summary
• The stage theory of cognitive development is the first cognitivist theory developed
by Jean Piaget almost a century ago.
• The key ideas underpinning the theory include schema, adaptation, assimilation,
accommodation, stage and operations.
• Assimilation and accommodation are the processes that occur automatically and
are acted upon by heredity, physical experience and social transmission.
• The four different stages of the cognitive development theory are the sensorimotor,
pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational stages.
• Children develop the ability to think scientifically to perform more complex
mental operations (formal operations) during the formal operational stage.
• The formal operations include theoretical reasoning, combinatorial reason-
ing, proportional reasoning, control of variables, probabilistic and correlational
reasoning.
• Findings of the study, involving Physics trainee teachers, indicate that the devel-
opment of reasoning patterns demands that the concrete and formal operation
stages be reviewed and refined continuously, given that knowledge acquisition is
a dynamic process.
• Piaget’s theory is a prominent tool for analysing trainees’ understanding and
reasoning patterns of concepts in teacher training.
• The study findings support the provision of appropriate learning activities and
experiences in the design of teacher training programmes to improve learners’
formal reasoning abilities.
Lourenci, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms.
Psychological Review, 103(1), 143–264.
Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to Mathematics instruction.
The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26–30.
Scholnick, E. K. (1999). Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaulm
Associates.
Young, G. (2011). Development and causality: Neo-Piagetian perspectives. New York: Springer.
References
Barouillet, P. N. (2015). Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to today. Developmental

Review, 1–12.
Bastable, S. B., & Dart, M. A. (2008). Developmental stages of the learner. In S. B. Bastable (Ed.),
Nurse as educator: Principles of teaching and learning for nursing practice (pp. 165–216).
London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Beilin, H., & Pufall, P. (1992). Piaget’s theory. New Jersey: Erbaulm.
Bholoa, A., Walshe, G., & Ramma, Y. (2017). Curriculum implications of the integration of mathe-
matics into science. In K. S. Taber, & B. Akpan. Science education. New directions in mathematics
and science education (pp. 211–220). Rotherham: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://link.
springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-6300-749-8_16.
Bitner, B. L. (1991). Formal operational reasoning modes: Predictors of critical thinking abilities
and grades assigned by teachers in science and mathematics for students in grades nine to twelve.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 275–285.
Diamond, B. S., Maeten-Rivera, J., Rohrer, R. E., & Lee, O. (2014). Effectiveness of a curricular
and professional development intervention at improving elementary teachers’ science content
knowledge and student achievement outcomes: Year 1 results. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 51(5), 635–658.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchal, D. P. (2000). Educational psyhology: Windows on classroom (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Feldman, R. S. (2001). Child development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Galotti, K. M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning. Psychological
Bulletin, 105(3), 331–351.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69–82.
Lawson, A. E., & Snitgen, D. A. (1982). Teaching formal reasoning in a college biology course for
preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(19), 233–248.
Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications
from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67–90.
Michael, A. (2014). Misconception in primary science. Berkshire: Mc Graw-Hill.
Nixon, R. S., Campbell, B. K., & Luft, J. A. (2016). Effects of subject-area degree and classroom
experience on new chemistry teachers’ subject matter knowledge. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(10), 1636–1654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204482.
Satterly, D. (1987). Piaget and education. In L. R. Gregory (Ed.), The Oxford companion to the
mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seltman, M., & Seltman, P. (2006). Piaget’s logic: A critique of genetic epistemology. London:
Routledge.
Thomas, R. M. (1992). Comparing theories of child development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company Inc.
Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. New York: State University of New York Press.
Valanides, C. N. (2006). Formal reasoning and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics,
96(2), 99–107.
Dr. Brinda Oogarah-Pratap is an Associate Professor in Health and Nutrition Education at the
Mauritius Institute of Education. She is involved in curriculum development at both primary and
secondary levels. Her research interests include health and nutrition education, innovative prac-
tices in teacher education, including integration of online technologies. She is currently a mem-
ber of a core interdisciplinary research team for a study on the content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge of pre- and in-service trainee teachers.
Dr. Ajeevsing Bholoa is a Senior Lecturer in Mathematics Education at the Mauritius Institute
of Education. He is currently the Programme Coordinator for pre-service B.Ed honours and is
also involved in curriculum development at the primary and secondary levels. His research inter-
ests are related to the integration of technology as a pedagogical tool in teaching and learning of
mathematics and the identification of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of
teachers.
Dr. Yashwantrao Ramma is a Professor of Science Education and is the Chair of Research at the
Mauritius Institute of Education. As a physicist, he has worked on several research projects related
to technology integration and misconceptions of both physics teachers and students. Currently, he
is leading research projects on exploring teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge across various subject areas, on indiscipline and violence in primary schools and also
on students’ transitions from secondary to university and teacher training.
Chapter 11
Mastery Learning—Benjamin Bloom
Ben Akpan
Introduction
Benjamin Bloom (see Box 11.1) was dissatisfied with the educational system partic-
ularly with regards to the evaluation and grading system in schools. He observed that
in most cases, assessment procedures resulted in scores that approximated normal
curves (Fig. 11.1).
Fig. 11.1 Normal curve of achievement using traditional methods. Source Akpan (2015: 21)
B. Akpan (B)

150 B. Akpan
Box 11.1: Benjamin Bloom Bio

Benjamin Bloom was born in 1913 in Lansford, Pennsylvania, USA. He attended
Pennsylvania State University where he obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees. In
1942, he received a doctorate’s degree from the University of Chicago. Bloom held
many positions at the University of Chicago and subsequently became a Charles H.
Swift Distinguished Professor there. His most celebrated work has come to be known as
Bloom’s Taxonomy and is the subject of some of his writings including the Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, the Cognitive Domain. Bloom’s works also
extended to mastery learning where he also had several publications including the
1971 publication: Individual differences in school achievement: A vanishing point?
He was instrumental to the founding of the International Association for Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA) and served the American Educational Research
Association as its president. Bloom had two sons. He died in Chicago in 1999 at the
age of 86.
According to Bloom, some of the problems associated with teaching, learning, and
grading in schools are due to the manner in which teachers carry out their work. When
teachers believe that in a typical course of instruction about one-third of the class
will perform well, another one third will perform below average while the remaining
one third may just fail or obtain borderline pass marks; the corollary is that these
beliefs will be translated into actual scoring practices to ascertain that the normal
curve of achievement prevails. Should the achievement curve vary from the normal,
there will be a strong suspicion that something went wrong.
This is irrespective of the fact that a C grade in a particular school may be as high
as a B grade in another; or that an A grade in a particular year may just approximate to
a C grade in another year. Bloom believes these practices have done a lot of damage
to the teaching and learning process and have been a source of frustration to many
students as teachers under traditional methods of instruction expect just a handful of
them to perform well. The loss to the education system and humanity is therefore
quite enormous.
It is Bloom’s considered opinion that even if students’ abilities are naturally dis-
tributably normal, but we give each student enough time, help, and encouragement,
then the resulting achievement distribution will not be normal as many more students
will achieve mastery of a learning task. Bloom (1968) called this learning for mastery
and later, mastery learning (Bloom, 1971). In one of his celebrated works, Bloom
(1971) opined that through mastery learning, individual differences in achievement
could possibly approach a vanishing point (Fig. 11.2).
11 Mastery Learning—Benjamin Bloom 151
Fig. 11.2 Distribution of

achievement in mastery
classrooms. Source Akpan
(2015: 21)
Factors Affecting Mastery Learning
In any mastery learning environment, aptitude, quality of instruction, ability to com-

prehend instruction, perseverance, and time allocated for learning are very influential
factors.
Aptitude: In everyday parlance, aptitude refers to the natural ability or skill at
performing a task. However, in the context of mastery learning, aptitude is actually a
measure of the amount of time that a student requires to master a particular learning
task. In Bloom’s opinion, the majority of learners can conceivably attain mastery of
any learning task if given sufficient time such that aptitude may be seen to vary from
one learning environment to another. As a consequence, it is the learning environment
that has to be varied in order to attain the desired aptitude.
Quality of Instruction: The high point of mastery learning is the recognition of
individual differences in learning and attainment of mastery and subsequent provision
of appropriate quality of instruction to remedy the situation. The quality of instruction
has therefore to relate to each learner rather than to the group of learners.
Ability to Comprehend Instruction: Learners vary in their abilities to compre-
hend instruction (Bloom, 1976). For example, proficiency in a particular language
may affect the level and time of attainment of learning mastery in a given task. Know-
ing this to be the case, there is a compelling need to assure that quality instruction
is varied to meet students’ needs through the provision of suitable laboratory activ-
ities in science lessons, peer-tutoring, study groups, audio-visual aids, laboratory
demonstrations, a variety of text books, and student workbooks.
Perseverance: The time learners willingly spend on a task (perseverance) varies
from one person to another. Consequently, it is vital that a reduction in perseverance
152 B. Akpan
be sought through the use of measures to improve the quality of instruction such as
the provision of rewards.
Time Allocated for Learning: Essential to the attainment of mastery of any
learning task is the adjustment of time to meet each learner’s need and to assure
that learners master at least 80% of the material. It therefore bears emphasising
the overarching influence of time allocated for learning on successful attainment of
mastery learning.
Mastery Learning Process
Figure 11.3 provides a schematic flow of what takes place in a typical mastery learning
process. Learning tasks are organised into units. Formative evaluation follows some
quality teaching. Those who attain mastery proceed to the next unit while corrective
Fig. 11.3 A mastery

learning process Organisation of Learning
Tasks into Units
Unit 1
Quality Teaching
Formative Evaluation
Correction of
Difficulties
Formative
Assessment
Unit 2
measures/formative assessment is done for the unsuccessful group until they are able
to attain mastery of the task.
Mastery Learning in Practice
In practice, the following essential elements of mastery learning are important for
consideration.
Feedback, Correctives, and Enrichment: For a successful mastery learning
programme, there has to be a deliberate effort at providing feedback to learners. In
order to do this effectively, it is inevitable to conduct formative assessments regu-
larly. Guskey (2007) is of the opinion that such feedback must have diagnostic and
prescriptive dimensions, as
By itself…feedback does little to help students improve their learning. Significant improve-
ment requires feedback be paired with correctives: activities that offer guidance and direc-
tion to students on how to remedy their learning problems. Because of individual differences
among students, no single method of instruction works best for all. To help every student
learn well…teachers must differentiate their instruction, both in the initial teaching and
especially through the corrective activities…In other words, to decrease variation in results,
teachers must increase variation in their teaching. (p. 16)
To enhance the effectiveness of feedback, therefore, there has to be in place a set of

activities that provide systematic remedies to the learning difficulties of the students.
These remedial measures are known as correctives and are usually different from the
initial teaching. Guskey (2010) maintains that high-quality corrective instruction is
not the same as teaching the same material again by restating the initial explanations
in other ways. According to him, mastery learning teachers have to use corrective
methods that take care of differences in the learning styles of students and their intel-
ligence level. These may include, but not limited to tutoring, cooperative learning,
and paraprofessional teaching aids. Such correctives may add additional time, say
between 10 and 20%, to the initial estimated duration of instruction. But the good
news is that whatever time is added at the early stages of mastery learning will pay
off in later units as these will proceed more rapidly. According to Guskey (2007,
p. 19):
In general, teachers do not need to sacrifice content coverage to implement corrective and
enrichment activities, but they must be flexible in pacing their instruction. The time used for
correctives and enrichments in early units yields powerful benefits that later will make things
easier. This extra time can then be recouped in later units by spending less time on reviews
and increasing the instructional pace. Teachers at all levels must keep in mind what needs
to be accomplished by the end of any learning sequence, but they also must see students’
pathways to that end in more flexible and accommodating terms.
For the learners who do not require correctives, enrichment activities are put
in place for them in the course of mastery learning. In general, these serve the
purpose of widening the scope of the learning experiences. Much of the focus of
enrichment programmes is towards problem-solving which according to Guskey
154 B. Akpan
(2010) is not only valuable and challenging but highly rewarding. It is in the nature
of mastery learning, therefore, that these enrichment activities may be drawn from
outside the regular curriculum. In fact, some teachers implementing the scheme draw
broadly from materials developed for the gifted and talented learners. In this direction,
Sumida (2017) maintains that enrichment gives children a platform to learn about
interdisciplinary issues. He gives the following example of a Japanese enrichment
programme:
…through an enrichment programme…Japanese high school students won the number one
spot in a Science and Engineering Challenge and have had articles published in interna-
tional academic journals. In Japan, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology encourages student challenges in science Olympics in cooperation with science
associations and universities. (p. 484)
Generally, teachers carry out feedback, corrective, and enrichment programmes using
several approaches such as formative assessment involving paper-and-pencil tests,
essays, projects, demonstration of skills, oral presentations, and reports. According
to Guskey (2007), teachers essentially use the format of their formative assessment
that aligns with the instructional goals they are pursuing.
At the end of both the corrective and enhancement activities, both groups get
back to the regular class group and continue with the lessons in such a way that the
sequence of instruction is not disrupted but is rather strengthened.
Aligning the Components of Instruction
Three components of instruction have been identified by Bloom as making up the

teaching and learning process. These are the learning goals, instruction, and eval-
uation. Bloom maintains that attainment of mastery learning is easier if the three
components are implemented in a consistent manner. This is what he referred to as
instructional alignment. In the words of Guskey (2007):
To ensure alignment among instructional components, teachers must make a number of
crucial decisions. First, they need to decide what concepts or skills are most important for
students’ understanding. Teachers must determine, for example, if they want students to learn
only basic skills, or if they want students to develop higher level skills and more complex
cognitive processes. Second, teachers need to decide what evidence best reflects students’
mastery of those basic or higher-level skills. Critics sometimes challenge teachers’ abilities
to make these crucial decisions… Every time they administer an assessment, grade a paper,
or evaluate students’ learning, teachers communicate to students what is most important
to learn. Using mastery learning simply compels teachers to make these decisions more
thoughtfully and purposefully. (pp. 27–28)
Formative Evaluation
According to Rossett and Sheldon (2001) evaluation is a process used in examining

a programme with the aim of determining (i) what is working, and (ii) what is not
working and why it is not working. In general, evaluation enables one to figure
out the value of any learning or training programme thus providing the basis for
decision-making, especially on ways and means of assuring improvement, if and
when necessary. There are two types of evaluation—formative and summative. A
summative evaluation is a means of determining the worth of a programme at the end
of the programme activities. It aims to evaluate students’ learning at the end of a unit
of instruction through comparison with a certain benchmark. In schools, summative
evaluations include, but are not limited to, terminal and end of year examinations. In
this section, the focus is on formative evaluation.
Formative evaluation is a method used in determining the value of a programme
while the activities for the programme are still in progress. It allows for decisions on
how well the programme goals and objectives are achieved. The central attraction
here is to figure out the problems, if any, and to provide adequate corrective measures
where and when necessary. It allows teachers to find out the strengths and weaknesses
of students and thus ensure that areas that require more work are given deserved
attention. Essentially, therefore, the purpose of carrying out a formative assessment is
positive in nature as it is geared towards facilitating teaching and learning; and ensures
students take an active part in the learning process. Thus, within the framework of
mastery learning, formative evaluation serves as a diagnostic measure and is used
to determine the extent to which learners have attained mastery of a given unit.
In mastery learning, units are such that could be taught within about 2 weeks and
formative evaluation is carried out at the end of each unit. The result of such tests will
provide the basis for use of correctives and enrichment measures earlier discussed.
Outcomes
In the context of mastery learning, outcomes are of two categories—cognitive and

affective. Cognitive outcomes relate to how learners attain high grades in the learning
programme—higher grades indicate higher level of mastery in the programme. On
the other hand, affective outcomes relate to feelings of satisfaction and confidence
by learners. Learners who attain mastery of learning tasks tend to develop more
self-confidence towards the subject matter. They also are motivated to learn more.
156 B. Akpan
Approaches to Mastery Learning
Two major approaches to mastery learning are Bloom’s Learning for Mastery (LFM)
and Keller’s Personalised System of Instruction (PSI). There are also a number of
instructional approaches which have been recently developed and which have their
foundations on the ideals of mastery learning. These include differentiated instruction
and understanding by design. It is to these four approaches that I now turn.
Learning for Mastery
The discussion so far has been based on the Learning for Mastery (LFM) approach
as proposed by Benjamin Bloom. From the foregoing, it is evident that Bloom’s
LFM is based on a number of tenets: 1. Systematic presentation of subject matter;
2. Provision of assistance and help to remedy learning difficulties; 3. Provision of
adequate time for learning mastery; and 4. Setting a clear standard of what constitutes
mastery. LFM is affected by the time available for student learning—this will vary
from one student to the other based on how much help is provided, how the teaching
is carried out, the aptitude of the learner, and learner’s verbal skills.
The Keller Plan or Personalised System of Instruction (PSI)
Under the plan: (i) learners are allowed to proceed at their own pace; (ii) learners
only proceed to the next unit upon mastery of current unit; (iii) there is appropriate
use of demonstrations and lectures to promote motivation; and (iv) use is made
of examination supervisors (proctors) for the efficient administration of tests and
tutoring (Keller, 1967, 1968).
The rationale for the use of PSI is that students vary physically as well as cogni-
tively. Indeed, no two students will learn at the same rate. Unfortunately, the tradi-
tional mode of instruction appears to assume the contrary. PSI is an effort to address
individual differences. The idea is encapsulated in this statement by Gerald Einem
(Sund and Trowbridge, 1973):
Until you break up a grade, you don’t realise how futile it is to be teaching a group of kids
the same material merely because they are the same age. Slow and fast learners live in a
separate world. Even the teacher doesn’t know how different they are until he teaches them
separately. We haven’t begun to realise how imaginative the fast student can be – how much
challenge he needs to keep him interested – and how much specialised help the slow student
needs to keep him from closing his mind and quitting. I am constantly surprised in both
directions. (p. 369)
In implementing PSI, students are not held back by class average and so can advance
to the next topic or unit. At the same time, slow learners have the opportunity to seek
to attain higher achievement levels without hindrances. Both fast and slow learners
become intrinsically motivated. Learners, therefore, proceed at their own pace and
participate actively in the learning process. PSI reduces students’ anxiety as they
become increasingly dependent on themselves.
Differentiated Instruction
Tomlinson (2000) maintains that differentiated instruction involves tailoring instruc-

tion to meet the individual needs of learners and that four classroom elements can
be differentiated by the teacher on the basis of learning profile, interest, or readiness
of the learner: 1. Content—this consists of what the learner needs to study as well
as how the learner has access to information; 2. Process—activities lined up for the
learner in order to master the content; 3. Products—projects that enable the learner to
apply what has been learnt; and 4. Learning environment—this describes the nature
of the classroom such as how it works and feels.
Understanding by Design
Understanding by design provides a guide to curriculum, assessment as well as

instruction by focusing on teaching and assessing for understanding and learning
by transfer; and thereafter designing the curriculum ‘backward’ from those ends
(Mctighe & Wiggins, 2012). There are seven important tenets in this approach
according to them:
1. Learning is facilitated when teachers place a high premium on the planning of
the curriculum.
2. Effective use of content knowledge and skill is crucial.
3. Understanding is believed to have occurred if learners autonomously make sense
of their learning demonstrably by being able to, for example, explain, interpret,
apply, change their perspective, or make a self-assessment.
4. Effective curriculum is planned backward based on long-term goals following
a three-stage design process—desired results, evidence, and learning plan—and
by so doing, the issue of treating the textbook as the curriculum rather than a
teaching and learning resource is avoided.
5. Teachers serve as coaches of understanding instead of being just suppliers of
content knowledge, or skill.
6. The quality and effectiveness of the curriculum are enhanced by regularly
reviewing units and curriculum based on design standards.
7. The performance of learners provides information that is required to effect
adjustments in the curriculum and thus assure that learning is maximised.
158 B. Akpan
In their words:
We examine our goals, examine established content standards (national, state, province, and
district), and review curriculum expectations. Because there is typically more content than
can reasonably be addressed within the available time, teachers are obliged to make choices
…Learning priorities are established by long-term performance goals – what it is we want
students, in the end, to be able to do with what they have learned. The bottom-line goal of
education is transfer. The point of school is not to simply excel in each class, but to be able
to use one’s learning in other settings. (p. 2)
Application in Science Education
Research studies indicate the effectiveness of mastery learning approach in various

science courses such as quantitative chemistry (Mitee & Obaitan, 2015); integrated
science (Agboghorom, 2014); geometry (Sood, 2013); and physics (Achufusi &
Mgbemena, 2012; Wambugu & Changeiywo, 2008). Consequently, mastery learning
has received some attention in the area of science teaching and learning.
In applying mastery learning in science education, it is recommended that the
learning activities be broken into small units with clear objectives and assessment
procedure (Ozden, 2008); learning materials as well as instructional strategies includ-
ing formative evaluation are identified; each unit begins with diagnostic tests; and the
outcomes of the diagnostic tests be used to provide both correctives and enrichment
for learners as the case may be.
The following are tips in applying the mastery learning in science classes (Akpan,
1989): 1. Students should be encouraged to have an extra credit file where they place
reports of the activities in which they have taken part such as activities done at
home, educational visits to various places, as well as information from the media;
2. Assignments in classes can be individualised such that students work at their
own rates and submit what they have been able to accomplish at the end of the
lesson; 3. Students who make above-average performance should be recognised in a
special way; 4. Use should be made of many resources including textbooks to cater
to the diverse capabilities in the class; 5. Special activities should be provided for the
academically precocious students such as having some students in the higher classes
go to the lower forms to explain some scientific phenomena; and 6. Parents should
be persuaded to make trips, along with their children, that have value for science
education.
It is noteworthy that the quality and competencies of teachers have an impact on
the implementation of mastery learning in science education. The temperaments of
teachers, their beliefs about human nature, as well as their views on the goals of
science education go a long way in determining what strategies they use in teaching.
For example, authoritarian teachers are likely to expect prompt compliance with
instructions. Behaviours of teachers that encourage reliance on authority figures are
at variance with the tenets of mastery learning. According to Wing Institute (n.d.),
there is at present a large knowledge base that reveals that in schools, teachers’ role
in teaching and learning is critical as research has shown that the interaction between
teachers and students as well as how instruction is carried out determine how effective
schools can be. In the opinion of the Institute:
Competencies are skills and knowledge that enable a teacher to be successful. To maximise
student learning, teachers must have expertise in a wide-ranging array of competencies …few
jobs demand the integration of professional judgment and the proficient use of evidence-
based competencies as does teaching…The transformational power of an effective teacher
is something many of us have experienced…Research confirms this common perception of
a link and reveals that of all the factors under the control of a school, teachers are (sic) the
most powerful influence on student success. (p. 2)
Among the various competencies that teachers possess, the Institute lists four as yield-
ing the greatest results: instructional delivery, classroom management, formative
assessment, and personal competencies.
Indeed, over the last five decades, mastery learning has received great attention
in science education (Akpan, 2015; Hussain & Suleman, 2016). Several studies as
indicated earlier consistently provide support for the use of mastery learning in
science teaching and learning. There are therefore some advantages to this method.
Some of these are that students acquire mastery of a unit before advancing to the
next unit, the teacher is better prepared for each lesson as task analysis is required,
and mastery learning typically breaks the cycle of failure thus promoting affective
outcomes such that more learners develop positive interests and attitudes towards
science learning. This should be of very great importance for the future of science
and science education (Akpan, 2017a, 2017b).
Even so, a critical aspect of mastery learning is the amount of time required to
attain mastery of a given learning task. So, mastery of tasks is achieved at a great cost
of time. Secondly, as not all students progress at the same time and rate, the learning
process may witness a lot of interruptions. Other disadvantages are in the area of
availability of a wide variety of instructional materials required for implementation
and, the burden of implementing formative evaluation at some intervals that is placed
on teachers.
Summary
• Mastery learning relies on the principle enunciated by Benjamin Bloom to the

effect that in spite of individual differences among learners, when teachers provide
sufficient time, encouragement, and help to them, most learners will attain mastery
of a given learning task.
• In practice, mastery learning uses a system of feedback, correctives, and
enrichment to facilitate success.
• Formative assessment is a crucial aspect of mastery learning.
• Four approaches to mastery learning have been highlighted—Learning for
Mastery, the Keller Plan, Differentiated Instruction, and Understanding by Design.
160 B. Akpan
• Mastery learning, especially in science education, has received great attention

over the past five decades.
• The approach has numerous advantages but like any other teaching method, it
also has some disadvantages.
Further Reading
Davis, D., & Sorrel, J. (1995). Mastery learning in public schools. Educational Psychology Inter-
active. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved September 11, 2017, http://www.
edpsycinteractive.org/files/mastlear.html.
Education Endowment Foundation (2017). Mastery learning. Retrieved September 5, 2017,
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/generate/?u=https://educationendowment
foundation.org.uk/pdf/toolkit/?id=156&t=Teaching%20and%20Learning%20Toolkit&e=
156&s=.
Edutech Wiki. (2007). Mastery learning. Retrieved September 5, 2017, http://edutechwiki.unige.
ch/en/Mastery_learning.
Gagne, R. M. (1988). Chapter 4: Mastery learning and instructional design (pp. 107–124). Florida:
The Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University. Retrieved March 4, 2018, http://
iceskatingresources.org/chapter_4.pdf.
Martinez, J. G. R., & Martinez, N. C. (1999). Teacher effectiveness and learning
for mastery. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 279–285. Retrieved March
3, 2018, https://faculty.weber.edu/kristinhadley/med6000/Teacher%20Effectiveness%20and%
20Learning%20for%20Mastery.pdf.
Renard, L. (2017). What is mastery learning? A different approach to learning. Retrieved Septem-
ber 5, 2017, https://www.bookwidgets.com/blog/2017/03/what-is-mastery-learning-a-different-
approach-to-learning.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven
(Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
References
Achufusi, N. N., & Mgbemena, C. O. (2012). The effect of using mastery learning approach on
academic achievement of senior secondary school II physics students. Elixir Educational Tech-
nology, 51, 10735–10737. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from http://www.elixirpublishers.com/
articles/1351501686_51%20(2012)%2010735-10737.pdf.
Agboghorom, T. E. (2014). Mastery learning approach on secondary students’ integrated science
achievement. British Journal of Education, 2(7), 80–88.
Akpan, B. (2017a). Science education in a future world. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science education: A
global perspective (pp. 331–346). Gewerbestrasse: Springer.
Akpan, B. (2017b). Science education for sustainable development. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan
(Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 493–504). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Akpan, B. B. (2015). The place of science education in Nigeria for global competitiveness. Journal
of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 50(1), 1–39.
Akpan, B. B. (1989). Teaching science in primary schools: A pragmatic approach. Calabar, Nigeria:
Institute of Education, University of Calabar.
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA—CSIEP), 1(2), 1–12.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Individual differences in school achievement: A vanishing point?. Blooming-
ton, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan International.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “learning for
mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 8–31. Retrieved September 5, 2017, http://tguskey.
com/wp-content/uploads/Mastery-Learning-5-Revisiting-Blooms-Learning-for-Mastery.pdf.
Guskey, T. R. (2010). Lessons of mastery learning. Retrieved September 5, 2017, http://www.ascd.
org/publications/educational-leadership/oct10/vol68/num02/Lessons-of-Mastery-Learning.
aspx.
Hussain, I., & Suleman, Q. (2016). Effect of Bloom’s mastery learning approach on students’
academic achievement in English at secondary school level. Journal of Literature, Languages
and Linguistics, 23, 35–43. Retrieved September 3, 2017, http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/
JLLL/article/viewFile/31278/32116.
Keller, F. S. (1967). Engineering personalized instruction in the classroom. Interamerican Journal of
Psychology, 1, 189–197. Retrieved September 11, 2017, file:///C:/Users/SONY/Downloads/445-
1102-1-SM.pdf.
Keller, F. S. (1968). “good-bye, teacher…”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.
Retrieved September 11, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310979/pdf/
jaba00083-0078.pdf.
Mctighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by design framework. Alexandria, VA, USA:
ASCD. Retrieved March 11, 2018, https://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/
UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf.
Mitee, T. L., & Obaitan, G. N. (2015). Effect of mastery learning on senior secondary school
students’ cognitive learning outcome in quantitative chemistry. Journal of Education and Practice,
6(5), 34–38.
Ozden, M. (2008). Improving science and technology education achievement using mastery learning
model. World Applied Sciences Journal, 5(1), 62–67.
Rossett, A., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Beyond the podium: Delivery training and performance to a
digital world. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass/Pfeiffer.
Sumida, M. (2017). Science education for gifted learners. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science
education: An international course companion (pp. 479–491). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sood, V. (2013). Effect of mastery learning strategies on concept attainment in geometry among
high school students. International Journal of Behavioural Social and Movement Sciences, 2(2),
144–155.
Sund, R. B., & Trowbridge, L. W. (1973). Teaching science by inquiry in the secondary school (2nd
ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
The Wing Institute. (n.d.). Teacher competencies that have the greatest impact on student achieve-
ment. Retrieved March 3, 2018, https://www.winginstitute.org/quality-teachers-compentencies.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Excerpts. Retrieved March
11, 2018, http://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction.
Wambugu, P. W., & Changeiywo, J. M. (2008). Effects of mastery learning approach on secondary
school students’ physics achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology
Education, 4(30), 293–302.
Ben Akpan a professor of science education is the Executive Director of the Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria (STAN). He served as President of the International Council of Associa-
tions for Science Education (ICASE) for 2011–2013 and currently serves on the Executive Com-
mittee of ICASE as the Chair of World Conferences Standing Committee. Ben’s areas of interest
include chemistry, science education, environmental education, and support for science teacher
associations. He is the editor of Science Education: A Global Perspective published by Springer
162 B. Akpan
and co-editor (with Keith S. Taber) of Science Education: An International Course Companion
published by Sense Publishers. Ben is a member of the Editorial Boards of the Australian Journal
of Science and Technology (AJST), Journal of Contemporary Educational Research (JCER), and
Action Research and Innovation in Science Education (ARISE) Journal.
Chapter 12
Meaningful Learning—David P. Ausubel
Steven S. Sexton
Introduction
Sharon Feiman-Nemser stated, ‘there is nothing as practical as a good theory’ (per-

sonal communication, 19 May 2016). She noted this in her New Zealand workshop
on teacher mentoring and induction. While she made this statement in relation to
educative mentoring, it is applicable to David Ausubel’s very practical theory of
meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968). Specifically, I will demonstrate how The New
Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (Ministry of Education, 2007) provides students with
education through science that is relevant, useful, and meaningful. First, I will pro-
vide a brief summary of Ausubel’s (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View
which outlines his theory of Meaningful Learning. Second, this is then followed by
the New Zealand context and its national curriculum document for school-aged stu-
dents in English-medium schools. Third, how New Zealand’s identified effective
pedagogies reflect Ausubel’s theory of Meaningful Learning to include how a unit of
work was designed, developed, implemented, and used to provide a demonstration
to both a school’s teachers and students how education through science is relevant,
useful, and meaningful. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of the main
ideas.
S. S. Sexton (B)
University of Otago, College of Education, Dunedin, New Zealand

164 S. S. Sexton
Theory of Meaningful Learning
The following is a short summary of David Ausubel’s (1968) book Educational Psy-
chology: A Cognitive View. Ausubel was a cognitive learning theorist who focused
on the learning of school subjects. He recognised the importance of what the stu-
dent already knows as being the primary factor in what the student will learn next.
For Ausubel, students seek to make sense of new material by connecting this new
knowledge with what they already know. Meaning happens when new information
is taken into a person’s existing cognitive structure, which is the sum of all the
knowledge acquired, as well as the organisation of the facts, concepts, and principles
that make up that knowledge (see pp. 127–133). Ausubel explicitly distinguished
between meaningful and rote learning.
Meaningful learning occurs when what students are learning relates to their pre-
existing knowledge and they are able to be connected the new knowledge to this
pre-existing knowledge. Rote learning, however, has no relationship to pre-existing
knowledge, and therefore, quickly fades from memory. As a result, teachers must
know what their students already know about the topic so that they are able to build
upon this prior knowledge. Ausubel highlighted that while teachers can do everything
possible, students may still not find the learning meaningful. Consequently, there is
only the potential for meaningful learning. Ausubel argued that meaning does not
happen until the students are able to incorporate the new knowledge into their cogni-
tive structures. Subsumption is the process by which new material is brought into a
student’s existing cognitive structure. This new material is systematically compared
(Ausubel referred to this as integrated reconciliation) and contrasted (or what Ausubel
called progressive differentiation) with prior knowledge. More specifically, progres-
sive differentiation is the process by which the teacher introduces new material at
its highest appropriate level of abstraction. Then the teacher provides opportunities
to progressively get more specific as the students contrast it with the pre-existing
material in their cognitive structures. The opposing process called integrative rec-
onciliation points out the similarities or comparisons. Through subsumption new
knowledge takes on meaning and becomes anchored within the students’ cognitive
structures.
In meaningful learning, anchoring is the process by which the new information
fits into the student’s cognitive structure. This is done by comparing and contrasting
it with the information that already exists. Through anchoring the student forms new
relationships between the new and existing information. Learning happens when the
students are able to recognise the relationships between this new knowledge and their
pre-existing knowledge. Advanced organisers were the principle strategy advocated
by Ausubel for teachers to support students’ learning. The advance organiser activates
that part of the student’s cognitive structure under which the new information should
fit. In particular, ‘the principal function of the organizer is to bridge the gap between
what the learner already knows and what he needs to know before he can successfully
learn the tasks at hand’ (Ausubel, 1968, p. 148, italics in original). Just as advanced
organisers set the stage for the content, practice provides the opportunities for the
12 Meaningful Learning—David P. Ausubel 165
students to subsume the new information into their cognitive structure. Practice is
important because it compares and contrasts the new information with pre-existing
material already in the students’ cognitive structures, thereby sufficiently anchoring
the new material so it does not disappear.
The New Zealand Curriculum
NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007) is the official policy for all English-medium
schools in New Zealand. As a result, this document provides the teaching and learning
guidelines for approximately 95% of all children between the ages of 5 and 19
(Education Counts, 2016). While this document was required to be fully implemented
in 2010, it was estimated that less than half of New Zealand’s teachers were prepared
for this curriculum change (Hipkins & Hodgen, 2012).
By 2010, many teachers found themselves having to implement a curricu-
lum explicitly foregrounding effective pedagogies. Previously, teachers worked to
develop essential skills and attitudes in students through a set of predetermined learn-
ing experiences in each learning area. Now teachers focus on content material that
is seen as relevant, useful, and meaningful to their students (Sexton, 2017). Specifi-
cally for science, one of the reasons for teachers reporting a lack of readiness is the
curriculum’s emphasis on the Nature of Science and its four elements:
• Understanding about science—this requires primary students being able to ask
questions about the science they are doing and accepting there may be more than
one answer. Then in secondary school, students learn to collect evidence that is
then interpreted through logical arguments.
• Investigating in science—means that primary students are expanding their world
through activities, play, questions and/or simple models. Then secondary students
work with increasingly more complex investigations and learn to evaluate the
methods chosen.
• Communication in science—primary students are able to use the terminology
and vocabulary appropriately as they discuss the science they are doing. Then
secondary students use a wider range of vocabulary, symbols, and conventions to
evaluate both popular and scientific texts.
• Participating and Contributing—first, primary students are able to relate the sci-
ence they are doing to their world; and then, they are able to make decisions
that impact their world based on this science. Secondary students gather relevant
scientific information to draw evidence-based conclusions for appropriate actions
(Ministry of Education, 2007).
Previously, teachers focused lessons on the individual content strands of the Living
World (Biology), the Material World (Chemistry), the Physical World (Physics), or
Planet Earth and Beyond (see, for example, Ministry of Education, 1993). Teachers
should now be focussing their students’ learning through the four elements of Nature
of Science using whatever science content that is appropriate.
166 S. S. Sexton
Meaningful Learning in the New Zealand Curriculum
Naku te rourou, nau te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi

(With my basket and with your basket, the people will live)
In New Zealand, a whakataukı̄, or Māori proverb, is a saying that is often shared

at the beginning of a lesson or event to help foreshadow the context. The above
whakataukı̄ refers to the cooperation and combination of individual resources for the
mutual benefit of all. In the context of this chapter, it means teachers, schools, and
students working together for relevant, useful, and meaningful learning.
NZC is the culmination of over a century of reforms (Bell & Baker, 1997;
Philips, 2000). While it is a political statement, it builds on both international and
New Zealand research (Alton-lee, 2003; Nuthall, 2007). Specifically, I argue the
NZC’s seven effective pedagogies (see pp. 34–35) directly correspond to aspects of
Ausubel’s theory of Meaningful Learning, see Table 12.1.
Ausubel saw learning as an active, not a passive experience, which he more thor-
oughly addressed in his 2000 revision of his 1963 monograph (Ausubel, 2000).
Ausubel saw active learning requiring, at least, the following process; first, the cog-
nitive analysis by the students to determine where the new material presented was
relevant to their pre-existing knowledge. Then understanding the usefulness of the
similarities and differences of the new material with pre-existing knowledge. Finally,
the meaningful inclusion of this new material into pre-existing knowledge. New
Zealand’s curriculum has a similar focus on active learning. Specifically, the Min-
istry of Education directs schools to design and implement a curriculum grounded
in relevant, useful, and meaningful learning.
NZC has eight principles that are the foundations of decision-making by both the
school and its teachers: High expectations, Treaty of Waitangi, Cultural diversity,
Inclusion, Learning to learn, Community engagement, Coherence, and Future focus.
Table 12.1 The New Zealand Curriculum‘s effective pedagogies as meaningful learning
Ausubel’s meaningful learning NZC’s effective pedagogies
Connect new material to prior knowledge Making connections to prior learning and
experience, Teaching as Inquiry
Meaningful learning not Rote learning Enhancing the relevance of new learning, Teaching
as Inquiry
Progressive differentiation Encouraging reflective thought and
Integrated reconciliation action—students assimilate new learning, relate it
to what they already know, adapt it for their own
Anchoring purposes and translate thought into action,
Teaching as Inquiry
Practice Providing sufficient opportunities to learn,
Creating a supportive learning environment,
Facilitating shared learning, Teaching as Inquiry
All planning, prioritising, and review of the school’s curriculum should be under-
pinned by these principles as they embody what is important and unique about New
Zealand identity. New Zealand is a trilingual, bicultural country in which English,
Te Reo Māori (indigenous language of the Māori people), and New Zealand Sign
Language are recognised as official languages of New Zealand. The 1840 Treaty of
Waitangi is New Zealand’s foundational document which officially acknowledges
both Māori and the British Crown in terms of Partnership, Participation, and Protec-
tion in the governance of New Zealand. Of these eight principles, I argue the school
and its management team should be taking the lead in seven of them. High expec-
tations should be the focus of the classroom teacher as teachers work to empower,
‘all students to learn and achieve personal excellence, regardless of their individual
circumstances’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 9). While the eight principles guide
the decision-making process in regards to what content is in the school’s curriculum,
the seven pedagogies reflect how this content is taught. NZC’s effective pedagogies
(see Table 12.1) are the Ministry of Education’s selection of those evidence-based
approaches that have a positive impact on a student’s ability to learn, achieve, and
support the unique characteristics of New Zealand.
Making Connections to Prior Learning and Experience
New Zealand recognises that students learn best when they are able to integrate what
they are learning to what they already know. Specifically, Graham Nuthall (2007)
reported students learn what they do. Nuthall, like Ausubel, knew learning was an
active process. Nuthall made his statement after compiling nearly 40 years of research
into classroom practice. However, the New Zealand context also includes traditional
Māori pedagogies (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Hemara, 2000). For New Zealand, kia
piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kainga (the learning process in school must also reflect
their home life) is important. This means that part of the connections to be made
include meaningful whānau (family) inclusion in their children’s learning.
New Zealand teachers, therefore, must build upon what their students’ already
know and have experienced to support their ability to integrate new learning across
learning areas, with prior knowledge, home practices, and the wider world.
Enhancing the Relevance of New Learning
Ausubel (2000) argued that meaningful learning depended on two factors: the first
was the nature of the material to be learned and second the nature of the learner’s
cognitive structure. He went on to argue that material was only potentially mean-
ingful. Meaningful learning results in this new knowledge modifying both the new
168 S. S. Sexton
material being acquired and the person’s cognitive structure to which the new mate-
rial is being connected. He acknowledged that in most instances the new knowledge
was linking to a specific concept or proposition.
NZC positions effective teachers as those who know how to stimulate the curiosity
of their students. They also know that students learn best when they know what they
are learning, why they are learning this, and how this new material is relevant to their
life. More importantly, effective teachers know how to challenge what their students’
think they know about their world and their participation in their world (Bishop &
Glynn, 1999; Sexton, 2017).
Encouraging Reflective Thought and Action
NZC encourages teachers to promote critical reflexivity in both themselves and their
students. Teachers become quite adept at reflection in-action (those on the spot teach-
ing decisions based on student engagement) and reflection on-action (taking time
after teaching to evaluate what went well, what could have been done differently,
and where to next in teaching). Teachers need to learn to be critical reflexive where
they build upon reflection in-action and reflection on-action leading to reflection for-
action (Sexton & Williamson-Leadley, 2017; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Teachers
need to consider not only their own assumptions, beliefs, values, and opinions on the
content and context of learning but also their students’ assumptions, beliefs, values,
and opinions. As teachers learn to develop their own critical reflexivity, their students
are more able to engage in the effort necessary to get actively involved in their own
learning.
Ausubel (2000) argued students learn to look at the material from different angles,
reconcile it, and translate it into their own frame of reference. In the New Zealand
context, this becomes teachers encouraging students’ tino rangatiratanga (autonomy
and self-determination). Students learn most effectively when they develop the ability
to stand back from the content and think about their own thinking.
Providing Sufficient Opportunities to Learn, Creating

a Supportive Learning Environment, Facilitating Shared
Learning
Ausubel devoted an entire chapter to practice (see Chap. 8, Ausubel, 1968) as it

affects both learning and retention. He highlighted while practice was not a cognitive
structure variable it was one of the principal factors influencing cognitive structure. In
1968, he noted that most of the knowledge regarding the effects of practice related to
rote and motor learning rather than sequentially organised tasks. NZC acknowledges
that student learns best when, ‘they have time and opportunity to engage with, practice
and transfer new learning’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 34) but just as importantly
learning is inseparable from the social and cultural context in which the learning takes
place (see Chaps. 7, 18, and 19 for more on the social construction of knowledge).
Nuthall (2007) summarised 40 years of classroom research into four statements:
1. Students learn what they do
2. Social relationships determine learning
3. Effective activities are built around big questions
4. Effective activities are managed by the students themselves
Learning is an active process; therefore, what students do themselves. As such, it
requires students to have multiple opportunities to engage with new learning and
various contexts. These contexts are situated in both social and cultural contexts.
Students must feel safe in not only the learning environment but also their wider
surroundings. Ako (reciprocal teaching and learning relationship) positions the class
as a community of learners. In ako, both teachers and students are learners in a
classroom environment that fosters positive relationships.
Teaching as Inquiry
In 1975, Lortie published his seminal work Schoolteacher: A sociological study in

which he highlighted the concept of ‘the apprenticeship of observation’ in which
students spend thousands of hours observing classroom teachers. In New Zealand,
education is compulsory from the age of six until at least sixteen. Students experience
at least ten years of the schooling system to include teachers and teaching. As such,
they come into my initial teacher education Master’s degree level programme with
high self-efficacy and conceptions of what they believe is a teacher and teaching
(Sexton, 2015). There are mixed reactions to them being told that I cannot tell them
how to be a teacher. I tell them that all I can do is expose them to ideas and pedagogies
that they then have to put into practice to determine what works for them. Some are
relieved, as they believe they already know how they want to teach and some are upset
that they are not going to be given a step-by-step guide to being a teacher. No matter
what stance they start the programme with; they all learn the importance of teaching
as inquiry. For many this learning to question their own teaching and learning to
understand how their teaching influences students’ learning comes through formative
and often troubling classroom experiences demonstrating that teaching and learning
are not coextensive.
Ausubel (1968) highlighted that teaching is only one of the conditions influencing
learning. He then argued that while teaching and learning can be analysed indepen-
dently, ‘what would be the practical advantage of doing so’ (Ausubel, 1968, p. 12). In
the New Zealand context, this co-joint evaluation of teaching and learning is teach-
ing as inquiry. The curriculum positions three questions teachers ask of their own
teaching practice:
170 S. S. Sexton
1. What is important given where my students are at?—focusing inquiry

2. What strategies are most likely to help my students learn this?—teaching inquiry
3. What happened as a result of the teaching and what are the implications for future
teaching?—learning inquiry (see Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 35).
Most importantly for teachers is that they learn to ask themselves these questions
moment by moment as the teaching takes place to be critically reflexive in how
their teaching and the established classroom environment is impacting on students’
learning. These three guiding questions form the basis of teaching as inquiry. In the
context of education through science (or arguably any subject area), these are further
broken down to facilitate meaningful learning.
Education Through Science that Is Meaningful Learning
Meaningful, useful, and relevant learning starts with teachers understanding what
their students already know (Ausubel, 1968; Ministry of Education, 2007). The fol-
lowing is the thought process that went into planning a unit of Science around the
topic of Weather as an example of how NZC reflects Ausubel’s meaningful learning
theory. This unit was then delivered to a classroom of Year 4 students (students aged
9) as an example of education through science that is meaningful, useful, and relevant
to both students and the teachers observing.
Teaching as Inquiry - Focusing Inquiry
For initial planning, focus inquiry requires teachers to start questioning their practice
with what they intend to do, develop, strengthen, and why this is their intent. As
stated, this chapter reports on a collaborative study with a school and its teachers.
Through initial discussions with the teachers, it was determined that a unit on the
weather would allow the students to integrate their oral and written language (English
and te reo Māori) and the measurement strand of mathematics with science. Teacher
confidence and student engagement in science as barriers to learning were the priority
identified by the school. Therefore, the express intent was to provide the students (and
demonstrate to the teachers) with meaningful opportunities to engage in discussions
about their world by making connections with what they already know and the new
content.
In the NZC, the topic of weather falls under the content strand of Planet Earth
and Beyond. However, this is only the context for which the Nature of Science is
explored. In the ‘Weather’ unit there were three science concepts to facilitate students’
expanding their understanding of the world around them:
1. Daily weather patterns and changes may be associated with rain, clouds, thunder
and lightning, and wind
2. Weather features that we can observe, feel, or hear include rain, clouds, thunder
and lightning, and wind
3. We can use our understanding of weather types and weather patterns and
demonstrate this through activities in the classroom.
Teaching as Inquiry—Teaching Inquiry
With initial planning determined, teaching inquiry involves ensuring the unit plan
has what is necessary for achieving what is intended to include strategies that are
effective for this content. As this unit was an example of integrated learning, the
students completed daily weather journals in groups. As the unit progressed, the
journals would provide evidence of students’ deepening understanding of not only
the topic of weather but also integrating measurement strand of mathematics through
rain fall, temperature (minimum, maximum, range), hours of sunshine (sunrise to
sunset). Science requires students to be able to communicate the science they are
doing and this requires using the correct terminology. As this unit is group work, it
reduces the cognitive workload on each individual while allowing students to express
amongst themselves how they are making sense of the content. These daily journals
became exercises in progressive differentiation and integrated reconciliation.
Teaching as Inquiry—Learning Inquiry
Learning inquiry necessitates putting into action the planned unit of study. More
importantly, it needs the teacher to monitor student activity, collect evidence of
how students are making sense of the material, annotate their unit for what went
well, and what needs to happen next. The focus of learning inquiry is on both the
students’ learning and the teacher’s teaching. How are the students progressing to the
intended learning outcomes? What does their progression tell me about the learning
journey? What am I learning about my teaching from their progression? Do I need
to change my teaching or strategies to be more effective? What are the next steps I
need to take—more research on the topic? different activities? alternative resources?
Learning inquiry compels the teacher to reflect for future teaching action by analysing
all the data they have collected from both their students and about themselves as
teacher.
172 S. S. Sexton
Weather Unit—Teaching as Inquiry in Practice
Throughout this unit, oral communication and questioning provided insights into
what the students were thinking and what successes they were having within the
learning experiences. In addition, teacher professional development occurred after
each teaching activity to explore what the students experienced, how they experi-
enced the learning, and what would be the appropriate next learning activities. In
this unit, each new learning topic (rain, clouds, thunder and lightning, and wind)
modelling how to begin with exploring what the students already knew to facilitate
challenging what they think they know. Each activity positioned questioning, i.e.
Nature of Science’s Understanding about science, as a key component of the learn-
ing to both help students understand what they are learning and what they could
investigate next. Specifically, students learned to ask, ‘what would happen if …?’
and then what they would need to do to address this question, i.e. Nature of Science’s
Investigating in science.
The NZC encourages students to ask questions about the science they are explor-
ing, investigating, or doing. It is these questions that highlight how the students are
beginning to make sense of the science they are doing and if at all possible should
lead to students into more investigating. This requires teachers to be more flexible
and adaptable in their teaching so that they are able to respond to students’ questions.
In this Weather unit, the questions asked by the students in each activity helped to
determine what activities the students would investigate next. As students worked in
groups, they learned to ask questions, which required them to change variables and
discuss scientific models with the activities. These meaningful activities provided the
practice necessary to increase the ‘stability and clarity, and hence the dissociability
strength of the emergent new meaning in cognitive structure’ (Ausubel, 1968, p. 274).
As this unit was integrated into other subject areas of the NZC, it was supported by
the anchoring ideas (Ausubel, 2000) from language and measurement related to the
learning tasks.
Twenty years in the classroom working with students aged three to senior adults
has taught me that I cannot see what is going on in their heads; however, if meaningful,
useful, and relevant learning opportunities are presented I can hear how they are
making sense of the content as they discuss what they are doing. In the ‘Weather’
unit oral conferences and group conversations about the activities they are doing
provided insight into how these students were making sense of the targeted content.
Using the correct and age-appropriate terminology is an important aspect of science
and a formative assessment technique for how the students are understanding what
they are doing, i.e. communicating in science. Students need to know how to use the
terminology which means they need time to share with others and opportunities to
practice using the terminology in meaningful contexts. These meaningful contexts
provide students the opportunities to experience what I would argue as the most
important aspect of the Nature of Science—Participating and Contributing.
Participating and Contributing requires the teacher to ensure that the learning
experiences allow students the opportunities to understand how the science they are
doing relates (i.e. contributes) to their understanding of their world so that they can
then make informed decisions based on this understanding (i.e. participate in their
world). The ‘Weather’ unit’s journals were more than rote learning exercises. As the
students progressed through the unit, the content experienced allowed them a deeper
understanding of what they were doing which reflected in the content of the daily
journals. What started as simple fill in the blank for weather facts became detailed
explanations of not only what the weather was but also the impact of this weather.
More importantly, these journals became evidence of how the students had gained
an understanding of the interactions that take place between different parts of their
world and the ways in which these interactions can be represented.
Final Thoughts
Much of Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning theory is in mainstream educational psy-

chology; even though he does not receive the credit, he should. Ausubel should be
recognised for creating advanced organisers. He emphasised starting with what is
now commonly referred to as the ‘big picture’ and then teaching to fill in the details.
Ausubel argued that the most important thing influencing students’ learning is what
they already know, that is, the teacher knowing what the content of the student’s
cognitive structure is. Today many educators from around the world try to match
instruction to the student’s pre-existing knowledge so that it will be meaningful. For
example in the United States, the vision for science education acknowledges that
‘conceptual understanding built upon student’s prior experiences is central to the
new vision for science education’ (Moulding, Bybee, & Paulson, 2015, p. 4).
Teachers need to engage their students. As a result in many countries science as a
form of inquiry is at the core of their science curriculum. For example, in Singapore
science teachers now work to ensure that their students learn through questioning,
exploring, and evaluating (Tan, 2018). Teachers need to provide opportunities to
help students make the connections between the new content introduced and what
they already know so that they can make sense of it. Teachers are able to do this by,
‘encouraging students to recognise and challenge the assumptions underlying new
propositions, to distinguish between facts and hypotheses, and between warranted
and unwarranted inferences’ (Ausubel, 2000, p. 53).
Summary
• Students learn best when their teachers know what their students already know
and then teach accordingly.
• Students learn best what they actually do (and often have to do the activities
several times) to make sense of the new content.
174 S. S. Sexton
• Students learn best when their learning provides them the opportunities to practice
relevant, useful, and meaningful activities that challenge what they think they
know.
References
Alton-lee, A. (2003). Qualtiy teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston Inc.
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dondrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
Bell, B., & Baker, R. (1997). Curriculum development in science: policy-to-practice and practice-
to-policy. In B. Bell & R. Baker (Eds.), Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New
Zealand (pp. 1–17). Auckland, New Zealand: Longman.
Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston
North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Education Counts. (2016). Number of schools. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.
nz/statistics/schooling/number-of-schools.
Hemara, W. (2000). Maori pedagogies: A view from the literature. Wellington, New Zealand: New
Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Hipkins, R., & Hodgen, E. (2012). Curriculum support in science: Patterns in teachers’ use of
resources. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand:
Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning
Media.
Moulding, B. D., Bybee, R. W., & Paulson, N. (2015). A vision and plan for science teaching
and learning: An educator’s guide to a framework for K-12 science education, next generation
science standards, and state science standards. United States: Essentuial Teaching and Learning
Publications.
Nuthall, G. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council
for Educational Research.
Philips, D. (2000). Curriculum and assessment policy in New Zealand: Ten years of reforms.
Educational Review, 22(2), 143–153.
Sexton, S. S. (2015). Student teacher learning to think, know, feel and act like a teacher: The impact
of a master of teaching and learning programme. Educational Alternatives, 13, 72–85.
Sexton, S. S. (2017). In The New Zealand curriculum is it science education or education through
science? One educator’s argument. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science education: A global perspective
(pp. 219-234). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Sexton, S. S., & Williamson-Leadley, S. (2017). Promoting reflexive thinking and adaptive expertise
through video capturing to challenge postgraduate primary student teachers to think, know, feel
and act like a teacher. Science Education International, 28(2), 172–179.
Tan, A.-L. (2018). Journey of science teacher education in Singapore: past, present and future.
Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-017-0018-8.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice,
13(2), 311–325.
Steven S. Sexton is a senior lecturer at the University of Otago, College of Education. He obtained
his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney in 2007. He has been a classroom teacher in Japan, Thai-
land, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, he delivers science education papers in
both the undergraduate initial teacher education primary programme and the Master of Teaching
and Learning programme. His research interest areas are relevant, useful, and meaningful learning
in science education, teacher cognition, and heteronormativity in schools.
Chapter 13
Discovery Learning—Jerome Bruner
Yasemin Ozdem-Yilmaz and Kader Bilican
Introduction
Jerome S. Bruner (1915–2016) was a psychologist who has been influential in edu-
cation mainly by his work in 1963, entitled “The process of education”, and long
before that with his work on psychology. This chapter will focus on his educational
ideas as a foundation of cognitive constructionism and their impact on educational
practice. The chapter is about the cognitive theory of education introduced from the
perspective of Bruner and Discovery Learning as an instructional method in science
courses.
In the chapter, first, Bruner’s early theory of education is described as in his 1960
book The Process of Education. Then, cognitive constructivist theory of education
with implications on science classrooms is described. Next, discovery learning is
emphasized as a cognitive process that shapes the mind of a student in a functional
way to learn culture. An argument for effective discovery learning strategies for
science education is provided and followed by a part in which evidence about the
significance of discovery learning for successful science teaching and learning is
discussed. Mainly, the aim is to provide the theoretical framework that embraces and
adopts discovery learning as a method, which permits students to discover their own
learning in science.
In the last part, we make references to connection between major science curricula
and discovery learning to demonstrate the implications of cognitive theory from
Y. Ozdem-Yilmaz (B)
Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
K. Bilican
Faculty of Education, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey

178 Y. Ozdem-Yilmaz and K. Bilican
Bruner’s perspective in practice. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion on the
critiques to discovery learning and suggestions for both science teachers and science
educators.
Cognitive Constructivism: The Historical and Theoretical

Background
For some philosophers, the roots of cognitive movement can be dated back to the
time of ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato, who first looked at mind
as the source of knowledge. However, cognitive science as an intellectual movement
emerged in the late 1950s. In that period psychological scientists began to crack the
walls of behaviorism. Psychologists such as George Miller, James McClelland, Philip
Johnson-Laird, and Steven Pinker; linguistic scientists, such as Noam Chomsky and
George Lakoff, and computational scientists, such as Marvin Minsky, Alan Turing,
John von Neumann have been influential in the development of interdisciplinary
nature of cognitive science. The movement was in search for the internal processes
in mind that could not be explained only through stimulus and response theory
of behaviorism. Cognitive science is, therefore, described as an interdisciplinary
approach, in which psychology, anthropology, and linguistics come together in the
study of the mind so as to understand the nature of human learning and behavior
(Miller, 2003).
In the study of the mind, learning has been a fundamental question. According to
cognitive theorists, the learning from the cognitive perspective involves the acqui-
sition or reorganization of the cognitive structures in mind (Good & Brophy, 1990,
p. 187). Internal coding and structuring are the mental processes through which the
knowledge is acquired and actively organized into existing or new cognitive struc-
tures. Thus, cognitive scientists are interested more on how learners come to acquire
knowledge and focus on helping the learners make meaning of it, organize, and
connect it to what they already know (Yilmaz, 2011).
Constructivism, on the other side, has been a concern throughout the twentieth
century especially in the fields of development psychology and cognitive psychol-
ogy, and is mainly shaped by Bruner, Kelly, Piaget, von Glaserfeld, and Vygotsky.
Constructivism has also been used as a major concept in educational studies, which
focus on learning and teaching processes. There is an agreement among construc-
tivists on the idea that knowledge is a human construction. Yet, there are different
approaches to the constructs such as knowledge, reality, and learning within construc-
tivism. Therefore, there are different constructivist approaches to learning that can
be grouped as cognitive and developmental approach, social constructive approach
(Chap. 18 in this book), and radical constructivism (Chap. 24 in this book). Among
these, cognitive constructivism has its roots in cognitive learning psychology and in
the works of cognitive learning psychologist, Jean Piaget.
13 Discovery Learning—Jerome Bruner 179
The main argument of cognitive constructivism is that children construct their own
knowledge as they interact with the world around them. Steiner (2014) describes
these interactions that “enable students to create schemas or mental models; the
models are changed, enlarged, and made more complex as children continue to
learn.” (pp. 319–320) The information that the individual possesses to that end,
and the cognitive structures that this information creates are the starting points for
this approach. In other words, the individual realizes new learning by associating it
with existing knowledge. Thus, learning in cognitive constructivism is described as
a mental process in which knowledge is structured internally through experiences,
which are interpreted, analyzed, and synthesized. Based on the work of Piaget, as
provided by Oogarah-Pratap, Bholoa and Ramma in this book (Chap. 10), for the
children to assimilate new information into their existing mental constructs, direct
and repeated experience is suggested. What if the experience does not fit into existing
mental constructs? Then, the existing constructs will be accommodated or modified
to reach cognitive stability or equilibrium (Steiner, 2014).
Jerome Seymour Bruner, beginning from the early 1950s, was an influential psy-
chologist in cognitive and constructivist studies especially after the foundation of
the “Cognition Project” set up at Harvard in 1952. The following is how Jerome S.
Bruner’s ideas about cognitive science evolved through his career.
Jerome Bruner’s Cognitive Constructivism
Jerome Bruner was an important researcher in “Cognitive Revolution” of the late

1950s. He and his colleagues, through a series of research and publications dating
back to the 1940s and early 1950s, revolted against the behaviorist theories. The
Process of Education (1960) by Bruner, translated into many languages, has been
recognized as an effective study of the reorganization of curricula in many countries.
Their movement was “broader and deeper” in terms of how it changed the understand-
ing of knowledge from gathering as the correlation of sensory input and behavioral
output to construction as an active selection and culturally situated meaning-making
of experience (Bruner, 1983, p. 103).
In his early works, Bruner shares the same perspective with Piaget in cognitive
science, but later departs from this perspective (Takaya, 2013). Bruner adopts a dif-
ferent view from the one Piaget asserted about the developmental stages. He believes
that every subject could be taught to every child, provided that it was presented in
an appropriate format whatever the developmental stage the child is in. In his words,
“We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some
intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development” (Bruner, 1960,
p. 33). According to Bruner, there are many versatile and diverse perspectives in real
life, and this phenomenon is acquired at a very early age.
In the developmental sense, children make sense of their experiences in three ways:
using their actions (enactive representation), visual aids (iconic representation), and
language (symbolic representation). Bruner believes that cognitive structures are
mostly formed by the child’s experiences and impressions, and symbolic represen-
tation is very important for cognitive development. Since language is the primary
means of symbolizing the world, Bruner attaches great importance to language in
determining cognitive development (McLeod, 2008).
According to Bruner, the main objective of cognitive development is to provide
individuals with a model of the world and the truth. In his later works, Bruner adds
learning with social and cultural content. Like Vygostky, as described by Taber in this
book (Chap. 19), Bruner emphasized the role of the social environment in the devel-
opment of the child. Through the process called “enculturation”, Bruner suggests, the
individual forms a complex thinking structure that interacts with the environment.
The model of the world is constructed by an individual’s interaction with objects,
people, words, and ideas. The resulting information is stored in memory (Woolfolk,
1993). During their interactions, individuals create an appropriate framework shaped
by the cultural traditions, including how to interpret and accept certain experiences
and meanings. Eventually, this framework influences the subsequent learning.
Educational Implications
For Bruner (1961), the purpose of the education is to facilitate the thinking and
problem-solving skills of a child so that these skills can be transferred to various
situations. In Bruner’s 1960 book, The Process of Education, the main premise was
that the students are active learners of their own knowledge. The student chooses
knowledge, hypothesizes, and makes decisions in order to integrate new experiences
into existing mental structures. In this definition, learning is considered as a cognitive
construct that provides meanings, constructs experiences, and allows the information
to cross the boundaries of information.
Bruner believes that all children have a natural curiosity and desire to become
acculturated in various subjects; but if the subject is very difficult, they will get
bored. Because of this, the lessons in the school should be processed in a way that is
appropriate for the developmental stage of the child. Bruner, like Vygotsky, empha-
sized the social nature of the learner. He stated that adults should help a child develop
skills by means of ‘scaffolding’. Bruner describes scaffolding as “the steps taken to
reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying out some task so that the child can con-
centrate on the difficult skill (which) she is in the process of acquiring” (Bruner,
1978, p. 19). By scaffolding, adult and children interact such that adult assists the
children to achieve their goals. Therefore, in education, the student must discover
the principles of learning in an effective conversation with the teacher during the
teaching process.
Bruner asserts that an instructional theory should have four characteristics: (1)
motivation; stimulating interest and curiosity in learning; (2) structure; a knowledge
structure and level that learners can best assimilate knowledge; (3) organization; find
the best possible ways to present the material; and (4) consolidation; to make the
best use of rewards and punishments for motivation. Besides, according to Bruner,
when students are encouraged to learn new principles on their own, the feeling of
independence, which is the essential result of effective teaching, is developed in the
students. Therefore, the teaching should minimize the feeling of failure. For this,
Bruner suggests the curricula should be organized in a spiral structure that allows
students to build on what they have learned before. This way, information is structured
so that complex ideas can first be taught at a simplified level and then revisited at more
complex levels. In other words, topics should be taught at increasingly difficult levels.
By this way, theoretically, students should be able to solve problems by themselves
at increasingly complex levels.
In short, the principles that shape Bruner’s theory can be summarized like:
• Education should support the experiences that make the student willing and open
to learning.
• Education should be structured in such a way that the student can easily understand
(spiral configuration).
• Education should be designed to facilitate the use of acquired knowledge in
different situations.
In summary, according to Bruner (1960), learning is an active process in which
learner is actively engaging in objects around his world to construct knowledge based
on his previous experiences. Thinking is the major outcome of cognitive development
which results in drawing conclusions from experience. Bruner (1957) explained that
process as “generic coding systems that permit one to go beyond the data to new and
possibly fruitful predictions” (p. 234). Based on that notion, Bruner asserted that to
improve that coding system for better thinking, students should be provided learning
environments to discover (Bruner, 1960).
Discovery Learning
Bruner (1961) stated that the act of making sense of the learning experiences relied
on an internal cognitive structure. Accordingly, he defined discovery learning as
an inquiry, that takes place in problem-solving situations. Other researchers made
similar definitions of discovery learning. For example, the definition made by Ormrod
(1995) as discovery learning is “an approach to instruction through which students
interact with their environment by exploring and manipulating objects, wrestling with
questions and controversies, or performing experiments” (442). Another definition
provided by van Joolingen (1999) is that:
Discovery learning is a type of learning where learners construct their own knowledge by
experimenting with a domain and inferring rules from results of these experiments. The basic
idea of this kind of learning is that because learners can design their own experiments in the
domain and infer the rules of the domain themselves, they are actually constructing their
knowledge (p. 386).
The major focus in these definitions is that the act of “discovery” should not be
regarded as “the act of finding out something that before was unknown to mankind,
but rather [included] all forms of obtaining knowledge for oneself by the use of one’s
own mind” (Bruner, 1961, p. 22). For the actualization of discovery learning, learners
are required to find out the targeted information as a result of exploring the objects
or material provided for them on their own. Correspondingly, through discovery
learning, learners go through a process in which they take the responsibility of their
learning culminating in not only learning vast amount of knowledge but also gaining
higher order thinking skills.
Discovery learning, when it is first revealed by Bruner in 1961, was not only
considered to be a teaching method. Bruner stated that discovery is used for “all
forms of obtaining knowledge for oneself by the use of one’s own mind” (p. 22).
Accordingly, Bruner was asserting that the students should be encouraged to make
their own discoveries. However, this approach is also mostly critiqued in such that
students cannot make scientific discovery by just following the propositions made
by discovery learning (Ausubel, 1961). Prior to the nineteenthcentury, scientific
discovery is defined as both the search for scientific knowledge (scientific inquiry)
and the result of this search. However, now scientific discovery is still at the epicenter
of philosophical discussions. Schickore (2014) explains the discussions in brief:
Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new
hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable conse-
quences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex
because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the
outcome and to the procedure of inquiry.
Distinct from the scientific discovery, discovery learning is considered as a means

of teaching and learning by Bruner. In this method, students are encouraged to dis-
cover the scientific phenomenon usually with the aid of teacher and through inductive
logic. However, he also conceded that this does not mean waiting forever for students
to discover or “leave the curriculum completely open”. (1960, p. 613) Keeping in
mind the fact that “children are naturally scientists”, long-lasting learning takes place
if only children’s curiosity continues.
Considering the discovery learning as making sense of one’s own environment
by exploring and interacting with the objects around himself, it is not surprising
that discovery learning has a considerable influence on science education. Regard-
less of level, discovering the knowledge about the world based on ones’ experiences
could be stated as overall goal of science education for students. As one of the major
obstacles for science learning is the lack of motivation of students towards science,
discovery learning can best support students’ curiosity, hands-on, minds-on activity,
and learning. Efforts to reform science education heavily stressed the abilities such
as conducting investigations, making observations, and drawing explanations and in
using what is in mind. These abilities were also covered under the framework of “abil-
ities necessary to do scientific inquiry” in the National Science Education Standards
(National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Implementation of discovery learning
entails engaging learners with identifying a problem, posing questions, formulating
hypothesis, conducting and designing experiments to investigate phenomena and
drawing conclusions for solving a problem (Gillani, 2003). In general, in discovery
learning, students confront a problematic situation and go through a process in which

they explore the subject on their own. It is the students to decide what is to be solved
and how it is to be solved. In other words, it is the students’ role to recognize the
problem, decide possible solution strategies, develop their own procedures to test the
ideas, formulate explanations and make conclusions. Teacher’s role is to be a facil-
itator, acting as a guide for students and organizing required resources for students
while they are setting up on their own. They are urged to provide minimal guidance
for students. Students are active inquirers designing their own unique investigations
to explore the problem that they have chosen. The main characteristics of discovery as
opposed to traditional modes of instruction are summarized as follows (Castronova,
2002):
• Students are active learners participating in hands-on, problem-solving activities.
• Focusing on process rather than product enhances mastery and application of
skills.
• Chance for learning from failure increases motivation for developing solutions to
the problem.
• Discovery learning supports natural human curiosity and interest for learning.
• Feedback, collaborations, and discussions are vital parts of discovery learning
thus promoting deeper understanding.
Despite the convincing arguments in favor of the discovery approach, it is not

simply the hands-on activities that enable students to have scientific understanding.
In a meta-analysis conducted by Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and Tenenbaum (2011), the
task of discovery learning can range from implicit pattern detection to constructing
explanations and from working through manuals to creating simulations. The level
of teacher involvement specifies the types of discovery learning. Based on teach-
ers’ extent of guidance, the following three modes of discovery learning within a
continuum have been proposed (Moore, 2009):
Guided discovery: Teacher decides on the content and the directions for the
problem-solving. Teacher involvement occurs most in that level compared to other
two modes of discovery.
Modified discovery: The task provided by the teacher but the procedure for
problem-solving is determined and designed by students.
Open/Unassisted/Pure discovery: Students decide on the content to be learned and
the procedure to solve the problem. Students create their own unique investigations
to explore the problem and draw conclusions based on their investigations. In this
mode of discovery, teacher involvement is less, and student autonomy is the most
related to learning of students. In pure discovery learning, the student is required to
discover new content with little or no assistance.
Bruner suggested that “Practice in discovering for oneself teaches one to acquire
information in a way that makes that information more readily viable in problem-
solving” (Bruner, 1961, p. 26). However, Bruner also said that the students should
be able to benefit from their prior knowledge and past experiences. In other words,
Bruner emphasized that pure discovery-based learning could enhance the entire learn-
ing experience, yet it requires the students to have a priori or at least some base of
knowledge of the topic under investigation. Otherwise, the student will have difficulty
in discovering new content, with little or no help from the teacher.
Indeed, Mayer (2004) argued that pure, unassisted discovery learning practices
should be questioned because of the insufficient evidence that concludes such appli-
cations really lead to the achievement of learning outcomes. His analysis of the
literature demonstrated that unassisted or pure discovery learning does not help stu-
dents to discover problem-solving rules, conservation strategies, or programming
concepts. Mayer emphasized that although constructivist approaches are useful for
learning under certain conditions, unassisted discovery learning does not appear to
be advantageous because of its structural deficiencies. On the other hand, Alfieri
et al. (2011) found that guided or modified (enhanced) discovery learning is more
effective, because these instructions assist learners to interact with materials, manip-
ulate variables, discover phenomena, and apply their prior knowledge or learning
principles.
Bruner (1961) hypothesized four benefits of discovery learning: increased intel-
lectual potency, intrinsic motivation, the learning of the heuristics of discovery, and
enhanced use of memory. Bruner noted (p. 31) that “Once the heuristics of discov-
ery have been mastered, they constitute a state of problem-solving or inquiry that
serves for any kind of task one may encounter.” The importance of active student
involvement is reflected in statements like “… the schoolboy learning physics is
a physicist and it is easier for him to learn physics behaving like a physicist than
doing something else.” (Bruner, 1960, p. 21). Proponents of discovery learning also
claimed that successful discovery learning environments support students’ learning
in various dimensions such that:
• Enhances active engagement of students in learning process for higher achieve-
ment.
• Foster students’ curiosity to learn and investigate.
• Enable students’ autonomy in developing their own inquiry procedures.
• Enable learners to take the responsibility of their own learning.
• Increase one’s use of creativity and higher order thinking skills.
• Encourage learners to master problem-solving skills.
• Fosters life-long learning.
• Provides individualized learning experience based on the learner’s pace.
• Enriches retention of knowledge.
• Enhances the transfer of knowledge in a variety of situations.
On the other hand, the fact that Bruner’s description of the nature of teaching
is entirely different from theorists such as Ausubel and Skinner has led to much
discussion of discovery learning. The arguments against discovery learning are based
on the following issues: discovery learning
• Requires more amount of time and effort for teachers to prepare and manage
discovery learning activities.
• May allow possible alternative conceptions.

• May be ineffective in large classes.
• May overwhelm students who need more direction and feedback for their learning.
• May demotivate students due to cognitive load.
• May hinder teachers from providing meaningful discussion environment.
• May prevent teachers to detect ‘weak students’ having difficulties in engaging in
tasks.
• May stress out teachers due to pressure to cover content.
Research on the Effectiveness of Discovery Learning
Research on discovery learning provided evidence-based claims mostly in favor of

discovery learning. One of the studies was on related influence of discovery learning
on 7th-grade students’ academic achievement, retention, and perception of inquiry
skills (Balim, 2009). The quasi-experimental design was applied in the study. Com-
paring the control group with the experimental one, students in discovery learn-
ing group significantly performed better in the scores of academic achievement and
retention. Regarding perceptions of inquiry skills, the experimental group performed
better than the control group. That is, students taught through discovery-based learn-
ing were better in the understanding importance of inquiry skills. In another study,
students’ misconceptions regarding water cycle were aimed to be eliminated by using
discovery learning. The participants of the study were 150 8th-grade students (14–
15 years old). The results of the study revealed that the treatment group which was
exposed to discovery learning-based instruction had better academic achievement
compared to the control group. Moreover, the study supported the superiority of dis-
covery learning in terms of gaining meaningful knowledge and deep understanding
of the concept.
Besides the studies investigating the influence of discovery learning on content
knowledge gain, there are more focusing on the skills. For example, a study by
Wartono, Hudha, and Batlolona (2017) aimed to report the influence of inquiry-
discovery learning on critical thinking skills. The inquiry-discovery learning was
described as modified discovery mode where the task is provided by teacher but the
procedure for problem-solving is created by students. The participants of the study
were 67 senior high school students. Students in experimental group were taught
physics by inquiry-discovery learning and students in control group were taught
physics by traditional teaching method. The study reported a significant difference
in the critical thinking skills in favor of inquiry-discovery class.
As summarized in the studies above, discovery teaching fosters the critical think-
ing skills, concept understanding, and understanding of practice of inquiry skills
which meets the goal of scientific literacy proposed to be a major goal by many
science curricula, science education scholars, and policy documents (Driver, Leach,
Millar, & Scott, 1996; Kolstø, 2001). Science education is not only drive for an
economic capital but also development of human, to increase the democratic partic-
ipation of the one related to policy-making. Actively participating in policy-making
process on science-based societal issues at both local and global level (e.g., climate
change) depends on the level of scientific literacy. The definition of scientific liter-
acy involves “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes
required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and
economic productivity” (NRC, 1996). Based on the definition, it could be inferred
that, engaging in informed decision-making is closely related to how one understands
the scientific concepts and appreciates scientific thinking to solve the problems one
encounter with at both local and global level. Therefore, students should be provided
with learning experiences of decision-making on science-based societal issues to be
able to make more informed choices. Consequently, it is reported that understanding
of scientific inquiry would enhance students’ competences to deal with societal-based
issues (Lee, 2007). That is, instructional approaches such as discovery learning might
serve a context to enhance informed decision-making skills. In that sense, engaging
in discovery learning, would assist students to become more actively play role in
policy-making on science-based social issues.
Despite several benefits of the discovery learning reported in many studies, some
debates continue regarding the effectiveness of discovery learning. It is argued that
pure discovery learning does not guarantee deep learning due to the unstructured
content, overload cognition of students and lack of feedback and guidance based
on the pace of students (Mayer, 2004). Additionally, other studies revealed some
mixed results regarding relative effect of discovery learning. For instance, the study
comparing the effect of direct instruction versus discovery learning reported results
challenging the superiority of discovery learning (Klahr & Nigam, 2004).
Suggestions for Science Teaching
In general, discovery learning is still undeniably an effective approach to provide

learning environment to students in which they can challenge their misconceptions,
approach problems from their angles, and propose solutions on their own. In teaching
by discovery, the teacher presents the examples and works with examples until the
students have discovered the structure of the topic; the basic relationships, principles,
and features of ideas. For this reason, Bruner advocates that the learning is formed
through induction. By this way, general principles are formulated using specific
examples. For example, a teacher can provide the students with examples of animal
and plant cells and ask students for their discovery of the characteristics of animal
and plant cells.
Inductive approach requires the student to think intuitively. Bruner suggests that
students should try to make predictions based on incomplete evidence to feed their
intuitive thinking and then systematically research these predictions by inquiry. For
example, teacher may demonstrate some materials’ weights when they are in air and
when in water and ask what causes the differences. Students predict that water exerts
a force opposite to the gravitational force. Then the teacher may ask them to calculate
the difference.
To get an optimal effect of discovery learning, teachers could make several
arrangements regarding the feedback and guidance given. The following suggestions
are made in the research while planning discovery-based activities for teachers:
• Plan extra time for the discovery-based activities.
• Revise activities to give scaffold to learners needing additional assistance.
• Plan extra time for feedback.
• Follow up learners to ensure they are on track.
• Record each learner’s process.
• Ensure learners discuss and review their outcomes.
According to Bruner, the individual acquires knowledge (or constructs models) in
three different ways during cognitive development: action, imagination, and symbols.
For this reason, information on the organization of teaching activities should be
presented in accordance with the characteristics of the development period. In the
operational period, the information is gained by establishing a direct relationship with
the object. In this period, the child learns by using sensory organs. In the imaginary
period, the models in the memory of the individual are formed with visual images. For
this reason, pictures and photographs can be used in teaching. In the symbolic period,
language and symbols become important. Individuals can use symbols to develop
new models without having concrete experience. In this period, new information can
be given to the students by written and verbal symbols.
Bruner suggested that the best way to gain the ability to learn independently is to
allow the students to orient themselves to the activities in their own interest, to make
inventions, and to satisfy their curiosity. Instead of giving answers to the students, it
is necessary to encourage them to solve problems by themselves or in small groups
and find answers by themselves. This will require adequate time to be given to the
students to solve problems, tools be provided when necessary, students be guided by
questions and tips, and that they are given the opportunity to solve the problems on
their own.
An important aspect of teaching discovery for teachers is the students’ attitude
towards learning. According to Bruner, in order to develop a positive attitude towards
learning, it is necessary to motivate and to raise the curiosity about the subject that
will be learned. Therefore, one of the most effective ways will be to put curiosity
into action to create a certain degree of uncertainty in students’ minds. In applying
the teaching approach based on discovery learning, the lesson with a certain level of
ambiguity will give students a sense of curiosity and a sense of learning.
In this process, the teacher’s support and guidance is important to the students; it
is imperative to reduce the risk of failure and motivate the students. The teacher must
always act with a set of questions, exercises, examples, and lesson plans. However,
one of the important points to be taken into consideration is that when asking student
questions, they should be organized according to difficulty beginning with the easy
ones, from concrete to abstract, from simple to complex and adjusted for students’
readiness.
In sum, discovery learning can be considered as the background for the notion of
‘learning by doing’. The learners actively seek information and construct knowledge
through the meaning-making process of their experiences. In education, discovery
learning has implications such as the use of spiral curriculum, teachers’ scaffolding to
assist learners, presentation of information from concrete and simple to abstract and
complex structures, and encouraging students have interactions with the material and
social environment. Despite pure discovery is criticized in terms of the time required
and the lack of evidence in student gains, the enacted discovery is found to be more
effective since it allows learners to interact with materials, manipulate variables,
discover phenomena, and apply their prior knowledge or learning principles.
Summary
• Cognitive development theory is based on the process of information processing.

This understanding implies that the cognitive processes of teaching should be
realized in accordance with the developmental stages.
• Learning is a cumulative process. New learning is based on previously learned
information. For this reason, it is necessary that the new experiences that the child
will have to match the old ones.
• Learning is a discovery process. For this reason, the motivation of students to
explore and the creation of a sense of curiosity are important activities in learning.
It is necessary to provide the necessary conditions in order to activate the desire
for curiosity and learning in the student.
• In discovery learning, the teacher presents the examples and the structure to the
student; students work with examples until they discover the basic relationships,
principles, and properties between ideas. For this reason, Bruner advocates that
the learning is formed through induction in discovery learning.
• Discovery learning takes time to implement because all learners cannot be
expected to learn at the same pace in a certain period of time. However, the
learning is expected to be more permanent as the student is actively involved in
the class.
Further Reading List
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvelle, &
W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s concept of language. New York: Springer.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruc-
tion enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0021017.
Ausubel, D. P. (1961). Learning by discovery: Rationale and mystique. The bulletin of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 45(269), 18–58.
Balim, A. G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students’ success and inquiry learning
skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 1–20.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Castronova, J. (2002). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is it and how does it compare
to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st century? Action Research Exchange, 1(1), 1–12.
Driver, R., Leach, J., & Millar, R. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol: Open University
Press. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393679.pdf
Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction:
Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension
of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of
Biological Education, 41(4), 170–177.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case
for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Bruner. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html.
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7(3), 141–144.
Moore, K. (2009). Effective instructional strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies
Press.
Ormrod, J. (1995). Educational psychology: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Schickore, J. (2014). Scientific Discovery. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/.
Steiner, D. M. (2014). Learning, constructivist theories of. Value inquiry book series: Global studies
encyclopedic dictionary, 276, 319–320.
Takaya, K. (2013). Jerome Bruner: Developing a sense of the possible. New York, USA: Springer.
van Joolingen, W. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 10, 385–397.
Wartono, W., Hudha, M. N., & Batlolona, J. R. (2017). How are the physics critical thinking skills
of the students taught by using inquiry-discovery through empirical and theoretical overview?
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(2), 691–697.
Woolfolk, E. A. (1993). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and impli-
cations for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 84(5), 204–212.
Dr. Ozdem-Yilmaz is a faculty at Mugla Sitki Kocman University in Turkey. She was graduated
from Middle East Technical University (METU) with a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary
Science Education program in 2003. She worked as a teacher for 5 years in private and public
schools in Turkey and in the USA. She completed her Ph.D. in the field of Science Teacher Edu-
cation in 2014 at METU. She was awarded by ESERA with travel award for young researchers
and supported by the Academic Training Program to conduct research at the University of Bristol,
UK. She completed her post-doctoral research on Science Centres at Great Lakes Science Cen-
ter in 2016. Her research interests are Argumentation, Inquiry-based learning, Science Teacher
Education, andScience Centres.
Dr. Kader Bilican is a faculty in the department of primary education at Kırıkkale University in
Turkey. She received her Ph.D. degree in science education at Middle East Technical University
in Turkey. She had been as a visiting scholar at Indiana University in IN, USA for a year and
joined international projects in collaboration with the USA. She also led national funded projects
in addition to being as an associate partner of projects. Her research areas of interest are pro-
fessional development of science teachers, pre-service and in-service science teachers’ scientific
epistemic views and practice, and teaching science to young students. She has several national
and international publications. She also attended several important international science education
conferences such as NARST and ESERA.
Chapter 14
Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné
Yashwantrao Ramma, Ajeevsing Bholoa, and Mike Watts
Introduction
Research increasingly supports the idea that the adoption of research-based prac-
tices (Wieman & Perkins, 2005) in classroom transactions allows learners to increase
retention dramatically and thereby improve test and examination scores. Recourse
to various teaching-learning theories has the specific objective of enabling learners
in their construction of subject-based knowledge. However, success in this respect
rests upon teachers’ ability to select and carefully use appropriate theory for planning
and teaching a specific concept. There is a growing realisation of the importance of
attending to students’ needs to maximise academic growth, and meaningful learning
may require a combination of theories. So, a teacher may well use a range of class-
room strategies, including traditional exposition and/or a guided discovery approach,
depending on the context and the process by which learning is expected to take place.
In this chapter, we discuss Robert M. Gagné’s theory on guided discovery and we
target our exploration of his theoretical ideas principally at teachers—with learners
securely in mind. Gagné initiated his instructional theory during World War II for
the process of training pilots in the Air Force. He later developed a sequence of
requirements, clearly defined and he codified what principles educators should use
as they developed instruction. The purpose behind Gagné’s seminal theory (Gagné,
Wager, Golas & Keller, 2005) was to provide teachers and instructional designers
with a sense of direction in preparing lessons, the overall objectives being to foster
Y. Ramma (B) · A. Bholoa

Mauritius Institute of Education, Reduit, Mauritius
A. Bholoa
M. Watts
Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

192 Y. Ramma et al.
and enhance students’ thinking and achievement. For example, his nine events of
instruction are intended to help build a framework which teachers can use to prepare
and deliver instructional content. Gagné’s theory resulted essentially from a fusion
of behaviourist concepts into a complex—and more complete—theory of instruction
(Romiszowski, 2016). In his writing, he has distinguished his theory from purely
behaviourist ones because he includes in it an appreciation of a variety of different
types of learners and modes of learning. His work has placed considerable emphasis
on the individuality of learners in the instructional process, and has acknowledged
the importance of mental processes in learning, teaching and training. After gradual
refinement, the current theory (Gagné & Driscoll, 1988) comprises three central
components: (i) a taxonomy of learning outcomes, (ii) the conditions required for
learning and (iii) the nine events of instruction.
To begin, Gagné’s theory rests upon five taxonomies of learning (Driscoll, 2004;
Gagné & Driscoll, 1988; Petry, Mouton & Reigeluth, 1987):
• Verbal information—through which connection is made with the learner’s prior
knowledge and understanding. This prior knowledge can be derived from learners’
everyday life experience and/or from the previous lessons. To enable meaning-
making, new information must always be related in some way to what learners
already know.
• Intellectual skills—these relate to the ability to discriminate among items, con-
cepts and facts, and to the selection of appropriate rules, principles and laws. Sim-
ilar to verbal information, intellectual skills build upon already acquired skills.
The set of new skills to be learned during the lesson should be presented gradually
within a Vygotskian-style ‘zone of proximal development’ of the learner (van den
Broek, 2012).
• Cognitive strategies—these relate to the ability to make use of acquired knowl-
edge and skills to solve a given conceptual task. To operate at this level, learners
need to have internalised specific concepts as well as relevant skills. In addition,
the adoption of informative feedback is an important stepping stone towards help-
ing learners to situate whether their strategic efforts are effective and innovative
(Driscoll, 2004).
• Motor skills—these entail making use of correct practice in a coordinated manner
to perform particular tasks. During the learning process, learners develop motor
skills and this process should be followed by appropriate feedback to guide the
learners to display the acquired skills in a variety of contexts (Gagné, Briggs &
Wager, 1992). At the same time, learners should also be encouraged to make use
of mental practice (critical thinking).
• Attitudes—the adoption of positive dispositions (could be in group) to perform a
given task. To learn and express attitude, learners must already possess a set of
information (preliminary data) and qualities (for example, confidence, optimism,
resilience and kindness).
Furthermore, the theory introduces nine instructional events and corresponding
cognitive processes (Driscoll, 2004; Petry, Mouton & Reigeluth, 1987) for conduct-
ing lessons. These events may vary to a certain extent depending on the strategies
14 Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné 193
adopted by the teacher. For instance, if the teacher chooses to use group work, then
the proceedings of the events will change as compared to individual work. The events
are as follows:
• Gaining attention—the teacher arouses interest in the subject matter by relating
the lesson with lived experiences of the learners. This might be through stimulating
the students with novelty, uncertainty and surprise; posing thought-provoking
questions or having students ask questions to be answered by other students.
• Informing learners of the lesson objective—the teacher articulates the learning
outcomes to the class and ensures that learners are well informed about what is
to be expected by, for instance, describing criteria for standard performance.
• Stimulating recall of prior learning—the teacher facilitates the connection
between the prior experiences and knowledge of learners (for example, by means
of a mind map) with the concept that learners will study in the current lesson.
A discussion on the issues will ensure synchronisation among learners and the
teacher (Zhang & Lu, 2011), thus ensuring that learners’ attitudes are catered for.
• Presenting the stimulus—step-by-step organisation and explanation of concepts is
developed. Two-way communication is established between teacher and learners.
This might be through the provision of examples, by presenting multiple versions
of the same content, e.g. through video, demonstration, lecture, podcast, group
work and so on.
• Providing learning guidance—learners are actively engaged in the tasks with
the continuous support of the teacher. This supportive guidance might be through
‘scaffolding’ (giving cues, hints, prompts, mnemonics); through organising varied
learning strategies (concept mapping, role playing, visualising); using examples
and non-examples to help students see what not to do or the opposite of examples,
or providing case studies, analogies, visual images and metaphors.
• Eliciting performance—learners are provided with new tasks that serve as evi-
dence of internalisation of learning. Engaging learners in performing authentic
tasks (Mueller, 2017) is a useful way to situate whether—and what—learners
have internalised while learning. During the process, the teacher can ask deep-
learning questions, making reference to what students already know, and thereby
spot shortcomings and immediately provide remediation support.
• Providing feedback—teachers offer feedback based on the interactions and evi-
dence of learning. This event is not a stand-alone one but cuts across any of the
events. The teacher helps students integrate new knowledge by providing real-
world examples, and fosters autonomy among learners by means of additional
independent practices.
• Assessing performance—in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional
events, the teacher must test to see if the expected learning outcomes have been
achieved—performance being based on the previously stated objectives. At each
stage of the step-by-step process, learners’ understanding is challenged in the form
of diagnostic and formative assessments. The recourse to diagnostic assessment
enables learners to ‘identify the core principles, issues or concepts associated with
194 Y. Ramma et al.
the task in the early stages of a course [and which] could promote an attitude of
self-regulation’ (Crisp, 2012, p. 40) in the learners.
• Enhancing retention and transfer—students are invited to apply newly con-
structed knowledge to real-life situations through, for example, paraphrasing
content, using metaphors, generating examples, or creating concept maps or
outlines.
Influence of Gagné’s Theory in Education
Throughout his work, Gagné has argued that teachers should use a variety of instruc-
tional methods to meet the needs of their students. The teacher’s role is an attempt
to reduce the cognitive load of the learners by limiting the amount of material pre-
sented to them and to engage them in the organisation of concepts into a suitable
ordered structure (Wieman & Perkins, 2005). The conditions are both external to
the learner (such as objects, pictures and verbal communication) and internal (such
as prior knowledge, positive attitude and interest), and should be taken into consid-
eration while designing the instruction to take place. The nine instructional events,
in turn, are derived from his own, and others’ experiments in cognitive psychology.
This also means that a particular lesson has to be constructed within a differentiated
perspective to cater for the individual needs of learners.
Methods
To explore Gagné’s theory, we describe and discuss a case study of a mathematics in-
service trainee teacher involved in the peer/microteaching module of a Post Graduate
Certificate in Education (PGCE) course. One particular trainee teacher at the heart
of the case study, a young woman we pseudonymise as Nita (holder of a B.Sc.
Mathematics), has 5 years teaching experience at secondary school level and was
part of a group of 13 trainee teachers following a 45-hour module. In that module, the
group of trainee teachers were required to design, plan and implement lessons based
on Gagné’s theory. They were also expected to offer their reflections, including self-
reflection on the episodes of their teaching session. All thirteen peer/microteaching
sessions were video-recorded, and Nita was selected for the case study on the basis
of her profound critical reflection carried out on the lesson she taught. The topic of
the lesson was ‘connected particles’: an applied mathematics/mechanics (physics)
problem. She presented her peer/microteaching, based on Gagné’s theory with the
following objectives:
The diagram shows two particles A and B of masses 1 kg and 4 kg respectively, attached at the
ends of a light inextensible string which passes over a fixed smooth pulley. Particle B hangs in
the air while particle A lies on a smooth horizontal plane. The system is released from rest. Find
(a) the acceleration of the particles; and
(b) the tension in the string.
Fig. 14.1 Question on ‘connected particles’
– To represent the forces acting on each particle, connected by a light inextensible

string and passing over a smooth pulley;
– To apply Newton’s second law of motion to each particle to form two linear
simultaneous equations in terms of the tension in the strings and the acceleration
of the two particles.
The ‘connected particles’ mathematics problem was set to the class as shown in
Fig. 14.1.
The diagram shows two particles A and B of masses 1 kg and 4 kg, respectively,
attached at the ends of a light inextensible string which passes over a fixed smooth
pulley. Particle B hangs in the air while particle A lies on a smooth horizontal plane.
The system is released from rest. Find
(a) the acceleration of the particles; and
(b) the tension in the string.
Findings
See Table 14.1.
Discussion
Our discussion is focussed primarily on Nita’s implementation of the lesson on

‘connected particles’ whilst being guided by Gagné’s nine events of instruction. The
five domains of knowledge are also considered as they inform the manner in which
the teaching strategies and methods have been employed to accomplish the goals of
the lesson.
Table 14.1 Nita’s interpretation of Gagné’s nine events of instructions on ‘connected particles’
196
Events Observation of the peer/microteaching session Components not observed

1. Gaining attention Nita, the trainee teacher, missed this part Peers should have been welcomed—greeted and asked for
their well-being to establish a rapport of mutual respect
To arouse their interest, Nita might have related everyday
life experiences, such as the towing of vehicles, raising of
construction materials on a building site by means of
pictures or short videos
A pre-test (or diagnostic test) could also have been
administered to promote the participation of learners
(Cheung, 2016). This diagnostic test could have served to
create a situational awareness of learners’ existing
knowledge about real life events that have some relationship
with the lesson
2. Informing the learner of the lesson objective Two learning objectives, mentioned earlier, were brought to Nita stated the learning outcomes but without making any
the attention of the class reference to the previous instructional events. Furthermore,
Nita did not fully engage her peers in clarifying the meaning
of ‘fixed smooth pulley’, ‘light inextensible string’ and
‘Newton’s second law’
3. Stimulating recall of prior learning Nita recapped on some real-life application of ‘connected Intellectual skills: In the case of this lesson, Nita used four
particles’ and some of the basic concepts and associated class quizzes
assumptions through quiz sessions in a group setting In Quiz 1, discussion should have been held around the
Quiz 1: State one real-life application of ‘connected terminology ‘particle’ in relation to mass and size to
particles’ maintain consistency with a physics lesson
Quiz 2: The weight of the string is negligible as the string In Quiz 2, the statement is misleading as comparison of the
is…… (inextensible, light). weight of the string ought to have been made with the
Quiz 3: Since the string is inextensible, the………….. of the weight of the other connected bodies
2 particles is equal. (tension, acceleration, weight) In Quiz 3, both tension and acceleration are correct answers
Quiz 4: The smooth pulley ensures that the…………… in whereas the trainee considered only acceleration to be the
the string on either side of the pulley is equal. (tension, correct one. She should have mentioned that the string is
weight) taut and that a frictionless situation is being considered
In Quiz 4, discussion should have been held over the
significance of the term ‘smooth’. Furthermore, the choice
of the term ‘weight’ as an option does not fit in the sentence
structure
(continued)
Y. Ramma et al.
Table 14.1 (continued)
4. Presenting the stimulus material with distinctive features Nita described the ‘connected particles’ problem via Intellectual skill: The link between the previous stages to
instrumental understanding using a numerical exercise this one was hardly made
From the start to presenting the material there was very little It was expected that Nita would introduce the ‘connected
participation by the learners. For example, in one instance, a particles’ case as two disjoint systems and she would
peer was requested to draw the forces acting on particles A scaffold learners in identifying, with justifications, the
and B. However, there was no instruction from Nita to various forces acting on each particle
provide justifications to support learning and identifying Cognitive strategy: Once learners would have developed
areas of difficulties understanding of the forces acting on the separate systems,
they would have been guided to relate the acquired
knowledge to this new situation of ‘connected particles’
5. Providing learning guidance Nita made some attempt to elaborate on the direction of Verbal information, intellectual skill, motor skill and
tension for each particle using a book attached to a string as cognitive strategy: It was expected that Nita would start the
14 Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné
a concrete example. Instances of application of frictional lesson by guiding learners, through scaffolding, to select the
forces pertaining to the given examples were provided. appropriate rules for identifying the forces in the ‘connected
However, some of the verbal statements made by Nita could particles’ problem and then to decide on the course of action
conflict with terminologies used in physics. For instance, in order to develop the simultaneous equations
relating ‘g’ to ‘gravitational force’ is conceptually
problematic. In another instance, Nita mentioned that ‘the
tension acts away from the load (i.e. point mass)’; this could
mislead the learners due to ambiguity in relating tension to a
point mass
However, no attempt was made to introduce the concepts
related to the ‘connected particles’ problem. Reference was
made to the following terminologies: ‘taut’, ‘inextensible’,
‘a fixed pulley’, ‘a reference point’
(continued)
197
198

6. Eliciting performance Nita’s peers were requested to draw the forces acting on Verbal information, intellectual skill, motor skill and
each particle on the board cognitive strategy: The peers should have been requested
to justify their course of action with the support of the
appropriate rules (e.g. why does the weight act downward?
Why is tension equal along the string?)
Furthermore, insightful information should have been
obtained from her peers about associated concepts from
mathematics and physics
Once the forces have been drawn by the group, Nita

acknowledged the correctness of the answers without
engaging the peers into critical thinking with reference to
other avenues
(continued)
Y. Ramma et al.
7. Providing informative feedback Feedback to the whole class was given after a particular Verbal information, intellectual skill, motor skill and
peer had attempted the task on the board cognitive strategy: Most of verbal communication
emanated from Nita. Individual feedback should have been
offered to that particular peer in the very first instance. For
example, students peer should have been asked to explain
the choice of directions of tension for each mass as separate
systems before considering them as a single system
When the two systems are put together, tensions at the
pulley should also be considered
14 Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné
8. Assessing performance Assessment of the ‘connected particles’ problem occurred Verbal information, Intellectual skill, motor skills and
when student peers were called upon to attempt specific task cognitive strategy: Another similar situation of ‘connected
on the board, such as drawing forces and calculating the particles’ but in the opposite direction could have been
weight, drawing the tensions, forming and solving the considered. In addition, concrete objects could have been
simultaneous equations used to mimic real-life situations
9. Enhancing retention and learning transfer Worksheets with more problem-solving tasks have been Verbal information and intellectual skills: Two
provided, with one of the problems involving two particles ‘connected particles’ tasks could have been given with
attached to a string passing over fixed pulley different magnitude of the masses before giving the problem
involving two particles attached to a string passing over a
fixed pulley
199
200 Y. Ramma et al.
Event 1—Gaining Attention
Nita, the trainee teacher, started the lesson, as illustrated by Episode 1.

Episode 1: “Good afternoon everyone. Before we start the lesson on ‘connected
particles’, we will start with our learning objectives for today’s lesson.”
Right at the beginning of the lesson, opportunities for declarative knowledge were
somehow scanty. By directly opening the lesson with an explanation on the learning
objectives, Nita missed the opportunity to gain the attention of the class by creating
links between everyday life experiences of her learners (in this case, with her peers)
and the subject matter of her lesson. Gaining attention is a first step to direct learners’
attention towards concepts that are already familiar to them from the environment.
Thus, the link between known (life experiences) with the unknown (new or abstract
concepts) has been missed.
This first event, which was overlooked by the trainee teacher, is meant to direct
learner’s attention towards the teaching and learning process. This event is regarded as
difficult (Belikuşakh-Çardak, 2016) since the activities gaining the students’ attention
need to arouse the interest of the learners for the underlying concepts of the lesson.
Such activities could have included a short video, an interesting object or picture
related to ‘connected particles’.
Event 2—Informing the Learner of the Lesson Objective
Nita informed the class of the lesson objectives so as to offer a sense of direction to
her peers as illustrated by Episode 2.
Episode 2: “By the end of our lesson, each student should be able to represent
the forces….be acquainted with light, inextensible string passing over a fixed
pulley…. Second, we will have to use Newton’s Second Law of Motion, i.e.
resultant force = m × a to each particle to form 2 linear simultaneous equations
in terms of the tension T in the string and the acceleration a of the two particles.”
According to Gagné, Nita’s lesson objectives excluded verbal information and
focused more on intellectual skills, especially concepts and procedures. Elements of
verbal information would have been apparent if the objectives would have included
statements such as
(a) Define a system of ‘connected particles’;
(b) State the modelling assumptions of the system of ‘connected particles’.
The elements of verbal communication were mostly observed during the ‘Stim-
ulating Recall of Prior Knowledge’ event but were restricted to transmission of
teacher’s knowledge of facts rather than engaging the peers in relating prior
knowledge with the objectives of the current lesson on ‘connected particles’.
While informing the class about the learning objectives, it would have been appro-
priate for Nita to probe into the pre-existing knowledge of learners about the meaning
of ‘light, inextensible string’ and ‘fixed pulley’. These concepts relate to notions that
form the basis for constructing new schemas on existing ones. Nothing should be
taken for granted in the memory reorganisation process (Derry, 1996).
Event 3—Stimulating Recall of Prior Learning
For this learning event, Nita envisioned a quiz in groups of four by means of a Pow-
erPoint presentation. Though it was a commendable initiative, she did not, however,
promote any group dynamics for attempting the quiz. It would have been appropriate,
for example, to raise the interest and curiosity of her class and also identify areas
for knowledge consolidation. She simply accepted individual responses and gave the
explanation herself as illustrated below:
Episode 3: “Do you agree with her [another group member’s] answer because she
was the one to give the example of a car pulling a trailer. Yes, because they are 2
connected bodies as they are connected by a string.”
In Quiz 1, Nita could have made the integration of related concepts, such as
‘particle’ and ‘mass’, between mathematics and physics to ensure that there is no
misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the concepts when they are dealt with in
the distinctive subject areas. Misunderstandings in this part of physics are commonly
legion, and deserve acknowledgement, with a view to challenging them (see Warren,
1979) for a classical treatise on understanding Newtonian forces).
Quiz 2, involves the notion of comparison and, as such, further discussion should
have been held in the form of a diagnostic exercise and which could then have been
taken up during the course of the lesson.
In Quiz 3, conditions such as the string being taut and the pulley being frictionless
were missed in the discussion. Thought-provoking situations could have led the
learners to situate how these conditions influence both the tension and acceleration.
The cause-effect relationship was not apparent as declarative knowledge was given
prominence.
Event 4: Presenting the Stimulus Material with Distinctive

Features
It is a recurrent feature in mathematics teaching in using a numerical exercise to drive

the lesson development. For conceptual understanding, it is envisaged not to focus
on numerical values but at identification and representation of the forces acting on
202 Y. Ramma et al.
the various components constituting the system. Once the distinct parts in the system
have been analysed, the whole system can then be studied.
Event 5: Providing Learning Guidance
Episode 4: “For example, if I am trying to pull this book towards me, where will
the force tension act? So, if I pull it towards me, it will be away from the load,
that is tension is a pulling force.”
Though it is commendable that Nita attempted to illustrate the concept of tension

in the ‘connected particles’ problem with a demonstration, she has nevertheless added
a new element—which she had neither explored herself, nor allowed her peers to
do. In this case, her hand and the string (in contact with her hand) constitute one
system, while the string in contact with the book constitutes another system. The
tension constituting the pulling force relates to the sting-book system and not to the
hand-string system.
Event 6: Eliciting Performance
There was evidence of formative assessment when Nita invited her student peers to
proceed to the whiteboard and to attempt individually a specific part of the question.
However, Nita should have infused some elements of critical thinking in the formative
assessment tasks to allow her class the opportunity to express their understanding
of the concepts through reflection (Ramma & Bholoa, 2018). Once, when one of
her class had represented the forces on particles A and B, Nita proceeded with the
justification of her student’s work by answering herself all the questions that she
raised as illustrated below by episode 5.
Episode 5: “Particle A has mass 1 kg, how is the force calculated? It will be mass
× gravitational force, which is 10. Thus, it will be 4 multiplied by 10, which is
40 N. The system is now released from rest. If it is released from rest, you will be
having some kind of acceleration. Here we know the acceleration of the 2 particles
will be the same and what about the tension? It will be the same along the string.”
Nita could have set some thought-provoking questions to drive learners into states
of cognitive conflicts, and could have developed some discourse as follows: How are
the 10 N and 40 N forces represented vectorially? How would you establish the
occurrence of an acceleration of the particles? What are the conditions necessary for
acceleration of both particles to be the same? What are the conditions necessary for
tension along the string to be the same?
From Episode 5, we surmise that Nita herself holds misconception in that, for
example, she related ‘g’ to ‘gravitational force’ rather than ‘acceleration due to
gravity’ or ‘acceleration of free fall’. She maintained this on three occasions during
the course of the lesson.
Event 7: Providing Informative Feedback
Episode 6: “Since particle A is resting on the horizontal plane, is there any other
force that acts on the particle in the upward direction? [All peers gave ‘normal
reaction’ as the answer] Can one of you come and show the normal reaction of
particle A [one of her peers proceeded to draw the normal reaction] … So, here
R equals to the normal reaction of the particle acting vertically upward.”
Nita simply acknowledged the normal reaction as an upward force acting on the
particle but did not offer feedback, through questioning, to guide her peers to situate
that the normal reaction acts on the particle from the surface where contact is made.
This results from Newton’s Third Law of Motion, and that the length of the weight
and normal reaction vectors are equal. Additional feedback as to why there was no
motion on the vertical direction could have been explored. The feedback could have
enabled her peers to identify any deficiencies.
Event 8: Assessing Performance
Nita adopted a unilateral approach to enable her peers to solve the numerical prob-
lem. It is important for the trainee to examine learners’ understanding of the concept
of ‘connected particles’ and their abilities to transfer acquired knowledge to a com-
pletely new situation, like particle B is now connected directly with another particle
C as illustrated in Fig. 14.2.
Fig. 14.2 A new situation

on ‘connected particles’
204 Y. Ramma et al.
Event 9: Enhancing Retention and Learning Transfer
Nita used worksheets on ‘connected particles’ as a form of summative assessment.

She made a brief recap of what the lesson was about and then gave a brief overview of
the questions to be attempted. The work was to be submitted during the next lesson.
Conclusion
According to Jerome Bruner (1966), an instructional theory should deal with four
major elements: (i) the learners’ predispositions; (ii) the design of the concepts to be
presented and a structure for ease of understanding; (iii) the most successful progres-
sion of ideas in which to present a body of knowledge; and (iv) the administration
of rewards and punishments. Therefore, an instructional theory that focuses on the
overall structure of learning would serve to provide the most successful learning
experience. At one level, Gagné’s model is certainly a successful approach to learn-
ing design, and it is certainly not without merit. Despite some of the limitations we
discuss below, Gagné’s work has made an enormous impact in the field of instruction;
aspects of his system have become the foundation, for example, of the computer-
assisted instructional design approaches to e-learning that continue to be influential
in the field today.
Gagné recognised that learners bring ‘conditions’ with them to a learning activity
(previous experiences, attitudes and prior knowledge, for example) that have a sig-
nificant influence on the learning process itself. Gagné has argued that an instructor
needs to understand these conditions of learning in order to optimise the learning
interaction accordingly. It is clear from our discussion and illustrative episodes above
from Nita’s teaching that she was only partially successful in achieving this. Nita’s
ability to implement Gagné’s nine events of instruction was superficial as she was
largely influenced by the prevailing examination-oriented system (Ramma, Samy
& Gopee, 2015). It is true that Gagné’s work has been dismissed as ‘teaching by
numbers’ (Taubman, 2009)—certainly, with nine steps, the approach can feel long
and arduous, and Nita managed only some of them. In our view, though, this under-
estimates the intent and scope of Gagné’s model—designing a lesson that covers five
significant taxonomies of learning, addresses conditions for learning and incorporat-
ing such an ambitious range of processes, is no simple matter. In our case study, Nita
was set a formidable task in developing this ‘connected particles’ lesson within math-
ematics—not least to a group of her peer mathematicians. In this context, Gagné’s
conditions of learning are powerful heuristics, and the nine events of instruction
are enormously helpful guidelines for young educational designers—they provide a
strong starting framework upon which teachers can base their lessons.
Rowlands, Turner, Thwaites & Huckstep (2009) discuss their development of a
‘knowledge quartet’ related to the structuring of teaching—in their case—of primary
mathematics. Gagné’s Nine Events fit well with what these authors call foundation,
transformation and connective knowledge—the knowledge and skills required of a

teacher to plan, illustrate, explain and connect the subject matter of the lesson to their
students and any previous knowledge and learning. To use Gagné’s terminology, the
learner’s internal conditions must then be paired with the correct external conditions
as manifested in the form of the instructional events, the type of instruction given
(Gagné, 1985). In other words, the programme should be adjusted to the learner’s
needs. Our trainee teacher, Nita, did not always manage this: her unsteady start of the
lesson failed to help her audience to relate the topic of the lesson to something they
already knew. There were few, if any, deep-level questions that related to her learners’
prior knowledge, and—while she certainly embedded quizzes in her lesson—it is not
clear that these served to internalise new knowledge and expertise.
It is clear, too, that Nita’s planning sometimes skips between the Nine Events,
which is perhaps a recognition that the pre-structured framework of the learning
design can be overly prescriptive and leave little room for pedagogical elements
that we now recognise as important for successful learning experiences. Ravenscroft
(2003), for example, has pointed out that when teachers follow the Nine Learning
events rigidly, learners have little or no control over pace, timing and sequence.
In Nita’s case, there was no evidence that she encouraged her learners to engage in
higher level reasoning, reflection, exploration or creativity. This may, of course, have
been a consequence of her own tentative understanding of the applied mathematics
behind the ‘connected particles’ problem, and the fact that she was, after all, working
with a class of her trainee peers. These ‘case study’ caveats aside, however, we do
see Gagné’s approach as failing to cope with much ambiguity, failing to teach the
learner how to use their judgment in situations that are new or in problem-solving
effectively. This fourth part of Rowland et al. (2009)’s quartet is called contingent
knowledge, understandings that allow the teacher to manage unplanned situation
where, for example, a student asks an awkward question, where the teacher’s own
subject matter falters, when confronted by an unexpected result from a calculation, or
when an example fails to deliver the understanding needed. No amount of planning
can predict all of the possible occurrences within a lively and active-learning lesson,
and we would want to work with teachers to cater for such circumstances.
Gagné’s theory is generally designed to enhance concept acquisition by learn-
ers during face-to-face teaching-learning transactions given that there is a logical
sequencing in the nine instructional events and that each one is contingent on the
subsequent level. It rests on the teacher to organise the instructional events so that
there is direct relationship between one event and the next.
Our own assessments of Gagné’s instructional-guided discovery based upon our
own research-based experiences (Ramma, Bholoa, Watts & Nadal, 2017), do concern
the growing datedness of his work. So, for example, we would argue that the nine steps
would have to take account of new information technologies that speak to the needs
of mobile twenty-first century learners. Another shortcoming is the linearity in the
sequencing of the instructional events and the eventual implementation . Fortunately,
206 Y. Ramma et al.
rapid developments in this ‘blended’ area of teaching and learning are bringing about
major changes both in the relationship between teachers and the taught (Thaufeega,
Watts & Crowe, 2016) as well as in the structure of educational encounters between
them.
Summary
• Gagné’s theory on guided discovery rests on five taxonomies of learning: verbal

information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes.
• Nine instructional events are captured within the theory, namely, gaining atten-
tion, informing learners of the lesson objective, stimulating recall of prior learn-
ing, presenting the stimulus, providing learning guidance, eliciting performance,
providing feedback, assessing performance, and enhancing retention and transfer.
• Gagné’s theory is most suitably used during classroom transactions during which
the teacher can monitor progress of learners when the nine instructional events are
being enacted. Concept acquisition by learners can then be achieved sequentially
and logically.
• Teachers are largely influenced by the traditional mode of teaching which inhibits
their ability to successfully enact the nine instructional events. Reflection on taught
lessons should therefore help teachers to improve their practices.
• Learners’ prior knowledge and experiences have to be taken into consideration
during the course of the lesson delivery as they have significant bearing on the
teaching-learning transactions.
• Teachers may hold misconceptions about certain concepts, even in their areas
of specialisation and they should try to dispel them, by engaging in constructive
discourse with their peers.
Gagné, R. M., & Brown, L. T. (1961). Some factors in the programming of conceptual
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 313–321.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. G., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of
instructional design. Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth.
Martínez-Plumed, F., Ferri, C., Hernández-Orallo, J., & Ramírez-Quintana, M.
J. (2015). Forgetting and consolidation for incremental and cumulative knowledge
acquisition systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05615.
Warren, J. W. (1979). Understanding force. London, UK: Murray
References
Belikuşakh-Çardak, Ç. S. (2016). Instructional process and concepts in theory and practice. In C.

Akdeniz (Ed.), Models of teaching. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.
Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cheung, L. (2016). Using an instructional design model to teach medical procedures. Medical
Science Education, 26, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0228-9.
Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: Reframing assessement practice for current and future
learning. Assessement and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–43.
Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Phychologist,
31(3/4), 163–174.
Driscoll, M. P. (2004). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Rinehart and Winston:
Holt.
Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.).
New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. G., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design.
Toronto, ON: Thomson Wadsworth.
Mueller, J. (2017). Authentic assessment toolbox. Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/
toolbox/.
Petry, B., Mouton, H., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). A lesson based on the Gagne-Briaggs theory
of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating
selected theories and models (pp. 10–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Ramma, Y., & Bholoa, A. (2018). A critical evaluation of a teacher professional development
model—A case study of a pre-service physics teacher. In S. Ladage & S. Narvekar (Ed.), epiS-
TEME 7 (pp. 285–293). Mumbai: Cinnamon Teal. Retrieved from https://episteme7.hbcse.tifr.
res.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/epiSTEME-7-pages-1-474-without-header.pdf.
Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A., Watts, M., & Nadal, P. (2017). Teaching and learning physics using tech-
nology: Making a case for the affective domain. Education Inquiry, 1–27. Retrieved from https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20004508.2017.1343606.
Ramma, Y., Samy, M., & Gopee, A. (2015). Creativity and innovation in science and technology—
Bridging the gap between secondary and tertiary levels of education. International Journal of
Educational Management, 29(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/
10.1108/IJEM-05-2013-0076.
Ravenscroft, A. (2003). From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of
research in e-learning interaction design. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(3),
4–18.
Romiszowski, A. J. (2016). Designing instructional systems—Decision making in course planning
and curriculum design. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P. (2009). Developing primary mathematics
teaching. Reflecting on practice with the knowledge quartet. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Taubman, P. M. (2009). Teaching by the numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and
accountability. New York: Routledge.
Thaufeega, F., Watts, D. M., & Crowe, N. (2016). Are institutes and learners ready for e-learning in
the Maldives? In International Technology, Education and Development (INTED) Conference.
Valencia, Spain.
van den Broek, G. S. (2012). Innovative research-based approaches to learning and teaching.
Nijmegen: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k97f6x1kn0w-en.
Warren, J. W. (1979). Understanding force. London, UK: Murray.
208 Y. Ramma et al.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). By using the tools of physics in their teaching, instructors can
move students from mindless memorization to understanding and appreciation. Physics Today,
58(11), 36–50.
Zhang, W., & Lu, J. (2011). Dynamic synchronisation of teacher—Students affection in affective
instruction. International Education Studies, 4(1), 238–241.
Dr. Yashwantrao Ramma is a Professor of Science Education and Chairperson of Research

Unit at the Mauritius Institute of Education. As a physicist, he has worked on several research
projects related to technology integration and physics misconceptions of both physics teachers
and students. Currently, he is leading research projects on exploring teachers’ content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge across various subject areas, on indiscipline and school vio-
lence in primary schools and also on students’ transitions from secondary to university and teacher
training.
of Education. He is currently the Programme Coordinator for pre-service B.Ed honours and is
teachers.
Dr. Mike Watts is a Professor of Education at Brunel University, London, conducting ‘naturalis-
tic’ people-orientated research principally in science education and in scholarship in higher edu-
cation. He has conducted major studies in both formal and informal educational settings in the UK
and abroad, and has published widely on his research through books, journal articles and numer-
ous conference papers. His work is international and relates to ‘Academic development in univer-
sities’, ‘Public understanding of science’ and ‘Identity and science education’, alongside many
other issues. He teaches at all levels within Brunel’s Department of Education and is currently
supervising 16 Ph.D. students.
Chapter 15
Developing Intellectual Sophistication
and Scientific Thinking—The Schemes
of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn
Keith S. Taber
Introduction
William G. Perry proposed a theory of the stages of intellectual and ethical devel-
opment that he identified from work with undergraduate college students. At the
time when his work was proposed, it seemed to be most relevant to young adults
who would be expected to have successfully passed through the stages of cogni-
tive development that had been identified by Jean Piaget in his work with children
and adolescents. However, it is now clear that the stages of development discussed
by Perry are very relevant to the school science curriculum, and so to the types of
thinking often now expected from school students when studying science.
Deanna Kuhn has worked with children exploring the development of scientific
thinking and developed a model of the development of critical thinking that has strong
links to the scheme proposed by Perry. One interpretation suggested by comparing
their work is that school science now routinely challenges pupils to demonstrate a
level of epistemological sophistication that was often still being formed in many
undergraduate students in the mid-twentieth century.
Cognitive and Moral Development
It is widely recognised, indeed it is commonplace experience, that development from

a neonate through childhood and adolescence into adulthood is not simply a matter
of physical growth. A young child does not access all the kinds of thinking available
to a mature adult. Part of development is acquiring new modes of thinking about the
world, as, for example, when language is internalised (see Chap. 19). There have
K. S. Taber (B)
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

210 K. S. Taber
been a number of key theorists who have studied and sought to understand the nature
of how such development occurs.
Jean Piaget (see Chap. 10) focused on the development of cognition. He posited a
complex stage theory that had four main stages characterised by increasingly sophis-
ticated levels of thinking (Piaget, 1970/1972). In Piaget’s model, the fourth stage was
called formal operations. This implied that a person was capable of highly abstract
thinking and able to undertake mental operations on internal mental representations.
This was very relevant to learning science as many science topics taught in school
involve theoretical abstractions that students are expected to engage with, and indeed
apply, in the absence of the natural phenomena from which those ideas were initially
abstracted. Examples might be clades in biology which concern the evolutionary
relationships between organisms (which do not necessarily all exist at the same time
or place); notions of flux density in magnetic fields (which are not visible but may
be represented by visualising imaginary field lines); or oxidation states used to rep-
resent redox processes (understood in terms of shifts in electron density that are
conceptualised as partial electron relocations in molecules, that is, subtle modifica-
tions in particles theorised to exist at a scale many orders of magnitude removed from
direct observation). Given that many secondary school learners are not considered
to have fully developed formal operational thinking, it was argued that learning dif-
ficulties students face in school science may often result from a mismatch between
the demands of the curriculum and the level of cognitive development of many of
the students (Shayer & Adey, 1981).
Another key thinker, Lev Vygotsky (see Chap. 19), considered that adult ways of
thinking could be understood as a culturally developed resource (that is, a resource
that had been developed historically within a cultural group), into which young peo-
ple could be inducted by mediation from more advanced members of the community,
supported by such tools as language and other shared forms of symbolic represen-
tation. Even in a scientifically literate society, children will not develop conceptions
that closely match canonical scientific concepts without formal instruction or other
mediation (e.g. through books, websites, documentaries, etc.).
Other theorists considered a different aspect of development, related to moral
growth (Kohlberg, 1973) (cf. Chap. 5). Cognitive development related to the abil-
ity to think in more sophisticated (and abstract) ways, whereas moral development
related to the development of a system of values. This was more concerned with
making ‘good’ or ‘wise’ choices when taking practical action, rather than being able
to solve logical puzzles or apply technical concepts. When Benjamin Bloom (see
Chap. 11) set out taxonomies of educational objectives to guide pedagogy, he devel-
oped distinct taxonomies for the cognitive domain (Bloom, 1968) and the affective
domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1968). To be characterised at the highest level
of the affective domain required “an internal consistency to the system of attitudes
and values at any particular moment” that gave a ‘predisposition’ or “basic orienta-
tion which enables the individual to reduce and order the complex world… and to act
consistently and effectively in it” (Krathwohl et al. 1968, p. 48). Such an individual
would develop a worldview that offered a coherent philosophy of life that guided
judgements across all domains (Taber, 2015).
15 Developing Intellectual Sophistication and Scientific … 211
Piaget’s work was strongly linked to the development of the kinds of concepts met
in school science and mathematics, and its relevance to science teaching was clear.
As the affective domain concerns values, rather than conceptual understanding, it
can appear to be more relevant to learning about areas of the curriculum traditionally
associated with values—the arts and humanities—yet an authentic science education
must introduce learners to the values inherent in science (open-mindedness, seeking
evidence and so forth) and teaching about the applications of science in relation to
public policy engages value judgements as well as knowledge.
Considerations of moral development are less about evaluation of the specific
moral decisions a person makes (i.e. whether one might agree with a person’s deci-
sions or consider they have behaved in a good way), but more about the sophistication
of the thinking, and the coherence of the value system that underpins this. Arguably,
fundamentally, the thinking skills being applied are not distinct from those that pertain
when evaluating cognitive development. Perry (1985) proposed a theory of the devel-
opment of student thinking that encompassed intellectual and ethical development
within the same scheme.
Development Beyond Piaget’s Formal Operations

and Scientific Thinking
Piaget’s scheme considered cognitive development to be complete with the acquisi-

tion of formal operations. However, there were suggestions that there might be fur-
ther progression beyond the Piagetian scheme. For example, Arlin (1975) explored
the idea that whilst formal operations provided the ability to engage in success-
ful problem-solving, further development was needed to be an effective problem-
finder—development that might be considered a fifth stage. This skill is clearly
important in scientific work: a key feature of research is in identifying, and con-
ceptualising, potentially productive questions. In science, logical thought works
in coordination with creative thinking (Taber, 2011), and this becomes especially
salient when school science is expected to engage students in enquiry activities (see
Chap. 23).
School science had traditionally taught a model of ‘the scientific method’, that is,
the use of control of variables to design experiments, and formal operations provided
the means to use logic to apply hypothetico-deductive thinking in such ‘fair tests’.
However, it is increasingly thought that an effective science education (at school
level, as well as in higher education) must have a strong focus on enquiry, where
the earlier phases of investigations—such as recognising suitable research topics,
refining research questions and then designing studies to address those questions—
is as important as later applying logic to make deductions from experimental results
(Riga, Winterbottom, Harris, & Newby, 2017). This could be considered to require
the kind of ‘fifth stage’ that Arlin investigated.
212 K. S. Taber
It was also asked whether acquisition of formal operations was sufficient to treat
knowledge as non-absolute, or to cope with contradictions (Kramer, 1983). This is
especially relevant to school science in contexts where it is considered important
that students not only learn some science, but also learn about the nature of science
(Taber, 2017). Formal operations work when logic is sufficient to reach a conclu-
sion—for example, in mathematical systems where the notion of proof applies. A
modern understanding of science suggests that a naive positivism is misguided, and
that all scientific findings should be seen as potentially provisional and open to
reconsideration in the light of either new evidence or a new perspective to recon-
ceptualise evidence. That is, scientific knowledge is not absolute and is theoretical
(and so reliant on some commitments that have to be assumed a priori and cannot be
demonstrated).
In much scientific research it is not even possible to draw absolute conclusions
when working within a particular theoretical framework: scientific results are seldom
unequivocal, as they are subject to both limitations of measurement and observation,
and sometimes human error, and, moreover, nature is often more subtle and complex
than the models being used to conceptualise and design studies. Scientists often have
to deal with contradiction, and fuzzy data, and be able to make judgements about the
extent to which robust conclusions can reasonably be drawn in the face of imperfect
(in the sense of not entirely matching the predictions of any particular hypothesis)
datasets.
The kinds of understanding of the processes of science that are set out as target
knowledge in many national school systems rely then on learners exhibiting thinking
that has been considered characteristic of a fifth stage beyond the formal operational
level—when that stage itself is not thought to be fully acquired by all secondary
school-age learners. Piagetian theory assumes a constructivist process where each
stage is slowly built through experiences deriving from the regular application of the
operations that have been acquired in the preceding stage (see Chap. 10): so (from this
perspective) only students having fully acquired formal operations would be ready
to start constructing a ‘fifth stage’ of post-formal operations. Development of such
thinking skills is therefore a topic of great importance for curriculum development
and pedagogy in school science.
Perry’s Study of Undergraduate Thinking
Perry carried out his work in the mid-twentieth century with college students in the
United States, that is, undergraduate students studying for degrees. Moreover, he
worked with students at the elite Harvard and (to a lesser extent) Radcliffe Colleges,
exploring their experience of engaging with the study of a range of subjects. (At the
time of the work, Harvard College only accepted male students and Radcliffe College
only accepted female students—the institutions later merged). So, Perry was working
with young adults who had successfully completed schooling and had been admitted
to prestigious degree courses. It should also be noted that undergraduate education
in the United States is somewhat different to that in some other parts of the world,
in that a first (bachelor’s) degree course often comprises a wide curriculum, rather
than being specialised within a single discipline such as anthropology, chemistry
or zoology. Perry’s team talked to students over the 4 years of their undergraduate
degree. Perry characterised the data collection as ‘open’ interviews that sought to
elicit the participants’ ways of making sense of their experiences.
Perry (p. 48) reported finding a developmental pattern in the data “in the special
sense originally derived from biology in that it consists of an orderly progress in
which more complex forms are created by the differentiation and reintegration of
earlier simple forms”. He described this development as an ability to make sense of
increasingly nuanced information or situations:
In its full range the scheme begins with those simplistic forms in which a person construes
his [sic] world in unqualified polar terms of absolute right-wrong, good-bad; it ends with
those complex forms through which he undertakes to affirm his own commitments in a world
of contingent knowledge and relative values. The intervening forms and transitions in the
scheme outline the major steps through which the person, as evidenced in our students’
reports, appears to extend his power to make meaning in successive confrontations with
diversity (p. 3).
Perry’s model differed from the kind of scheme offered by Piaget in that, although
it represented a course of development, Perry noted that individual students could
‘retrogress’ at any point. That is, even when a student had demonstrated thinking
characteristic of a higher position in the scheme, they might later offer thinking linked
to an earlier position. In Piaget’s scheme such ‘décelage’, where a student reverts to
thinking typical of an earlier stage, might be explained as a lack of familiarity with
a novel context or topic area. Perry’s scheme by contrast was linked to developing a
personal value system, and retrogression might reflect broader considerations (e.g.
times of personal stress or contexts related to existential issues that may seem to
threaten existing beliefs).
Perry characterised his scheme in terms of nine steps, and he offered two overviews
of the sequence: either viewed from the midpoint or in terms of three major divi-
sions (pp. 64–65). This is represented in Fig. 15.1. Point 5 represents a perception
of knowledge and values as relative, contingent and contextual—representing the
outcome of a slow shift from an earlier position where it is considered all knowl-
edge claims or value positions can be simply judged true or false. From this central
position of a generalised relativism, the individual develops personal commitments
that are no longer considered absolute, but which are a suitable basis for making
meaningful evaluations.
In the first part of development (positions 1–3), the individual slowly modified an
absolutistic right-wrong outlook to begin to admit a degree of pluralism. In the second
part (positions 4–6), there is a deepening appreciation of the problematic nature of
laissez-faire relativism. In the final part (positions 7–9), the individual draws upon
their experience to develop their own personal system of commitments. The reader
is referred to Perry’s (1970a, 1970b) own account for details of the nine positions.
214 K. S. Taber
Fig. 15.1 A representation of Perry’s developmental scheme (Adapted from Taber, 2013, Fig. 14.3,
p. 265)
The Challenge of Becoming a Scholar
Perry found that even intelligent, highly motivated undergraduates struggled with the
kinds of work they were set in some classes. These students expected their teachers
to set out a particular perspective of a topic that needed to be understood, and which
the student might later apply and be tested on. Yet, in many humanities classes,
teachers did not offer this. When they were set alternative readings offering contrary
viewpoints, these students assumed they were expected to identify with one of the
approaches and they also expected their teachers to later confirm which was the
superior position. Instead, they were often exposed to diverse perspectives, asked
to appreciate them all, but not told which account they should believe or which
standpoint they should adopt.
In simple terms, Perry found students were looking for a ‘right’ answer that could
clearly be distinguished from the alternatives, and so often assumed their teachers
were expecting them to work out which of the set readings they were meant to
agree with. They were often then frustrated when their teachers refused to cooperate
through indicating that a particular take on a topic was to be preferred. The teachers,
however, recognised that there were multiple valid views supporting ongoing debates
in many fields and saw their job as introducing perspectives and encouraging the
students to think their way through to their own positions.
The realisation that they were not meant to find right answers could lead students
to come to the view that there were not any right or wrong answers, because it was
all a matter of personal opinion—so that anyone’s take on a situation was as good
as anyone else’s. This still fell short of what was expected, which was that students
could recognise the strengths and weaknesses of different positions; appreciate that
judgements were informed by values and come to their own evaluations based on
personal sets of values that could be articulated and so recruited to argue for a position.
Over time, many students, but not all, would manage this.
For students studying a modular degree, these challenges to their developing
thinking were not necessarily the same in all areas of the curriculum. History might
offer alternative explanations of events; there might be different interpretations of
texts in literature and different aesthetic judgments of the relative merits of differ-
ent authors and their works; there might be different ideological political positions
deriving from the perspectives of different interest groups: but in the natural sciences,
these challenges were less extreme.
Science teaching tended to offer canonical understandings, and (at undergraduate
level, at least) the basis for scientific knowledge was often presented in terms of clear-
cut critical experiments. Science is not only written by the ‘victors’ (cf. history), but
it is the ‘victors’ who come to be heavily cited, and then featured in the textbooks.
Scientific reports deal with the context of justification and generally hide the messy
aspects of the context of discovery (Medawar, 1963/1990): the cul-de-sacs, the human
mistakes and the role of serendipity. Scientific accounts privilege the logical thinking
underpinning the deductive nature of reaching conclusions in studies, rather than the
creative thinking required to imagine those possibilities to be considered and tested
(Taber, 2011).
The logical argument from evidence can be audited by the scientific commu-
nity, whereas the creative insights that made a study possible are not open to any
objective validation. That many scientific discoveries emerge from messy research
programmes that only slowly lead to a consensus position is usually ignored in text-
book accounts reduced to a rhetoric of conclusions (Niaz & Rodriguez, 2000). When
science teaching follows this pattern, it may not seem to require students to have
developed far along Perry’s progression.
The Relevance of Perry’s Scheme to Socio-Scientific

Thinking
The science curriculum now often requires students to appreciate more of the nature of
science and the complexities around actual scientific work. Moreover, increasingly
school science encompasses socio-scientific issues (Zeidler, 2014), where science
interacts with the wider society. There are many important matters of public policy,
of global, international or just local concern, where scientific knowledge is needed to
inform decision-making, but where, of itself, science is insufficient to reach a judge-
ment. Often different groups in society take different views in debates about such
matters: perhaps because they have different interests (perhaps the wider community
216 K. S. Taber
will benefit from the new airport, power station or chemical refinery: but those living
in the immediate vicinity may have good reason to oppose the development) or dif-
ferent ideological and value positions (there is no objective view on how to balance
economic wealth against environmental protection) or different perceptions of risk
(as when the best advice is that there is a possibility of a serious disaster, but with a
very small chance of it occurring).
For students to engage in these areas of learning they have to not only under-
stand the science but also appreciate and empathise with different standpoints and
value positions, and then apply their own values to reach a recommendation. This
requires schoolchildren to engage in just the kinds of thinking that Perry found many
undergraduates at elite institutions were still developing. This potentially presents
something of an enigma. In the 1980s, the school science curriculum was criticised
because it expected students of around 14–16 years of age to master abstract scien-
tific concepts when many were still in the process of fully acquiring the requisite
formal operational thinking skills (Shayer & Adey, 1981). Yet in the twenty-first cen-
tury, the school curriculum in many countries has been reformed to ask students to
appreciate a more nuanced understanding of scientific enquiry that forms provisional
knowledge from messy datasets, and to engage in debate over socio-scientific issues
drawing upon diverse value-based standpoints, that is, activities requiring what has
been characterised ‘post-formal’ thinking.
Perry’s Model Informing Science Pedagogy
Perry’s model can be seen as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That is, Perry
undertook detailed and careful enquiry at a particular time. His scheme describes
what he found among undergraduate students who experienced a particular college
curriculum, and more importantly had previously passed through a particular school
curriculum. It might be argued that a school curriculum that largely presents canonical
accounts to be understood, learnt and applied, does not give learners the necessary
experiences to fully develop from expecting right and wrong answers, through a
form of contextual relativism, towards a position of personal commitment based on
a system of coherent values (i.e. the kind of value system Bloom and his colleagues
saw as the highest level of their taxonomy of educational objectives in the affective
domain).
If it is accepted that the forms of thinking developed depend upon the educa-
tive experiences provided in a culture (Luria, 1976), then the levels of intellectual
development supported depend upon educational aims and their enactment in what
learners are expected to do and achieve. After all, if IQ tests are considered to offer
useful measures of human intelligence, then measured human intelligence increased
substantially in many countries during the twentieth century (Flynn, 1987)—pre-
sumably reflecting greater levels and standards of education (as there was negligible
physiological evolution over that period). Perry (1985) reported that “a study of exam-
ination questions given to freshman at Harvard at the turn of the [Twentieth] Century
reveals them all to … ask for memorised facts and operations in a single assumed
framework of Absolute Truth” (p. 5) and suggested that over a period of 25 years
he had seen that the “position [on his scheme] of the modal entering freshman at
Harvard has advanced from around Three to nearly Five” (p. 12).
The educational theorist Jerome Bruner (see Chap. 18) claimed that it was pos-
sible to teach any subject, in some intellectually honest manner, to a learner of any
age (Bruner, 1960). This attitude suggests that it should be possible to teach school
students richer accounts of the nature of science, and to engage them in debate over
socio-scientific issues, as long as they are suitably supported by teachers structur-
ing appropriately engaging and accessible learning activities (cf. Chap. 19). If the
message to take from Perry’s work is that higher levels of intellectual and ethical
development do not occur automatically (that is, purely under biological control) but
require suitable educational experiences (cf. Chap. 19), then appropriate pedagogy
needs to be developed.
Kuhn on the Development of Critical Thinking
Deanna Kuhn is an educational psychologist who has taken great interest in the
development of thinking skills, such as scientific reasoning. Her work explores a
range of themes important to science teaching and indeed to education more widely.
This includes aspects of informal reasoning and argumentation, and approaches to
pedagogy. One particular theme in her work is critical thinking, and how this devel-
ops. She is also interested in metacognition, which she considers as strongly linked
to critical thinking. The treatment here is necessarily limited to offering a flavour of
some of her most important work.
Kuhn sees the origins of what might be called ‘scientific thinking’ in developing
epistemological understanding—understandings relating to the nature and sources
of knowledge (Kuhn & Pearsall, 2000). This links to the appearance of what is some-
times known as a theory of mind (Wellman, 2011). Usually by the age of 5 children
recognise that statements people make about the world are actually statements about
the claimants’ beliefs about the world. So young children will come to appreciate
that an actual state of affairs may not be the same as a person’s construal of the
state of affairs: people may have false beliefs. This is a starting point for developing
the ability to coordinate theory and evidence, which Kuhn considers the essence of
scientific thinking.
Metacognition is cognition about cognition—so could be considered to encom-
pass judgement about others having false beliefs. However, usually the term refers to
thinking about one’s own cognition. Kuhn (1999, p. 18) argues that “thinking about
one’s thought—in contrast to simply engaging in it—opens up a whole new plane
of cognitive operations that do not exist at a simple first-order level of cognition”.
Students may be said to show different levels of metacognitive awareness and can
be encouraged to develop metacognitive skills. This links to themes such as being
a reflective learner and developing what are sometimes called ‘study skills’. An
218 K. S. Taber
Fig. 15.2 Kuhn’s model of levels of epistemological understanding
effective learner needs to have knowledge of their own current knowledge level (i.e.
meta-knowledge), and whether it matches educational goals (that may either be set
by the learner or provided by a teacher or other external agent); to appreciate which
activities are likely to help them learn and to be able to monitor their own learning so
that they can know when (and to what extent) they have been successful—and can
judge when a learning activity is proving unproductive and some change in activ-
ity is indicated (a different approach, taking a break, seeking additional support).
Metacognition is important to effective learning, in science as in other curriculum
areas.
Kuhn (1999) proposed a four-stage model of levels of epistemological under-
standing (see Fig. 15.2). Young children consider reality to be directly knowable, so
that assertions can be considered unmediated accounts of reality, but later they come
to develop greater epistemological sophistication and appreciate that such direct
access to the way things are is not possible. That is, they start to appreciate that
knowledge is something generated within human minds, rather than taking the naïve
view that reality imposes itself on mind. This can be considered as moving to a
constructivist position (see the contributions in Sect. 4 of this volume), appreciating
that knowledge takes the form of conjectures, ideas, theories and so forth—con-
structions put upon perceptions—rather than perfect impressions of an actual state
of events. This reflects a contemporary understanding of the nature of science that
sees science as a reliable—but not infallible—means of generating and evaluating
theoretical knowledge.
Kuhn’s model comprised of four stages labelled as realist, absolutist, multiplist
and evaluative—a model that has strong parallels with Perry’s scheme for intellectual
and ethical development:
The absolutist sees knowledge in largely objective terms, as located in the external world
and knowable with certainty. The multiplist becomes aware of the subjective component
of knowing, but to such an extent that it overpowers and obliterates any objective standard
that would provide a basis for comparison or evaluation of opinions. Only the evaluativist
is successful in integrating and coordinating the two, by acknowledging uncertainty without
forsaking evaluation. (Kuhn, 1999, pp. 22–23).
In the realist stage, the child simply accepts that assertions made by others report
the world as it is, but when they come to appreciate there can be false beliefs they shift
to an absolutist position that some assertions are indeed statements reflecting reality,
and others are not. This allows a role for critical thinking in making judgements
about which assertions are true, and which are false. This absolutism is similar to the
starting point of Perry’s scheme (see Fig. 15.1)—Perry had not included children in
his study and did not find any undergraduates holding a realist position.
However, the child later moves to a multiplist position where it comes to appre-
ciate that absolute and certain knowledge of the world is not possible, as knowledge
is generated within minds, which admits scope for subjectivity in all human knowl-
edge. (Science may be seen as a system to minimise the subjective aspect of human
knowledge.) Given that assertions cannot simply be considered true or false—as how
things seem often depends upon one’s viewpoint, or the perspective adopted—there
is then considered to be no sense in seeking to apply critical thinking to evaluate var-
ious assertions. This position may be more productive in some contexts than others.
We live in pluralist societies, where democracy requires respecting and valuing the
views of those we disagree with. However, science depends upon critical evaluation
of ideas and is not generally considered consistent with a multiplist position. While
some philosophers of science have argued that some degree of pluralism within sci-
ence is valuable when exploring complex phenomena (Mitchell, 2003), this would
generally be considered an epistemological stance rather than an ontological com-
mitment. That is, reality is seen as having a unitary nature, but when our models and
conceptions are imperfect accounts of that nature, then working with several com-
plementary partial accounts can sometimes be valuable. Pluralism is then adopted
pragmatically (see Chap. 16), rather than on principle as a commitment to the nature
of reality.
School science, and arguably especially chemistry, commonly presents students
with pluralism in terms of the models and representations used in teaching. So elec-
trons may be located in shells or in orbitals—or even outside those orbitals when
they are understood as probability envelopes—or as being diffuse clouds; solids may
be hard and incompressible because they are composed of particles in contact—but
those same solids may be subject to thermal expansion and contraction due to the
variable amount of space between the particles from which they are composed. It is
assumed that students will have the sophistication to appreciate that this pluralism of
models and representations sometimes reflects limitations of knowledge, and more
often the challenges of expressing nature in ways we can easily comprehend and
visualise, rather than being a realistic account of nature itself. Yet, this is something
that needs to be taught and is unlikely to simply be intuited (Taber, 2010).
A young person who moves beyond multiplism comes to appreciate that even
if there cannot be absolute certainty, it is still possible to critically evaluate ideas
and make choices between alternatives. Good scientific practice includes being self-
critical, always looking for alternative explanations, never prejudging results, iden-
tifying weaknesses in positions adopted, being open to revisit conclusions in the
light of new evidence or conceptualisations, and so forth: but also, ultimately, in
making judgements about the extent to which the best available interpretation of
the evidence supports mooted hypotheses. This allows the positing of provisional
220 K. S. Taber
knowledge that is seen as the best currently available way of making sense of some
aspect of nature—and evaluating how robust and refined it seems to be.
If school-age students are working at different levels of epistemological under-
standing then this has consequences for how they make sense of the science they are
taught. One interview study of 13–14-year olds suggested most of those participating
had a naive view of the epistemic basis of scientific knowledge—often little more
than someone having a hunch that could be tested and shown to either be true or false
(i.e. an absolutist stance). So, theories were not considered substantially different in
nature from hypotheses and were seen as uncertain simply because the necessary
determination had not yet been made:
there was limited evidence that these students saw scientific knowledge as existing on a con-
tinuum that allowed continuous variation (and change) in the extent to which ideas might
be considered as reliable scientific knowledge as, over time, different evidence is collected,
critiqued, checked, compared etc. Rather, these secondary students tended to think scien-
tists carried out experiments that prove a theory to be correct…or obviously wrong…The
general impression was that theories were largely seen as yet-to-be-supported products of
imagination, and that testing them was largely straightforward. (Taber, Billingsley, Riga, &
Newdick, 2015, p. 390).
However, whilst these students were best understood as at the ‘absolutist’ stage,
often the same students would adopt a multiplist position when asked about what
they were taught in religious studies lessons—where different positions were seen
as a matter of personal opinion or choice, and it was considered as inappropriate to
critique someone else’s convictions about religious or ethical issues. This suggests
that individual learners may appear to be at different positions on schemes such as
those of Perry (see Fig. 15.1) and Kuhn (see Fig. 15.2) when asked about different
domains of knowledge.
Conclusion
Models necessarily simplify reality, but the general pattern identified by Perry, and
reinforced in the work of Kuhn and others, seems to be robust. Perry acknowledged
that individuals can regress, and (as Piaget found in his work on cognitive devel-
opment) setting tasks in different domains of experience may lead to individuals
appearing to operate at different levels. It is important to acknowledge that Perry’s
work has been subject to critique, in particular, that females were underrepresented
in his sample—an issue later explored in the programme to elicit women’s ways of
knowing (Finster, 1989)—although later work at Wellesley College (an elite U.S.
institution educating women) supported Perry’s general findings (Ashton-Jones &
Thomas, 1990).
Regardless of such caveats, this chapter has discussed a general pattern in the
development of thinking that has great significance for science education. That is,
there is a form of intellectual maturation which allows individuals to move from
assuming statements can unproblematically be shown to be right or wrong, to accept-

ing that the evaluation of an assertion may differ according to perspective—but where
all arguable positions are considered of similar merit—to appreciating that, although
knowledge is a human construction with a subjective element, it is often still possible
to identify criteria that allow one to evaluate alternatives and make a rational and
justifiable (if potentially fallible) choice between them.
At one level, this assertion about the development of intellectual sophistication
could be seen as a potential restriction on science education, highlighting aspects
of the curriculum that students may struggle to engage with. Alternatively, such a
scheme may be seen as the basis for organising educational experiences (e.g. Finster,
1991) to support—and perhaps even accelerate—progression. For example, from a
sociocultural perspective (e.g. see Chap. 19), awareness of this pattern of progression
may suggest an important dimension for diagnostic assessment, which can then
inform the extent to which teachers need to offer mediation to support learners in
appreciating and adopting, and so slowly internalising, more mature epistemological
stances.
Further Reading
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Beliefs and science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science
education: An international course companion (pp. 53–67). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
References
Arlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage? Developmental Psychology,

11(5), 602–606.
Ashton-Jones, E., & Thomas, D. K. (1990). Composition, collaboration, and women’s ways of
knowing: A conversation with Mary Belen. Journal of Advanced Composition, 10(2), 275–292.
Bloom, B. S. (1968). The cognitive domain. In L. H. Clark (Ed.), Strategies and tactics in secondary
school teaching: A book of readings (pp. 49–55). London: MacMillan.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books.
Finster, D. C. (1989). Developmental instruction: Part 1. Perry’s model of intellectual development.
Journal of Chemical Education, 66(8), 659–661.
Finster, D. C. (1991). Developmental instruction: Part 2. Application of Perry’s model to general
chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(9), 752–756.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological
Bulletin, 101(2), 171.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). Stages and aging in moral development—Some speculations. The Gerontol-
ogist, 13(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/13.4.497.
Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptualization. Human
Development, 26, 91–105.
222 K. S. Taber
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1968). The affective domain. In L. H. Clark (Ed.),
Strategies and tactics in secondary school teaching: A book of readings (pp. 41–49). New York:
The Macmillan Company.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition
and Development, 1(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_11.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA:
Medawar, P. B. (1963/1990). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The threat and
the glory (pp. 228–233). New York: Harper Collins, 1990 (Reprinted from: The Listener, Volume
70: 12th September, 1963).
Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2000). Teaching chemistry as a rhetoric of conclusions or heuristic
principles—A history and philosophy of science perspective. Chemistry Education: Research
and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 315–322.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1985). Different worlds in the same classroom: Students’ evolution in their vision of
knowledge and their expectations of teachers. On Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–17.
Piaget, J. (1970/1972). The principles of genetic epistemology (W. Mays, Trans.). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Riga, F., Winterbottom, M., Harris, E., & Newby, L. (2017). Inquiry-based science education. In K. S.
Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 247–261).
Springer.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and
curriculum demand. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books.
Taber, K. S. (2010). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in
chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552–558.
Taber, K. S. (2011). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the
development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of
science research—Concepts and methodologies (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representa-
tions of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research.
Taber, K. S. (2015). Affect and meeting the needs of the gifted chemistry learner: Providing intel-
lectual challenge to engage students in enjoyable learning. In M. Kahveci & M. Orgill (Eds.),
Affective dimensions in chemistry education (pp. 133–158). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Reflecting the nature of science in science education. In K. S. Taber & B.
Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 23–37). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Taber, K. S., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2015). English secondary students’ think-
ing about the status of scientific theories: Consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively
evidenced explanations of aspects of the natural world—or just ‘an idea someone has’. The
Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 370–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1043926.
Wellman, H. M. (2011). Developing a theory of mind. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell
handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 258–284). Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice.
In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2,
pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.
Keith S. Taber is the Professor of Science Education at the University of Cambridge. Keith
trained as a graduate teacher of chemistry and physics, and taught sciences in comprehensive sec-
ondary schools and a further education college in England. He joined the Faculty of Education
at Cambridge in 1999 to work in initial teacher education. Since 2010, he has mostly worked
with research students, teaching educational research methods and supervising student projects.
He was until recently the Lead Editor of the Royal Society of Chemistry journal ‘Chemistry Edu-
cation Research and Practice’, and is Editor-in-Chief of the book series ‘RSC Advances in Chem-
istry Education’. His main research interests relate to conceptual learning in the sciences, includ-
ing conceptual development and integration. He is interested in how students understand both
scientific concepts and scientific values and processes.
Part IV
Constructivist Theories
Chapter 16
Pragmatism—John Dewey
Fran Riga
Introduction
John Dewey is the world-renowned American philosopher, psychologist, and social

reformer who had a profound influence on educational practice and research through-
out the twentieth century—and continues to do so to this day. This chapter focuses on
Dewey’s ideas relating to pragmatism, or as he referred to it, instrumentalism. The
chapter begins by examining the origins of pragmatism and particularly the meaning
that Dewey attached to the term. Dewey’s theory of pragmatism (with its emphasis
on inquiry) is then set out within the contexts of philosophy and education, with
special emphasis on its relevance to science education.
Dewey and the Origins of Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a term that has perplexed educators and philosophers alike for some
time and will, in all likelihood, continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Owing to its
relatively recent appearance on the philosophical stage, a clear-cut, all-encompassing
definition of the term is proving elusive, although Talisse & Aikin (2008) suggest
that this need not necessarily be viewed in a negative light, saying that pragmatism
is ‘a living philosophy rather than a historical relic’ (p. 3). That is to say, it is still
evolving.
It is now widely accepted that pragmatism is a school of thought whose origins
may be found in the works of Charles Sanders Peirce in the late 1800s. Peirce’s ideas
were then taken up, interpreted in various ways, extended, and popularized, in the
first half of the twentieth century by its earliest protagonists—William James and
F. Riga (B)
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

228 F. Riga
John Dewey. It has therefore been hailed as ‘the first truly American philosophical
movement’ (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 4). Although Dewey would probably not
dispute this, he argues that American thought is really a continuation of European
thought, contending that European ideas (like the American language, laws, institu-
tions, morals, and religion) were ‘imported’ from Europe, but then re-adapted to fit
American life and conditions. He describes the pragmatic movement as an attempt at
‘re-adaptation’ (to American life) and suggests that ‘the practical element … found
in all phases of American life’ is the reason why pragmatism (or, ‘instrumental-
ism’, as he calls it) places great importance on ‘the teleological phase of thought
and knowledge’ (Dewey, 1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a, pp. 11–12). Dewey
insists on action being intelligent and reflective, with thought being the cornerstone
of life. Consequently, pragmatism moves the individual into centre stage—however,
this is ‘an individual who evolves and develops in a natural and human environment’
(Dewey, 1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a, p. 12).
It is beyond doubt that the progressive and unstable character of American life and civilization
has facilitated the birth of a philosophy which regards the world as being in continuous
formation, where there is still place for indeterminism, for the new and for a real future
Hence, although pragmatism is chronicled as being ‘rooted in the Western philo-

sophical tradition’, it is unique in insisting that ‘philosophy should take the methods
and insights of modern science into account’. Dewey, in particular, emphasized that
modern science’s experimental method should serve as ‘a model for human problem-
solving and the acquisition of knowledge’ (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 5). Dewey
describes Peirce as ‘an empiricist … an experimentalist … a man whose intelli-
gence is formed in the laboratory’ (Dewey, 1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a,
pp. 3–4), where experimentalists may be thought of as individuals who believe that
all their knowledge can be arrived at through scientific experiments. This led to the
coining of yet another name by which pragmatism is known, i.e. experimentalism.
To avoid confusion, the term pragmatism will be used throughout this chapter rather
than experimentalism or instrumentalism.
Returning now to the origin of the term, Peirce’s conceptualization of pragmatism
may be found in the following extract:
To develop [a thought’s] meaning, we have simply to determine what habits it produces,
for what a thing means is simply what habits it involves (Peirce, quoted in Talisse & Aikin,
2008, p. 9).
Talisse & Aikin (2008, p. 9) go on to explain:

By ‘habit’ Peirce means a standard course of action undertaken in response to specific
conditions. For any thought, then, one may extract its complete meaning by drawing out the
proposals for action that it suggests.
This thesis has become identified as the pragmatic maxim—or in Peirce’s words:
Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object
of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception
of the object (Peirce, quoted in Talisse & Aikin, 2008, pp. 9–10).
16 Pragmatism—John Dewey 229
That is to say, to be able to understand the meaning of a concept, one must be able
to apply the concept to fulfil some purpose or action (in real life). One needs to see
how the concept becomes enacted in real life, because it is through the modification of
one’s behaviour—in response to its application for a purpose—that the true meaning
of the concept may be known. Dewey concurs, saying that ‘[I]n order to be able to
attribute a meaning to concepts, one must be able to apply them to existence [i.e.
human conduct]’ (Dewey, 1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a, p. 4).
In addition to conceiving the idea for a new philosophical movement, Peirce
was also keen to ally pragmatism with the concept of inquiry (or what both he
and Dewey referred to as ‘logic’). Dewey, too, perceived inquiry as being crucial,
although their interpretations of the term were not identical. Peirce viewed inquiry
as the ‘struggle’ that ensues when changing from a position of ‘doubt’ to a position
of ‘belief’, where ‘belief’ (for Peirce) was “a state which ‘guide[s] our desires and
shape[s] our actions’” (Peirce, quoted in Talisse & Aikin, 2008, p. 17). True to the
pragmatic maxim, he saw inquiry as establishing in one’s nature a habit that would
determine one’s actions. Doubt, on the other hand, represented a disturbance of
the harmony of one’s actions. He viewed doubt was an ‘uneasy state from which
we struggle to free ourselves’ (Peirce, quoted in Talisse & Aikin, 2008, p. 18). In
fact, Peirce saw the two as going together—he perceived inquiry as the reliever of
doubt, and whose purpose was to remove doubt and so arrive at belief. For Peirce,
any process which resulted in change from a state of doubt to a state of belief was
inquiry, and he argued for the method of science as being the only way doubt could
be transformed into belief. For him, the only purpose for undertaking inquiry was
for ‘the settlement of opinion’, in other words, to eliminate doubt and so arrive at
belief (Talisse & Aikin, 2008, p. 18).
Inquiry, when properly conducted, is the process of attempting to arrive at a belief that would
never occasion doubt, a belief that would not give rise to recalcitrant experiences (Talisse &
Aikin, 2008, p. 20).
Dewey perceived inquiry slightly differently. Dewey defines inquiry as follows:

Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that
is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the
original situation into a unified ‘Whole’ (Dewey, 1938b, pp. 104–105. Italics are Original).
Dewey replaces Peirce’s keyword ‘opinion’—which is associated with people—

with ‘situation’.
What is designated by the word “situation” is not a single object or event or set of events.
For we never experience nor form judgments about objects and events in isolation, but only
in connection with a contextual whole. This latter is what is called a “situation”. … In actual
experience, there is never any such isolated singular object or event; an object or event is
always a special part, phase, or aspect, of an environing experienced world—a situation
(Dewey, 1938b, pp. 66 and 67).
Like Peirce, Dewey sees inquiry in terms of a reaction to a particular experience,

which both he and Peirce call ‘doubt’. However, according to Dewey, it is not we (as
persons) that are doubtful, but situations—situations have traits such as ‘disturbed,
230 F. Riga
troubled, ambiguous, confused, full of conflicting tendencies, obscure, etc.’, not

individuals. He writes ‘[W]e are doubtful because the situation is inherently doubt-
ful’ (Dewey, 1938b, pp. 105–106). So, Dewey’s conception of inquiry incorporates
the notion of a ‘situation’ (which could be either ‘determinate’ or ‘indeterminate’).
Hence, inquiry is a response to one’s experience of doubt, and doubt is attributed to
situations (not people). Doubt is an experience, but Dewey’s perception of experience
went beyond the traditional notion of this concept—which had viewed experience
as ‘receiving impressions of external objects through the sense organs’ (Talisse &
Aikin, 2008, p. 22) and being an antithetical term to thought (Dewey, 1917, in Hick-
man & Alexander, 1998a, p. 48). To Dewey, experience was essentially ‘a process of
undergoing; a process of standing something; of suffering and passion, of affection,
in the literal sense of these words’ (Dewey, 1917, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a,
p. 49). And, the process of ‘undergoing’ is not passive. It involves action. Moreover,
experience is experimental—endeavouring to change what is given. Hence experi-
ence is ‘a future implicated in the present!’. In other words, experience involves an
adjustment of the organism to the environment where ‘every step in the process is
conditioned by reference to further changes which it effects’ (Dewey, 1917, in Hick-
man & Alexander, 1998a, p. 49). Dewey argued that experience is ‘assuredly … an
affair of the intercourse of a living being with its physical and social environment’
According to Dewey, an indeterminate or ‘problematic situation’ (such as doubt)
would be one in which the constituent elements of the situation are not in harmony,
and a determinate situation (such as belief) would be one in which the constituent
elements are in harmony—keeping in mind that a situation involves an interacting
blend of biological and social environments. The whole purpose of inquiry for Dewey
is to construct a new ‘situation’ that did not exist prior to engaging in the inquiry.
Dewey’s Pragmatism—Action, Meaning and Knowledge
Much has been made of pragmatism’s preoccupation with action. In keeping with
Peirce’s ideas, pragmatism has been described as a theory of action (Miettinen, 2006),
primarily concerned with the ability to understand and/or clarify concepts (Dewey,
1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a). Understanding, which precedes knowledge,
involves the capacity to attribute meaning to things/concepts. However, to do so one
needs to ‘be able to apply them [concepts] to existence’, and according to Dewey,
‘it is by means of action that this application is made possible’ (Dewey, 1925, in
Hickman & Alexander, 1998a, p. 4). This means that to fully understand a particular
concept, one would need to be able to apply it (the concept) to fulfil some purpose
or action or human conduct—where ‘action’ may be understood to be ‘the means by
which a problematic situation is resolved’ (Dewey, 1929a, p. 244).
To Dewey, knowledge, too, comes about as a result of the processes which ‘trans-
form a problematic situation into a resolved one’ (Dewey, 1929a, p. 242). He per-
ceives knowledge as an action. Dewey (1929a) proposes the idea that interaction
is ‘a universal trait of natural existence’ (p. 244), and action is that mode of the
interaction which emanates from the organism. Knowing is not something which is
imposed from outside (which he refers to as ‘spectator theory of knowing’), but is
something that occurs within nature (from the organism)—‘an act which modifies
what previously existed’ (p. 245).
Hence, for Dewey, pragmatism tries to make sense of a concept by seeing how
the concept is enacted in real life. Such enactment (or action) will, in due course,
produce some modification in the conduct of one’s life, and such modification—
resulting from this application—is what constitutes the true meaning of the concept
(i.e. knowledge of the concept is continually being appropriated by the organism).
In short, pragmatism insists on the ‘necessity of human conduct and the fulfilment
of some aim in order to clarify thought’ (Dewey, 1925, in Hickman & Alexander,
1998a, p. 4). Moreover, the greater the range of applications of the concept to human
conduct/life, the more the meaning of the concept/term can be generalized.
[T]he rational purport of a word or other expression, lies exclusively in its conceivable
bearing upon the conduct of life; so that, since obviously nothing that might not result from
experiment can have any direct bearing upon conduct, if one can define accurately all the
conceivable experimental phenomena which the affirmation or denial of a concept could
imply, one will have therein a complete definition of the concept (Peirce, quoted in Dewey,
1925, in Hickman & Alexander, 1998a, p. 4).
By continuously interacting with our environment and trying to achieve a state

of harmony with it (our environment), we acquire certain patterns of probable
behaviour, called habits. These habits are unique to each individual, and cannot
develop through repetition—they form the basis of meaning (which is a precursor to
knowledge). Dewey perceived meaning as ‘the way in which the organism responds
to the environment’, i.e. it is ‘a property of behaviour’ (Biesta & Burbules, 2003,
p. 36; Dewey, 1929b, p. 179)—habits can be thought of as individual configurations
of objects/events that make meaning possible.
Dewey believed that the experimental method of modern science served as a model
both for problem solving and for the acquirement of meaning/knowledge (Biesta &
Burbules, 2003, p. 5). Dewey gave much thought to knowledge and how it might be
acquired through the philosophical ‘lens’ of action. He rejected Descartes’ assump-
tion of the dualism of mind and matter, i.e. that reality consists of two separate types
of ‘stuff’—mind and matter (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 5). In attempting to address
the dilemma of how an immaterial thing (such as the mind) can apprehend knowledge
of a material world (composed of matter), Dewey’s starting point, quite different from
Descartes’ dualism of mind and matter, looked to the interactions (or ‘transactions’)
occurring in nature, where nature is perceived as ‘a moving whole of interacting
parts’ (Dewey, 1929a, p. 291). Given the constantly changing events/interactions in
nature, he could not view the structure of knowledge as a static and unchanging
system. Hence, Dewey believed that knowledge could only be apprehended and pro-
gressed through action—‘knowing goes forward by means of doing’ (Dewey,1929a,
p. 290).
For Dewey, it was through the process of conducting scientific inquiry that the
conflict between knowing and doing, and, theory and practice, could be discarded.
232 F. Riga
The old notion that one comes to ‘know’ things inside oneself and where one assumes
‘a definite separation between the world in which man thinks and knows, and, the
world in which he lives and acts’—is abandoned in favour of Pierce’s new idea, prag-
matism, which sees ‘indefinite interactions taking place within a course of nature
which is not fixed and complete, but which is capable of direction to new and differ-
ent results through the mediation of intentional operations’ (Dewey,1929a, p. 291).
Dewey described this ‘change in the method of knowing’ as a revolution in people’s
attitude towards ‘natural occurrences and their interactions’ (Dewey,1929a, p. 85).
He saw this transformation in attitude towards the traditional relationship between
knowledge and action as representing a Copernican-type revolution. He referred to
it as a ‘shift from knowing which makes a difference to the knower but none in
the world, to knowing which is a directed change within the world’ (Dewey, 1929a,
p. 291).
There is no practical point gained in asserting that a thing is what it is experienced to be
apart from knowledge … Knowledge is instrumental (Dewey, 1929a, p. 294, 298).
For Dewey, there appear to be three ways or ‘actions’ through which one arrives
at knowledge:
• experience/action (especially physical),
• thought,
• communication.
Experience. ‘Experience’ once meant the results accumulated in memory of a
variety of past doings and undergoings that were had without control by insight,
when the net accumulation was found to be practically available in dealing with
present situations (Dewey, 1929a, p. 81).
Experience can be thought of as an action through which knowledge may be
acquired. It does not occur ‘in a vacuum’, but is an action which is social in nature
as it involves both ‘contact and communication’ (Dewey, 1938a, p. 40, 38).
Dewey sets out two principles that guide the interpretation of experience—conti-
nuity and interaction—asserting that these principles are not mutually exclusive but
‘intercept and unite’ (Dewey, 1938a, p. 44). Continuity of experience ‘means that
every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and
modifies in some way the quality of those which come after’ (p. 35)—an underlying
idea that permeates pragmatism. In large measure, the world in which we live is the
way it is because of things, events and experiences that have gone before (p. 39).
Interaction involves the interplay between what goes on inside a person’s body and
mind on the one hand, and, the external conditions which affect experiences on the
other. As already indicated, Dewey calls the interaction between these two a ‘sit-
uation’ (p. 42), and living in the world implies that individuals live in a ‘series of
situations’ (p. 43).
An experience is always what it is because of a transaction taking place between an individual
and what, at the time, constitutes his environment … the environment … is whatever condi-
tions interact with personal needs, desires, purposes, and capacities to create the experience
which is had (Dewey, 1938a, p. 43–44).
Thought. Understanding concepts (the precursor to thinking) involves thinking,

and thinking is the mechanism/action through which ideas develop. In How We Think
(1910, 1933), Dewey describes thinking as the ‘procession of mental states’ through
the mind (1933, p. 4), and suggests that thinking processes can be interpreted in
terms of four ‘senses’ or meanings:
(1) Thinking, ‘in its loosest sense’, is that ‘uncontrolled coursing of ideas through
our heads’ (1933, p. 2, 4), i.e. the kind of thinking that we engage in all the time
in our conscious and our sleeping (or dreaming) hours.
(2) In its second sense, thinking is restricted to the things we cannot perceive directly
through our senses—those sorts of narratives that children frequently blurt out,
possibly on a wave of emotion, and whose main objective is a well-structured
(possibly exciting!) plot. However, the aim of such narratives is not ‘belief
about facts or… truths’, but rather ‘successions of imaginative incidents and
episodes which, having a certain coherence, hanging together on a continuous
thread, lie between kaleidoscopic flights of fancy and considerations deliberately
employed to establish a conclusion’ (1933, p. 3).
(3) In a third sense, thinking may be characterized by beliefs that are easily accepted,
but without the individual having properly considered any grounds/evidence for
their acceptance—moreover, very often individuals are not even consciously
aware of how or where these thoughts were picked up.
(4) In its final sense, thinking is ascribed to those thought processes which Dewey
refers to as ‘reflective thinking’—in his view, this is the highest category of
thought process. Accordingly, Dewey defines reflective thinking as follows.
Reflection involves not simply a sequence of ideas, but a consequence—a con-
secutive ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper outcome,
while each outcome in turn leans back on, or refers to, its predecessors. The succes-
sive portions of a reflective thought grow out of one another and support one another;
they do not come and go in a medley. Each phase is a step from something to some-
thing—technically speaking, it is a term of thought. Each term leaves a deposit that
is utilized in the next term. The stream or flow becomes a train or chain. There are in
any reflective thought definite units that are linked together so that there is a sustained
movement to a common end (Dewey, 1933, p. 4–5).
Dewey’s description of reflective thinking resonates with his account of the con-
tinuity principle of experience (discussed earlier)—both rely on what went before to
influence change in what follows—again, an idea that permeates pragmatism.
Dewey considers thinking as a kind of ‘inner experimentation’ (Dewey, 1929b,
p. 166), with thinking being another way in which knowledge may be acquired. In
other words, he perceives thinking as a way of enacting different scenarios with-
out having to (physically) ‘suffer’ the consequences of these scenarios—ultimately
however, to check the applicability of a particular scenario, one would have to enact
it in ‘real life’ conditions (Biesta & Burbules, 2003).
Communication. Dewey maintained that discourse was both instrumental and con-
summatory. For him, communication was: ‘an exchange which procures something
wanted; it involves a claim, appeal, order, direction or request, which realizes want at
234 F. Riga
less cost than personal labour exacts, since it procures the cooperative assistance of
others’ (Dewey, 1929b, p. 183). When individuals communicate with one another, ‘all
natural events are subject to reconsideration and revision’—they are adjusted accord-
ing to the needs of the conversation, whether the consequence of the conversation
is further conversation (i.e. ‘public discourse’), or whether the consequence of the
conversation is internal dialogue (i.e. ‘thinking’) (Dewey, 1929b, p. 166). Resonating
with both experience and thinking, communication involves considering something
which went before (e.g. in the form of an idea from another person), and then possibly
adding to or modifying this, according to the requirements of the conversation—for
the purpose of sustaining ‘movement to a common end’, i.e. to progress knowledge
(Dewey, 1933, p. 4–5). Hence, when individuals communicate with one another to
achieve a common end, not only are their individual views, approaches and habits
modified to produce (as a consequence) an integrated and harmonized response, but,
through this process, their individual worlds are also transformed (Biesta & Burbules,
2003, p. 12).
Where communication exists, things in acquiring meaning, thereby acquire representatives,
surrogates, signs and implicates, which are infinitely more amenable to management, more
permanent and more accommodating, than events in their first estate (Dewey, 1929b, p. 167).
The heart of language is … is communication; the establishment of cooperation in an activity
in which there are partners, and in which the activity of each is modified and regulated by
partnership (Dewey, 1929b, p. 179).
To sum up. Experience, thought and communication are seen as ways in which
meaning is activated. Through the processes of experiencing, thinking and commu-
nicating, we continuously interact with our environment—we change it, are changed
by it, and come to know things (either for the first time or more deeply).
In the act of knowing—and hence in research—both the knower and what is to be known
are changed by the transaction between them (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 12).
Dewey’s Pragmatism and Science Education
Dewey was one of the earliest leading figures who advocated for activity-based,
hands-on approaches to teaching and learning—what is now encapsulated in an
approach to teaching often referred to as inquiry-based education. Viewing expe-
rience as an action through which concepts/things may become known, Dewey
observed ‘no experience is educative that does not tend both to knowledge of more
facts and entertaining of more ideas and to a better, a more orderly, arrangement of
them’ (Dewey, 1938a, p. 82). Essentially, activity-based approaches try to engage
students in situations that are both appealing and tap into their curiosity (Prawat,
2000). Although Dewey believed in teachers taking the lead in creating experiences
that would be ‘educative’, he did not view the teacher as simply the ‘designer of
problematic environments’ (with complete control of what they wanted students
to learn), but rather as “an intellectual leader—a person who can get the class, as a
‘social unity’, interested and excited about ideas” (Prawat, 2000, p. 810). The teacher
is seen as the instigator of situations and experiences that inspire students to immerse
themselves in a process that leads to constructing knowledge.
For Dewey, inquiry is a particular type of experience. It is the process through
which a belief that has become problematic is scrutinized and resolved by taking
action—‘It is a process of making choices by asking and answering questions, in
which those questions concern the likely outcomes of applying current beliefs to
future action’ (Morgan, 2014, p. 1047). Morgan describes Dewey’s approach to
inquiry as involving the following five steps:
1. Recognizing a situation as problematic;
2. Considering the difference it makes to define the problem one way rather than
another;
3. Developing a possible line of action as a response to the problem;
4. Evaluating potential actions in terms of their likely consequences;
5. Taking actions that are felt to be likely to address the problematic situation;
Morgan, (2014), p. 1047.
Moreover, Dewey’s notion of inquiry as an experience is inextricably linked with
knowledge. ‘Through the inquiry process knowledge becomes a verb’—i.e. the pro-
cess of knowing (rather than the noun ‘knowledge’). So, knowledge assumes a dif-
ferent meaning from the traditional view where it is seen as an objective thing—a
‘bank’ of information to be ‘acquired, transmitted, and maintained’ (Breault, 2014,
p. 190). Knowledge, for Dewey, is a far more fluid, dynamic process—knowing is a
process that is continuous, and contingent upon experience.
In particular, Dewey argued that science should be presented to students in ways
that would kindle their curiosity and stimulate their thinking, rather than as the trans-
mission of unchanging facts from teacher to student (with students having to commit
these facts to memory). Over the last fifty years or so, a resurgence of Dewey’s ideas
has been taking place—advocating for science to be taught as an ‘effective method
of inquiry’ (Dewey, 1910, p. 124), which incorporates his pragmatist view of science
as a subject with laws and concepts that are constantly open to inspection, challenge
and revision (Riga, Winterbottom, Harris, & Newby, 2016). This has coincided (not
coincidentally!) with the advent of constructivist theories of education which chal-
lenged behaviourist ideas that, up to that time, had viewed learning as something
imposed externally by an educator (and which used conditioning in order to promote
favourable behaviours and discourage unfavourable ones). Dewey asserted that indi-
viduals themselves constructed their own knowledge through experience, thinking
and communication. Hence, nowadays, Dewey would be described as having a social
constructivist approach to teaching and learning.
In more recent years, Dewey’s ideas have had a considerable impact on the devel-
opment of what could be termed the ‘inquiry-based science education movement’,
which has seen the development of curricula and guides to teaching and learning sci-
ence—such as the National Science Education Standards (1996) and Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards (2000). In these National Research Council
236 F. Riga
(NRC) publications, inquiry is portrayed ‘as an approach to teaching science which

engages students in the same sorts of activities, practices, and thinking processes
that scientists use in their work, i.e. in their pursuit of scientific inquiry’ (Riga et al,
2016, p. 250). Dewey’s notion of inquiring into ‘authentic questions’ which arise
from students’ prior experiences is presented as the key strategy for teaching science
(NRC, 1996, p. 31)—a standpoint founded on constructivist principles.
A key ingredient in inquiry-based approaches in education has been getting students to think
for themselves—both while working together collaboratively in groups and when working
alone. How proficient a student becomes in the practice of thinking independently is what
will ultimately determine whether s/he will be a ‘disciple’ or an ‘inquirer’ (Dewey, 1980)
(Riga et al, 2016, p. 259).
The NRC presents the core components of inquiry as follows:

Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; exam-
ining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning inves-
tigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools
to gather, analyse, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and
communicating the results (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23).
The extent of autonomy and direction which teachers might give their students
when pursuing inquiry-based work may vary considerably from doing highly struc-
tured ‘recipe-style’ activities/tasks at one end of the spectrum, to undertaking open-
ended project-work at the other end (where students would enjoy complete autonomy)
(For more detailed discussion of inquiry-based approaches to science teaching and
learning, refer to Riga et al, 2016).
Concluding Thoughts
In closing, it is important to draw attention to a common misconception associated

with Dewey’s beliefs regarding pragmatism. Dewey’s strong emphasis on practical
action, i.e. what he called the ‘method of science’ as a way of resolving problematic
situations, has led some authors to claim that Dewey believed that all knowledge
must be firmly rooted in reality and that the natural sciences are the only route to
apprehending this reality (and hence knowledge). Biesta and Burbules strongly argue
against this supposition recalling that Dewey thought it one of the greatest mistakes
of modern philosophy to equate what we know to what is real (Biesta & Burbules,
2003). In Dewey’s own words,
Physical inquiry has been taken as typical of the nature of knowing. The selection is justified
because the operations of physical knowledge are so perfected and its scheme of symbols
so well devised. But it would be misinterpreted if it were taken to mean that science is the
only valid kind of knowledge” (Dewey, 1929a, p. 250–251).
Dewey’s ‘pragmatic’ ideas have frequently been characterized as being ‘extremely

challenging to implement’, possibly because of the influence that a number of factors
(such as social conditions, educational research, the experiences and interests of

teachers, and standardized assessment procedures) have had on education—or, as
Dewey calls it, the educative process. For Dewey, it is not the practitioner’s values
and practices that will determine the educative process, but the other way around—it
is the educative process that will determine one’s educational values and practices
(Hickman, 2014).
The norms of education cannot be conveyed in “cookbook” fashion… They emerge, instead,
as teachers interact with students in the process of learning. Education—the educative pro-
cess—is autonomous, Dewey reminds us. In a robust democracy, it must be free to determine
its own ends (Hickman, 2014, p. 208).
Further Reading
Biesta, G. J. (1994). Education as practical intersubjectivity: Towards a critical-

pragmatic understanding of education. Educational Theory, 44(3), 299–317.
Biesta, G. J. J. (1995). Pragmatism as a pedagogy of communicative action. In J.
Garrison (Ed.), The new scholarship on John Dewey. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Stan-
dards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting con-
cepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/
13165.
Dewey, J. (1908). What does pragmatism mean by practical? The Journal of
Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 5(4), 85–99.
Eames, S. M. (2003). Experience and value: Essays on John Dewey and pragmatic
naturalism. In E. R. Eames & R. W. Field (Eds.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Khasawneh, O. M., Miqdadi, R. M., & Hijazi, A. Y. (2014). Implementing pragma-
tism and John Dewey’s educational philosophy in Jordanian public schools. Journal
of International Education Research, 10(1), 37.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). https://www.nextgenscience.org/.
Sleeper, R. W. (2001). The necessity of pragmatism: John Dewey’s conception of
philosophy. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Vanderstraeten, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). How is education possible? Pragma-
tism, communication and the social organisation of education. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 54(2), 160–174.
238 F. Riga
References
Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Breault, D. A. (2014). Inquiry and education: a way of seeing the world. In D. A. Breault & R.
Breault (Eds.), Experiencing Dewey. Insights for today’s classroom. (2nd ed., pp. 189–191). New
York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Dewey, J. (1917). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander
(Eds.), The essential Dewey. Volume 1. Pragmatism, education, democracy. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Dewey, J. (1925). The development of American pragmatism. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander
(Eds.), The essential Dewey. Volume 1. Pragmatism, education, democracy. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Dewey, J. (1929a). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New
York: Minton, Balch and Company.
Dewey, J. (1929b). Experience and nature. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1938a). Experience and education (The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series). New York:
Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1938b). Logic. The theory of inquiry. New York. Henry Holt and Company.
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle
works, 1899–1924 (vol 9, 1916, pp. 1–370). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hickman, L. A., & Alexander, T. M. (Eds.). (1998a). The essential Dewey. Volume 1. Pragmatism,
education, democracy. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. A., & Alexander, T. M. (Eds.). (1998b). The essential Dewey. Volume 2. Ethics, logic,
psychology. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. (2014). Autonomous education. Free to determine its own ends. In D. A. Breault & R.
Breault (Eds.), Experiencing Dewey. Insights for today’s classroom (pp. 207–208). New York:
Routledge.
Miettinen, R. (2006). Epistemology of transformative material activity: John Dewey’s pragmatism
and cultural-historical activity theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(4), 389–408.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8),
1045–1053.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962/national-science-
education-standards.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide
for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nextgenscience.org/.
Prawat, R. S. (2000). The two faces of deweyan pragmatism: Inductionism versus social
constructivism. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 805–840.
Riga, F., Winterbottom, M., Harris, E., & Newby, L. (2016). Inquiry-based science education. In K.
S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Talisse, R. B., & Aikin, S. F. (2008). Pragmatism: A guide for the perplexed. London, UK:
Continuum.
Dr. Fran Riga is a teaching and research associate in the Faculty of Education at the University
of Cambridge, where she has worked on a number of research projects in the following areas:
science education for the gifted, trainee teachers’ conceptualization of assessment, inquiry-based
science education, dialogic approaches in secondary education, computer-based adaptive learn-
ing, and promoting science to ‘science-disadvantaged’ communities through science centres. She
comes from a background of teaching science and mathematics in secondary schools, and in her
Ph.D. research she investigated secondary students’ conceptual development in astronomy topics.
Chapter 17
Experiential Learning—David A. Kolb
Louise Lehane
Introduction
This chapter presents Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) with particular
emphasis on how the theory can translate into practice in the science classroom.
It will look at connecting Kolb’s ELT with, among others, the Piagetian theory of
learning through lived experiences in order to understand the cognitive processes
which in turn allow for meaningful learning.
It is firstly important to note that experience is subjective which suggests the
individual nature of how students learn. It can be argued that this subjectivity is often
forgotten in how we, as teachers, teacher educators, etc., plan our lessons. Therefore,
in a sense constructing a lesson plan results in almost uniform planning, regardless
of the students’ prior experience and their subjective reality. A teacher’s pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) is therefore a critical consideration in the planning and
delivery of lessons, in recognising and being able to adapt to the individual learner
within a particular context. PCK is effectively the knowledge of content and how to
teach that content within a particular context (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2006).
Among others, two components of PCK are a teacher’s knowledge of the students’
understanding of science and knowledge of instructional strategies (Magnusson,
Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). It is within these components that understanding of the
unique learning experience, that is experiential learning, needs to be considered.
L. Lehane (B)
St. Angela’s College, Sligo, Ireland

242 L. Lehane
Kolb: Learning Through Experience
It is firstly important to note that the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) is in effect
a holistic model of the learning process (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2000). As
the name suggests, the theory is focused on learning through experience which in
effect distinguishes it from other learning theories (Kolb et al., 2000). When look-
ing at others, they very much reflect two other theories of learning, the cognitive
and behaviourist theories of learning. Experiential learning takes a further integra-
tive perspective to consider learning that combines experience, perception, cognition
and behaviour (Kolb, 1984). It looks at engaging students in an experience that will
ultimately have real consequences. Instead of hearing from or reading the experi-
ences of others, students make their own discoveries themselves, e.g. through online
research, collaborative learning, etc. In science, this can also be done through expe-
riencing experimental investigations, mirroring the practice of a scientist, which will
be further discussed over the course of this chapter.
Origins of ELT
ELT draws on the work of many prominent scholars from the twentieth century in
terms of how experience influences human learning and development. Kolb drew
his ideas about the nature of experiential learning mainly from the works of Dewey,
Lewin and Piaget. Collectively, through Dewey’s pragmatic approach, Lewin’s the-
ories on social psychology and Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, a unique
perspective on teaching and learning is considered through the ELT (Kolb, 1984).
All three theorists emphasise the traditions of experiential learning towards a life
of purpose and self-directed learning as the guiding principle for education (Kolb,
1984). Kolb uses Lewin’s tradition of action research and the laboratory method
and Dewey’s work on educational research to develop his model (Kolb, 1984). In
relation to Piaget’s theory of learning, it consisted of two major aspects, the process
of coming to know and the stages humans move through as we acquire this ability.
Piaget considered that learning should involve a process of constructing understand-
ing through lived experiences (Kolb, 1984). In other words, humans can understand
and process information more effectively if they have constructed that knowledge
themselves. Piaget appreciated the importance of building constructs and internalis-
ing knowledge rather than accepting information as presented through rote learning.
Piaget’s theory of how we should construct knowledge therefore intimately links
with Kolb’s ELT.
17 Experiential Learning—David A. Kolb 243
Model of ELT
In effect, experiential learning is made up of three key stages: the planning stage,
doing stage and reviewing stage. In its totality, experiential learning is governed by
two processes; experience and reflection. For learning to be effective a person must
have four different types of abilities which are depicted in the ELT model. The ELT
model shows two dialectical perspectives on grasping and transforming experience
(Kolb et al., 2000). There are two modes of grasping experience—Concrete Expe-
rience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) and two modes of transforming
experience—Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE) (Ibid).
Learners must have all four of these abilities and must be able to choose which of
these learning abilities bring to bear an understanding of the concept being learned
(Ibid).
A distinctive variation exists between the different modes and can be surmised as
follows:
• CE is about doing and having an experience
• AC is about concluding and learning from experience
• RO is reviewing/reflecting on the experience
• AE is planning and trying out what is learned (Kolb, 1984).
Learners must be able to involve themselves in new experiences (CE), reflect on their
experiences from different perspectives (RO), create concepts that integrate their
observations into sound theories (AC) and use these theories to make decisions and
solve problems (AE) (Kolb et al., 2000). Therefore, as mentioned above experiential
learning is focused on experience and reflection.
It must be argued that this process is not easy. For example, how can one act and
reflect at the same time? It can be suggested that this takes experience and needs to
be scaffolded initially to make this transition more meaningful. This scaffolding will
be described in due course with reference to the practice of scientific inquiry.
Focus on Experiential Learning in Different Contexts
Experiential learning is so dominant in international contexts that there are even job
opportunities for experiential learning officers in some countries! The Chinese post-
primary science curriculum is heavily focused on integrated experiential learning
for the development of scientifically literate citizens. The Irish post-primary science
curriculum is directed towards creating an autonomous learner who should experi-
ence science using nature of science as the holistic model guiding their practice. In
the Netherlands, experiential learning is a key focus as it is in Canada, America, New
Zealand and Australia, for example. Indeed, Finland, who is often seen as the ‘poster
child’ of education, places a big emphasis on experiential learning.
244 L. Lehane
The model of experiential learning put forward by Kolb has been made into more
structured steps for curriculum implementation in some countries. For example, in
Ireland experiential learning can be considered in terms of four stages: experienc-
ing, processing, generalising and applying (NCCA, 2001). This perspective has been
used in the development of curricula for subjects such as social, political and health
education (NCCA, 2001). Experiencing is the activity stage, while processing is a
stage where students reflect on their experience. This is followed by the generalis-
ing stage where comparisons between students’ answers are made and finally the
applying stage where students apply the learning to new contexts (NCCA, 2001).
The following is an example in science where this could be done.
A jigsaw methodology is used to get students to read different pieces of text to
comprehend the key pieces of information from their texts. The jigsaw methodology
is a co-operative learning strategy which not only helps students to construct knowl-
edge on something but seeks to develop additional life skills such as the ability to
work in groups, communicate effectively and engage in critical thinking.
The jigsaw methodology uses home groups and expert groups. Members of the
home group go to an assigned expert group where they are each given a task to
complete (experiencing stage). They will return to their home groups with the key
pieces of information discussed from their expert groups. They are asked to bring
together the information by the creation of a product, e.g. a poster. Each group then
presents its poster. The whole class then engages in group processing where they
discuss (processing stage) on the experience, comparisons (generalising stage) are
made between groups/students’ experiences and the key ideas they learned. Finally,
the students are asked to apply (applying stage) their new knowledge to a real-life
context. They are also asked to consider the new life skills that they have learned
from engaging in the process.
The jigsaw methodology can be used for a paper and pencil inquiry activity or
indeed it can be used for students to engage in mini-experiments within their expert
groups.
Other Examples of Experiential Learning in Science

Education
It is important to note here that variations often exist between the theoretical/research
perspective and the practical application of a theory in the classroom context. Indeed,
this is an important variation to help teachers apply a theoretical perspective to their
own learning context. Often research literature is focused on a fixed definition of a
construct; therefore the purpose of the upcoming section is to illustrate the flexible
nature of experiential learning. This section will look at how the theory influences
different aspects of science education, namely concept acquisition, the discussion of
which started in the previous section by outlining the jigsaw methodology as a vehicle
for experiencing learning and will be presented towards the end of this section. It
will also look at how ELT relates to scientific practices both inside and outside of the
classroom through consideration for its relationship to scientific inquiry. The section
will also focus on how ELT can be used to guide classroom practices focused on
developing students understanding of socio-scientific issues, the goal of which is to
make them active, informed citizens. Finally it will look at the different learning
abilities of students and how ELT activities can be used for supporting the learning
of different students.
As well as the applications of ELT, the limitations of this theory will also be briefly
discussed throughout.
Firstly, it is important to say that experiential learning is not a repertoire of method-
ologies but it is a statement of fact, people learn from experience (Kolb, 1984). There-
fore, the following presentation of ideas look at methodologies aligned with concept
acquisition through experience. It must also be noted that some of the theories pre-
sented in this book look at similar methodologies, but the key to the discussion in
this chapter is the focus on experience and reflection as part of the learning process.
It is crucial however to understand that the methodologies discussed do not solely
allow for concept acquisition but allow students to experience how science is typi-
cally practiced in the real world and the need to create a socially responsive science
citizen who understands socio-scientific issues and the need to be informed through
research.
As the discussion of experiential learning in respect to science begins, it is impor-
tant to consider that learning science should be culturally constructed. Therefore,
it can be argued that students should experience science similar to how a scientist
engages in scientific practices. In a way, all of the learning abilities mentioned above
mirror the practice of a scientist as they actively engage in doing, reflecting, conclud-
ing and connecting with existing theories. Thus experiential learning is intimately
linked to the holistic model of the nature of science. Nature of science reflects how
science works and specifically how we carry out investigations, how we communi-
cate in science and how we develop an appreciation for the contribution of science
and scientists to society (NCCA, 2016). All of these features are inherently focused
on experience as a key enabler in the act of mirroring the practice of a scientist. This
is a critical consideration in the teaching of science as it is necessary in authentic
scientific practices to mirror how science is practiced outside of the classroom walls.
Students need to understand the often messy nature of how scientists practice science
in the real world, separate to the rigorous following of a ‘cookbook style’, scientific
method approach to investigating that is often part of the students learning experi-
ence. This overly structured approach does not allow an opportunity for authentic
experiential learning to take place as students are not given the opportunity to reflect
on what they have done and what they would do differently next time, as what sci-
entists would do in the real world context. The act of mirroring the practice of a
scientist often considered in terms of scientific inquiry which refers to the diverse
ways that a scientist studies the world, therefore is intimately linked with the expe-
riential learning theory of which will be further explored in due course. Scientific
inquiry contains many features such as designing investigations, observing, collect-
ing and analysing data and drawing conclusions by connecting with existing theory
246 L. Lehane
and is in itself an idealised form of how students should experience science. When
one looks at the features of experiential learning it can be considered that scientists
engage in similar practices of reflection, synonymous with experiential learning and
indeed other theories discussed in this book such as constructivism. Trying to bring
this into classroom practice is a goal for many involved in science education, be it
policymakers, teachers, teacher educators, industry, etc.
It can also be suggested that learning is socially constructed, as discussed in the
chapter looking at social constructivism, and this notion is true in the real world
scientific landscape as scientists rarely work in isolation; thus students should expe-
rience science by socially constructing their understanding of the concept under
consideration.
To extend the discussion, Fig. 17.1 provides an extension to Kolb’s ELT model
but with a particular focus on scientific practices through the inquiry process.
Figure 17.1 presents one way for learners to experience science through scientific
inquiry. Of course, it is not always possible, or realistic, to have every lesson formatted
using the above processes. A limitation of the ELT and the practice of scientific
inquiry is that many teachers feel constrained by a heavy curriculum with limited
Concrete
experience by
collecting
data through
observation
Active Reflective
experimentation observation
Experiential through data
through prediction
of outcome and Learning in analysis and
conducting Science validity/reliability
investigation testing
Abstract
conceptualisation by
connecting
conclusions to theory
and framing new
research questions
for further
investigation
Fig. 17.1 ELT model with particular focus on scientific practices

time to complete science in the way it should be practiced. Additionally, the teachers’
own orientations towards science teaching, in other words their beliefs about how
science should be learned, can be the ultimate determinate of how students experience
science. The act of reflection can also be difficult for both the teacher and the students
as examination of one’s own work can often be a ‘raw’ experience as some people
struggle to appraise something they have produced or experienced. Another limitation
is that while it is necessary to recognise that learning science should be more than
just learning content; learning scientific practices and skills (mirroring the practice
of a scientist) should be equally important but yet this is not often the case in the
typical classroom setting. To that end, it is important to get the balance right, not
every lesson should use the same methodologies but the students should experience a
repertoire of active learning strategies and nature of science foci during their concept
acquisition. Often the methodology/scientific practice takes precedence when trying
to engage in constructivist learning in the classroom, the content to be learned is
equally important as the experience of how students learn in novel ways.
Additionally, experiential learning allows for the opportunity for students to
engage in other aspects of the nature of science such as science as a socio-institutional
system (Erduran & Dagher, 2014). Looking at the act of CE, AC, RO and AE, dis-
cussed previously in the chapter, students can actively engage in debate related to
particular socio-scientific issues (using secondary scientific research data as a tool
for engaging in active dialogue), form group conclusions based on the evidence pre-
sented, reflect on the experience of engaging in critical, informed debate and develop
a research question for further exploration. The goal ultimately from this is to cre-
ate informed, active citizens who are tentative in their conclusions and who search
for and use evidence in informing their opinion. This act of reflection is intimately
related to the ELT.
While the development of informed, active citizens is crucial, again limitations
such as curricular constraints and the teachers’ own self-efficacy and their belief
system in how and what students learn can act as a disabling factor towards this.
Teachers are the change agents towards promoting experiential learning and their
voice as well as the students’ voice must not be lost in the discussion of bringing
experiential learning into the classroom.
How and what we learn is also specific to different contexts such that the learners
must decide which learning ability, i.e. CE or AC that they will use in a given
situation. The students’ learning ability can be both a constraint and an opportunity
to learning using an experiential learning approach. Learning is sometimes best done
through experiencing the concrete and in other times, best served through symbolic,
abstract representations. However, it is important to reflect on the stages of cognitive
development outlined by Piaget which suggests that cognitively, humans do not
develop the ability to think abstractly until they reach the formal operational stage of
cognitive development (Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2008). This suggests therefore
that experiential learning is very much linked to a person’s cognitive development.
This must be considered in the teaching of young people as the formal operational
stage of cognitive development does not typically begin until age 12, even as research
248 L. Lehane
suggests that some adolescents still cannot think in an abstract way suggesting their
cognitive development is not yet at the formal operational stage (Bliss, 1995).
While the above provides context in terms of grasping experience, processing
experience is also specific to the person. Some learners prefer to watch others engaged
in an experience and reflect on it while others prefer to engage in active participation.
It can be argued that in terms of intelligence, the latter would very much reflect a
bodily kinaesthetic intelligence while the former would reflect a visual learner’s
preference (Gardner, 2011). A person who is a reflective observer would actively
learn from teacher demonstration followed by a discussion (reflection) on the key
foci of the demonstration. A person who is an active participant, prefers to experience
learning through active engagement in scientific practices. From a curricular policy
viewpoint, the focus is on active experimentation through scientific inquiry (NCCA,
2016; NGSS, 2013). Are current curricular policies targeting one type of experiential
learner and thereby limiting the concept acquisition and development of some? In
a sense, different types of learners need to be catered for in the overall context of
the diverse classroom and while experiential learning is crucial, it is necessary to
understand that it has different facets.
Kolb further groups the learners into different categories:
1. Diverging learner—their dominant learning abilities are CE and RO.
2. Assimilating learner—their dominant learning abilities are AC and RO.
3. Converging learners—their dominant learning abilities are AC and AE.
4. Accommodating learners—their dominant learning abilities are CE and AE (Kolb
et al., 2000).
The assimilating learning style is important for science careers while people with the
diverging learning style, for example, like working with people, are emotional and
tend to work in the arts (Kolb et al., 2000). The reason why the assimilating learning
style is considered advantageous to those pursuing a career in science is due to the fact
that these learners are typically interested in ideas and abstract concepts. Creation
of models would serve as a pedagogical strategy which caters for these learners as
well as the active pursuit of new ideas through research. Learners with a diverging
learning style benefit more than other types of learners from formative assessment
strategies such as personalised feedback. They tend to be more open-minded and
therefore respond more positively to constructive criticism.
Learners with a converging learning style prefer to solve problems and would be
best served in specialist and technology careers. An accommodating learner works
best from problems solved by others and is most effective in careers in marketing
and sales. The accommodating learners would benefit from co-operative learning
strategies where action is a key part of the learning experience.
A number of factors shape and influence learning styles such as personality, adap-
tive competencies and educational experience (Kolb et al., 2000). It is not within the
remit of this chapter to focus heavily on these factors with the exception of discus-
sion around educational experience as this is very much directly influenced by the
teacher.
Other Instructional Strategies that Focus on Experiential

Learning
The content above provided a general understanding of how ELT links with different
practices in the classroom, the remaining content in the section will look at specific
methodologies to primarily allow for concept acquisition and development.
General group work is an activity central to experiential learning. But for group
work to be effective, a number of considerations need to be made such as the
following:
1. Assignment of task. Clear instructions need to be given, including timing
considerations and providing students with a purpose to the activity.
2. Group selection. When selecting groups, this can be done through random selec-
tion or through mixed ability groupings. The latter selection serves best for a
more meaningful learning experience for all.
3. Roles within a group. It is important to consider assigning different roles in a
group, e.g. a chairperson, a scribe, a presenter and a timekeeper. The teacher
can ask for volunteers or purposefully select the roles of the individual group
members.
The following are some other examples of strategies which can be part of experiential
learning: role-play, simulation, brainstorming, generation of creative products (e.g.
a poster), project work, having a visitor or role model talk to the students, case
studies, walking debate or engaging with a piece of text (NCCA, 2001). I have
been engaged in projects where role models, i.e. practicing scientists have visited
students and the response from students generally is that their stereotypical image
of a scientist is altered based on the experience. Indeed, that is the very essence of
experiential learning which describes the end product of learning to allow students
to apply knowledge, skills and feelings in a real-life context. Meeting with practicing
scientists is a critical learning experience for the students as it can make them aware
that science in the real-world context is vast, differentiated and responsible for several
real-life experiences that students have. For example, in an age of the smartphone it
is important for students to understand that scientists have a part to play in making
the gadgets that they use every day. This discussion is a critical part of the nature of
science. This experience also helps make science more relevant to students and helps
to increase interest and motivation in science. From an occupational perspective,
it can help students to consider pursuing a career in science by having a broad
understanding of scientific practices outside the four walls of the classroom. One
limitation is obvious in the organising of such a visit but as it is not a typical, frequent
methodology that a teacher will use, it is something that can be organised well in
advance.
Another example of an experiential learning activity is the construction of a con-
cept map (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). A concept mapping activity can be used
as an orientation activity, assessment activity or as a way of combining groups’ ideas.
It can also be an assessment tool, a practical learning tool and an instructional tool
250 L. Lehane
(Broggy, 2010). With scientific inquiry practices it can be used to bring together the
data collected by the groups to form an overall consensus. A concept map begins
with a focus question and this focus question can be the research question on which
the investigation was based. A ‘focus question’ clearly specifies the problem or issue
that the concept map should help to resolve (Novak & Cañas, 2006). In a concept
map, two or more concepts (nodes) are linked by words that describe their relation-
ship. They allow a large amount of information to be represented visually and the
act of constructing a concept map allows students to experience and reflect, thereby
engaging in experiential learning. I would use concept maps often in my teaching
and one of the limitations of using concept mapping is that students struggle with the
initial design of the concept map, in particular the hierarchical placing of concepts
and the linking phrases between concepts and they can often become frustrated at the
same time. But looking at learning from an ELT lens, reflecting on the experience
can allow students to consider what they would need to do differently to enhance
their concept maps in future.
It is here I think it is important to note that concept acquisition and development
should not be a linear, straightforward process when applying the ELT to student
learning. Authentic and real learning takes place when students engage in critical
thinking tasks that often result in frustration but ultimately lead to a fruitful learning
experience; students remember these uncertainties towards the final product much
more than the straightforward, surface thinking that can be found in a more traditional
classroom.
Engaging with a piece of text can be considered experiential learning if (1) the
students are aware of the purpose of the text; and (2) it is the main resource for the
processing phase of experiential learning (NCCA, 2001) and again students reflect on
the experience. However while engaging in text can also help to develop students’
literacy skills, for some students they may struggle to maintain focus and under-
stand the content if their comprehension skills are weak. Using a reciprocal reading
technique can be useful in this case (see Petty, 2009 for more information).
Learning logs can be used as an effective learning aid during experiential learning
which allows students to track their learning and reflect on the experience. For exam-
ple, taking part in a field trip can be considered a valuable learning experience both
from the perspective of learning new content and learning about how science works
in practice (nature of science). A learning log can be a purposeful tool to document
new learning and allow students to reflect on the meaning behind their experience.
A limitation of using learning logs however is the need for consistent monitoring of
students’ work to ensure students do not hold misconceptions related to the content
learned. While it takes time, this monitoring and feedback serves as a necessary tool
to understanding students’ progression of learning.
To conclude this section, experiential learning as a theoretical construct can not
only be applied to methodologies which allow for concept acquisition but allow for
students to experience and reflect on scientific practice similar to that of a scientist,
using scientific inquiry as a vehicle to engage in this experience. Experiential learning
allows opportunities for the creation of active, informed citizens to engage in critical
debate and discussion on socio-scientific issues that allow students to see beyond the
four walls of the classroom and an assessment-driven curriculum.
However in order for authentic experiential learning to take place, the system needs
to allow it to happen. Recent changes in curricula, such as that in Ireland, are removing
the rigid science curriculum to allow students more time to engage in authentic
scientific practices which model an experiential learning approach. However change
takes time and both the teacher and students’ voice needs to be at the forefront of the
change process.
Assessing Experiential Learning
A key concern among teachers when they use alternative approaches, such as experi-
ential learning, is how/what to assess. Unfortunately, assessment is the tail that wags
the curriculum dog (Hargreaves, 1989) and unless the assessment values experiential
learning as a vehicle to enhance students’ knowledge, classrooms will remain a rote
learning, product-focused environment where the teacher is the dominant voice and
actor.
Ultimately, both the curricular and the classroom focus should be on assessing
more than students’ ability to recall information, it should be about assessing stu-
dents developing knowledge and skills through experience. For example, a technol-
ogy teacher should be concerned with understanding students’ reaction to particular
experiences in the technology classroom and science is no different. Assessment
for learning opportunities is crucial in this regard. Indeed, the feedback processes
are critical to experiential learning and constitute a particular focus of the Lewinian
model (Kolb, 1984). The opportunity needs to be present for teacher feedback as
well as peer and self-assessment strategies. For example, the product of an inquiry
activity could be the generation of a poster. One possible way of assessing through
feedback is the use of a criterion-referenced rubric. Table 17.1 presents a rubric I use
to assess students’ posters following an inquiry activity.
The scales in the table (exceptional, above expectations, etc.) are taken from the
new Junior Cycle Curriculum in Ireland (NCCA, 2016).
A teacher could also allow students to define how their work will be judged. In
a sense they could choose what criteria will be used to assess their work or indeed
help create a grading rubric. This should be done after students have experienced
assessment through an already designed rubric. This activity helps to create the
autonomous learner which is a critical part of a learner’s education experience.
Other learning products which could potentially be assessed include the following:
• Creating a reflective journal or portfolio.
• Reflection on critical events that took place during the experience through group
discussion.
• Essay, report or oral presentation.
252 L. Lehane
Table 17.1 Assessment Rubric

Criteria Exceptional Above In line with Yet to meet
expectations expectations expectations
Awareness of the
scientific inquiry
process
Quality of
content of poster
with reference to
the chosen theme
Presentation of
the poster
Level of
engagement in
the experience
Clarity of student
explanation
Originality of the
poster
The latter also serves to develop general life skills including the development of
students’ verbal and non-verbal communication skills and ability to articulate infor-
mation. This is an explicit focus of curricular policies internationally in progressive
education countries such as Ireland (NCCA, 2016).
• Self-awareness tools and exercises (e.g. questionnaires about learning patterns).
These would be examples of self-assessment strategies where students are asked
to consciously reflect on what they learned and what they still have difficulty in
mastering.
• Short answers to questions of a ‘why’ or ‘explain’ nature (e.g. ‘What did you
learn through this assignment? What did you not learn that you would like to?’).
In other words, higher-order questions are very important in assessing experiential
learning outcomes. Short answers help to develop students’ ability to be precise
in explanation.
• One-on-one oral assessments with the teacher. Such teacher/learner interactions
are not only critical to student learning but imperative in the creation of an open,
positive classroom environment.
• A project that develops ideas further (individually or in small groups). This would
be considered an extended activity which is often the result of an inquiry-based
activity. In real life, scientists generate new questions from the investigative experi-
ence, therefore students should be able to enact further extension works (Teaching
and Learning Services, 2014).
All of these assessment strategies should place some emphasis on how the experience
facilitated the students in developing skills and not just on the content that they learned
from the experience. This is in line with Dewey’s model which sees learning as a
developmental process (Kolb, 1984). The reason for this is that experiential learning
reflects learning in real life situations and how authentic knowledge development
should take place.
Effect of Experiential Learning on the Teacher
While the learner is a key player, the effect of having learners engaged in experiential
learning from the teacher’s perspective needs to be considered. I would argue that
teachers need to remain motivated and interested in their domain in order to translate
this in their classroom. Recent research showed that teachers who engaged in expe-
riential learning practices were more motivated to continue to try out best practices
in their classroom (Zhang & Campbell, 2012). Indeed, I can relay my experiences of
using an experiential learning approach in teaching, both in post-primary and third-
level contexts. I continue to see the impact of this type of learning on the students,
regardless of their stage of cognitive and social development. I appreciate that expe-
riential learning does take more time in planning for but I am of the view that the
effect on students both from a learning and skills development perspective is worth
the additional planning required. It is important to note that planning is more than just
about resources; it is also about revising the key content needed in the delivery of the
lesson. Often teachers feel restricted to rote learning because they believe that they
do not have the necessary pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to allow learners to
engage in experiential learning. In other words, they often have low self-efficacy. I
admit that this was an issue for me, my own self-efficacy, but it is a necessary action
if students are to fully become active and informed learners and for the teacher to be
an effective facilitator of learning. This planning has become less over the years as
my repertoire of resources and PCK have developed.
Research Against Experiential Learning
Some view experiential learning to be a fad where the focus is on the process rather
than the content to be learned and it must also be noted that some scholars do not
consider Kolb’s interpretation of ELT to provide an accurate presentation and exten-
sion of the original theory. Miettinen (2000), for example, implies that Kolb does not
refer to the Lewinian model but instead uses a secondary source to develop his model.
Secondly, the same author suggests that Kolb selectively uses existing literature to
develop his model, therefore reducing the authenticity of his model. Despite these
assertions, the extent to which Kolb’s model has been used in curriculum design
and as part of theoretical frameworks for research purposes, suggests that generally
speaking, educationalists view Kolb’s model with respect.
In terms of research, while the majority of the literature suggests that students
should learn through active experience, there are those who think that student-led
254 L. Lehane
Table 17.2 Levels of Scientific Inquiry (Bell, Smetana, & Binns, 2005)
Low level inquiry- Becoming less Becoming more High level inquiry-
very teacher focused teacher focused learner focused very learner focused
Confirmation inquiry Structured inquiry Guided inquiry Open inquiry
Question given by Question given by Question given by Question derived by
teacher teacher teacher learner
Procedure given by Procedure given by Procedure developed Procedure derived by
teacher teacher by learner learner
Outcome known in Outcome not known Outcome derived by Outcome derived by
advance in advance learner learner
practices such as experiential learning, inquiry-based learning and discovery learn-

ing are not effective at facilitating students developing knowledge and understanding
about scientific concepts. This can be seen in the research conducted by Kirschner,
Sweller and Clark (2006) who proposed that such practices do not consider the char-
acteristics of the working memory, long-term memory and the intricate relationship
between the two (Kirschner et al., 2006). They note that research trying to validate
the use of experiential learning has not, up to now, been successful. What the authors
talk about is the use of minimal guidance through experiential learning, etc. I suggest
that experiential learning practices should begin at a more structured level and then
move to a more open/student-directed level, once they are comfortable and consistent
in classroom routines focused on learning through experience. Table 17.2 can be used
to describe the different levels of scientific inquiry which, as mentioned previously,
is a related practice to experiential learning.
Table 17.2 shows the changing focus from teacher-directed learning to student-
directed learning where autonomy is central to the experience. This is critical in
providing students with true learning experiences. This progressive spectrum is not
considered in the work reported by Kirschner et al. (2006).
Conclusion
I have spent years trying to instil these ideas into pre-service science teachers but often
their apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) leads to resistance to alternative
ways of learning. Effectively they are products of a success system where one form
of learning worked for them, often through rote learning, due to one dimensional
assessment structures. It is critical to assure pre-service teachers understand the
existing assumptions as a way to try to alter their beliefs/values towards how science
should be taught.
Within initial teacher education (ITE), it is advised that pre-service teachers
engage in experiential learning as a vehicle to develop as a teacher while concur-
rently positioning themselves as learners engaged in experiential learning. This can
be done through the pre-service teachers actively understanding the importance and
engaging critically in school placement opportunities and reflecting on experiences

of such. As teacher educators we must apply the theories we advocate if they are to
have any real meaning and relevance for future educators.
My final message serves as a direct appeal to all teachers, both practicing and
trainees. Learners, generally speaking, remember the teachers they had during their
schooling. We all remember teachers who impacted both positively and negatively
on us as learners. My question is, do you want to be remembered for the right reason,
i.e. that you facilitated your students in positively experiencing science the way it is
meant to be practiced?
Summary
• This chapter has provided some practical insight into how a particular learning
theory can be translated into the science classroom. It has looked at developing a
model of experiential learning centred on practice in the science classroom. With
this, it has focused on the different learning styles of students and the pedagogical
practices, in line with experiential learning, which can facilitate their construction
of new knowledge.
• It has provided insight into how experiential learning links with philosophi-
cal/holistic underpinnings of science education, such as nature of science and
scientific inquiry. The most important message that hopefully comes from this
chapter is the idea that learning is an individual endeavour and a one-size-fits-all
mentality does not work in a productive learning environment. It is critical to vary
your pedagogical approaches to challenge and motivate your learners.
Further Reading
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching and learning for understanding. In L. Darling-Hammond,

B, Barron, P. D, Pearson, A. H, Schoenfield, E. K, Stage, T. D, Zimmerman, G. K, Cervetti,
& J. L, Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding.
San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous
research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive,
learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Petty, G. (2009). Evidence based teaching: A practical approach (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson
Thornes Ltd.
256 L. Lehane
References
Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher,
72(7), 30–34.
Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: The case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25,
139–172.
Broggy, J. (2010). Concept mapping in physics in an Irish university: An investigation into the
application of the tool with particular reference to its relevance to problem solving and the use
of scientific language. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Limerick.
Clark, R. W., Threeton, M. D., & Ewing, J. C. (2010). The potential of experiential learning models
and practices in career and technical education & career and technical teacher education. Journal
of Career and Technical Education, 25(2), 46–62.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: Potential new
directions for curriculum and assessment on nature of science. Irish Education Studies, 33(4),
335–350.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.
Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and assessment reform. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous
research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive,
learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge (1st ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical
content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Exam-
ining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science teaching
(pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective
thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.
NCCA. (2001). Social, political and health education: Junior cycle guidelines for teachers. Dublin:
Department of Education and Science.
NCCA. (2016). Specification for junior cycle science. Dublin: NCCA.
NGSS (2013). DCI arrangements of the next generation science standards. https://www.
nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/NGSS%20DCI%20Combined%2011.6.13.pdf.
Novak, J., & Cañas, A. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them (Vol.
01). Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition: Technical report IHMC CmapTools.
Petty, G. (2009). Evidence based teaching: A practical approach (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson
Thornes Ltd.
Teaching & Learning Services. (2014). Guidelines for assessment of experiential learning.
Montreal: Teaching and Learning Services. McGill University.
Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in education. Harlow: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Zhang, D., & Campbell, T. (2012). An exploration of the potential impact of the integrated experi-
ential learning curriculum in Beijing, China. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7),
1093–1123.
Dr. Louise Lehane is a lecturer in Education at St Angela’s College, a college of the National
University of Ireland, Galway. She lectures in the areas of general and science pedagogics, soci-
ology of education and history and policy of education. She is a qualified science teacher and,
following the completion of her initial teacher education programme, embarked on a Ph.D. Her
thesis was focused on the use of a pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) lens to capture pre-
service science teachers’ scientific inquiry orientations within a professional learning community.
Her main research interests include PCK, scientific inquiry, nature of science, curriculum policy
and the continuum of professional development.
Chapter 18
Social Constructivism—Jerome Bruner
Miia Rannikmäe, Jack Holbrook, and Regina Soobard
Overview
In this chapter, rather than giving an overview of all branches of constructivism, the
authors focus on constructivism but in particular on the value of social constructivism
in education and in particular the input of Jerome Bruner’s ideas. Jerome Bruner has,
arguably, given the latest and most updated influence into widening social construc-
tivism and in highlighting its value in modern societies. This chapter starts with brief
introduction of Bruner’s work, followed by a comparison of constructivism, Bruner’s
work and a comparison of constructivism and social constructivism. In reflecting on
important issues in contemporary education, the authors use an example from a
European Commission-funded project, MultiCo, to show the role of social construc-
tivism in science education to meet the needs of society, especially in increasing the
awareness of young people about science-related careers.
Introduction
In this chapter, a model of a social constructivist way of teaching and learning in

Estonia is introduced, developed within the framework of an EC-funded project called
‘MultiCo’ (http://www.multico-project.eu/). Estonia is a country in which students
have demonstrated high achievement in PISA studies (OECD, 2016), and which
M. Rannikmäe · J. Holbrook (B) · R. Soobard

Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
M. Rannikmäe
R. Soobard

260 M. Rannikmäe et al.
has adopted a competence-based curriculum. Emphasising the focus on science as a

social endeavour, science education is strongly encouraged to follow an ‘education
through science’ philosophy (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007), promoting a more
social view of science learning.
General Overview of Constructivism
Constructivism is a well-known educational theory, strongly advocated over the last

50 years. During this period, rapid changes in the society have taken place, edu-
cational reforms have occurred and new emphases for the goals of education have
appeared. In these societal settings, the emphases placed on constructivism have
changed.
Constructivism is seen as being associated with a way of teaching through which
learners play an active role in their own learning. Learners construct knowledge
based on personal experiences. Being members of society, learners’ interpretations
of their experiences depend on the social environment surrounding them. This envi-
ronment is challenging learners to look beyond current experiences and predict new
events in the future, considering cultural factors associated with the environment.
In a constructivist classroom, educational developments are geared to the students
constructing, rather than the teacher. Unlike the Skinner idea of behaviourism, where
the teacher (‘as the knowledgeable expert’) pours information into passive students,
the constructivist model views the students as actively engaged in their own process
of learning (Cooper, 1993).
Constructivism can be discussed from two aspects: the nature of learning and the
conception of knowledge, both relevant at the student level, or at the teacher level.
In constructivism, learning is (Taber, 2011):
(a) An active process, which is constantly open to change to construct new ideas,
or concepts;
(b) An interactive process of adjusting currently held mental models to make sense
of the physical, cognitive, emotional and social experiences, by interpreting,
representing and restructuring pre-existing knowledge;
(c) A social process in which one’s learning is intimately associated with that of
other human beings, including teachers, peers and other community members.
It is recognized that the social aspect of learning uses conversation, direct
interaction with others and the application of knowledge as integral aspects
of learning;
(d) A contextual process, in that we do not learn isolated facts and abstract theories
separated from learning associated with the rest of our lives.
18 Social Constructivism—Jerome Bruner 261
The key component in constructivism is the conception of knowledge acquisition

seen as:
(a) Constructed, not transmitted or reproduced;
(b) Subjective, as each person creates personal meaning out of experiences and
integrates new ideas into existing knowledge structures;
(c) Adding to previous knowledge constructions, beliefs and attitudes, which are
considered and which impact on the knowledge construction process.
The role of the learner is associated with applying their existing knowledge and
real-world experiences, learning to hypothesise, testing their theories, trying things
that may not work, asking questions, sharing with each other and reflecting on their
experiences. In so doing, students construct their own understanding of the world in
which they live, accommodating and assimilating new information with their current
understanding. In this way, students play central roles in mediating and control-
ling learning to set their own goals, regulate their own learning processes and even
undertake self-assessment. Although students may feel the need to maintain their
established ideas and thus may reject new information that challenges their prior
conceptions, this may be because their views are strongly held and there is a need for
strong group pressure to instigate a level of doubt and to consider a change of view.
Nevertheless, students need to know how to learn, or change their thinking/learning
style. And learners need to use and test ideas, skills and information through relevant
activities.
In the constructivist classroom, both teacher and students think of knowledge
as dynamic, or ever-changing, with students needing to develop the ability to suc-
cessfully stretch and explore their view—certainly not simply seeing knowledge as
inert fragments to be memorised. Key assumptions associated with this perspective
include (Jordan, Carlile, & Stack, 2008):
1. The current beliefs of students, whether correct or incorrect, are important.
2. Despite having the same learning experience, students base their learning on
understanding and meaning, which is personal to them.
3. Understanding or constructing meaning is an active and continuous process.
4. When students construct a new meaning, they may give it provisional acceptance,
or they may even reject it.
5. Learning is an active, not a passive, process and depends on students taking
responsibility for their learning.
6. Learning may involve conceptual changes.
Also, it is worth noting that constructivism supports the need for the teacher to
play an active role. The role of the teacher, as a holder of expert knowledge and as a
facilitator guiding the student learning, is still crucial, although the teacher’s role may
need modification or adaptation, so that students have opportunities to self-construct
their own knowledge. The teacher thus serves as a mentor—guiding, monitoring,
tutoring—or facilitator of the students’ learning. In this respect, the teacher (Jordan
et al., 2008):
(a) Uses approaches recognising students’ prior knowledge, instead of following a

textbook presentation or curriculum content;
(b) Needs to ensure flexibility in the development of student inquiry;
(c) Provides a motivational and inspiring environment for student interactions;
(d) Relies heavily on open-ended questioning, student hands-on problem-solving
though promoting inquiry-based learning, creating situations where the students
are motivated, to ask questions and reflect on their learning;
(e) Scaffolds students’ development (within groups or with teacher support) so as
to encourage them to seek to perform just beyond the limits of their ability when
working alone;
(f) Triggers extensive dialogue and collaboration to expose the learner to alternative
viewpoints and multiple perspectives among their fellow students, supporting
collaboration in constructing knowledge, rather than in competition;
(g) Nurtures students’ natural curiosity and seeks to promote their motivation,
autonomy and self-regulation;
(h) Utilises formative and embedded assessment.
Bruner on a Cognitive Revolution Leading to Constructivism
Besides Vygotsky, Piaget and Dewey, the most recent contribution to conceptualising
and researching constructivism, over the last three decades, comes from Bruner
(Table 19.1). Jerome S. Bruner (1915–2016) is seen as a key figure in the so called
‘cognitive revolution’ within the field of education. He has published several books,
for example, Towards a Theory of Instruction in 1966, and The Process of Education,
the first version published in 1960, the latest revised version in 2009 (Bruner, 2009),
both of which are widely referenced as classics. His view of children as active
problem-solvers, ready to explore ‘difficult’ subjects, while being out of step with
the dominant view in education at that time, stimulated many to consider a different
point of view.
Towards the end of the 1990s, Bruner became critical of the ‘cognitive revolution’
and looked to the building of a cultural psychology that took proper account of
the historical and social context of participants. In his 1996 book, The Culture of
Education, these arguments were developed with respect to schooling. In this book,
Bruner highlighted four views of education, all of which were seen as applicable in
today’s scientific and technological world:
– Students are imitative learners whose focus is on demonstrative (everyday)
activity, where their knowledge and skills may appear;
– Students learn from didactic approaches, where concepts, facts, theories are
presented and first form part of compulsory learning, followed by applications;
– Students are thinkers, who make sense of their world, the essential part being on
discussion and collaboration;
– Students are knowledgeable; in teaching, it is essential to help students to dis-

tinguish between personal knowledge and that taken to be known by the culture
(Bruner, 1997; Smith, 2002).
In the 1960s, Jerome Bruner developed a theory of cognitive growth, which in con-
trast to Piaget, looked to focus on environmental and experiential factors. Bruner
suggested that intellectual ability developed in stages through step-by-step changes,
based on how the mind was utilised. Bruner’s thinking became increasingly influ-
enced by Lev Vygotsky (see Chap. 19) and he began to be critical of the intrapersonal
focus he had taken, and the lack of attention paid to a social and political context
(Smith, 2002).
Social Constructivism and Bruner
Social constructivism is seen as a sub-set of constructivism. The major difference is

with the greater emphasis placed on learning through social interaction (Kukla, 2000).
Vygotsky indicates that culture provides students the cognitive environment needed
for development, with adults in the students’ environment providing the channel for
culture to play a constructivist role, be it language, electronic forms of information
access and processing, cultural history or social context (Vygotsky, 1978).
A learner’s prior knowledge is individual; it depends on personal attitudes and
methods used towards processing prior knowledge (Capel, Leask, & Turner, 2000).
Therefore, it is important to give students possibilities to construct new knowledge in
a situation similar to real life, thereby ensuring that it is created in an authentic context.
Social constructivism explains that learners actively construct their own knowledge
through experiences and interactions with others (Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky, 1962).
Bruner’s views are particularly valuable in conceptualising social constructivism.
He suggests (Capel et al., 2000):
• The basis for learning and the development of thinking within social construc-
tivism is activity. Therefore, actively engaging students in the learning process
and in social interactions with others allows them to construct their own mean-
ing from self-regulated new knowledge. Based on their views, the relationship
between students’ own talking and thinking is important. That means that students
need opportunities to express their own views to aid and consolidate the thinking
process. Therefore, social interactions with others are seen as facilitating learning;
• Learners use different thinking strategies, depending on their previous knowl-
edge, situation and type of learning materials used. Therefore, the important role
in using social constructivism in classrooms lies in the learning approach, the sit-
uation created and the learning materials used, which actively support students’
engagement and social interactions in the learning process;
• Learning involves searching patterns, regularity and predictability. In this pro-
cess, the role of the teacher needs to support and assist students to find and
formulate patterns and regularities and through this, expanding the learners’ prior
knowledge.
This led Bruner to define three stages of learning related to thinking about the world,
each facilitated by social constructivism (Bruner, 1960):
(a) Enactive representation: implication for teaching is providing opportunities for
‘learning by doing’.
(b) Iconic representation: thinking about something through concrete images for
understanding it.
(c) Symbolic representation: thinking abstractly about things.
Scott, Asoko and Leach (2007), building on Bruner’s three stages of learning,
expand the component of symbolic implication and thus a fourth stage can be
considered:
(d) Learning science involves learning the social language of the scientific commu-
nity.
Social Constructivism in the Classroom
In social constructivist classrooms, collaborative learning is a process of peer interac-

tion that is, at a minimum, permitted, but more importantly, mediated and structured
by the teacher. Discussion can be promoted by the problems or scenarios, and is
guided by means of effectively directed questions, the introduction and the clarifica-
tion of concepts and information, (Jordan et al., 2008). Social constructivism focuses
on a social nature of cognition and suggests approaches that facilitate a community
of learners to engage in activity, discourse and reflection, encouraging students to
take on more ownership in the putting forward of ideas to share with others and to
pursue autonomy with a view to interacting in mutual reciprocity in dealing with
social relations.
Summarising, social constructivism related to teaching and learning can be con-
sidered from four aspects: the nature of knowledge, the nature of learning, the nature
of the reality and the nature of motivation:
– Knowledge is a human product, which is socially and culturally constructed in an
active manner and not something which can be looked up from books (Gredler,
1997). Accordingly, to psychology, knowledge is neither tied to the external world,
nor wholly to the working of the mind, but exists as outcomes of mental contradic-
tions that result from interactions with other people and the environment (Schunk,
2012);
– Learning is based on real life, including problem-solving, which takes place in
a social manner through shared experiences and discussion with others. And it
takes place such that new ideas are matched against existing knowledge and the
learner adapts rules to make sense of the world. Social constructivism focuses on
the role of a social group, and sees learning as something that emerges from group
interaction processes, not as something which takes place solely within the indi-
vidual. Learning is seen as an active, socially engaged process, not one of passive
development in response to external commands. Therefore, social constructivism
acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of the individual learner and values,
utilizes and rewards it as an integral part of the learning process (Wertsch, 1997);
– Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed, not discovered through
human activity, so that societies together invent the world (Kukla, 2000). Social
constructivism maintains that while it is possible for people to have shared mean-
ings, which are negotiated through discussion, it also acknowledges that no two
people can have exactly the same discussions with exactly the same people. To
this extent, social constructivism allows multiple realities to exist;
– The motivation of the learner is regarded as having both intrinsic and extrinsic
roots. The intrinsic motivation is created through curiosity about the world, while
the extrinsic motivation can be provided by the rewards, which can be accessed
through the fruits of the interaction.
Table 18.1 is a comparison of constructivism with social constructivism (seen as a
subset) related to the work of such educationalists. While constructivism relates to
the general behaviour by the teacher, or by the student as individuals, social con-
structivism sees the behaviour stemming from operating within, or promoting by,
collaborative efforts. Such examples of collaborative efforts are engaging a student
with a teacher, or other students, or with student/teacher interactions. While con-
structivism is seen as acting at a personal level, not imposed by others, in a social
constructivist environment, the personal level learning is collaborative; at a simple
level, by classmates or the teacher and for a wider interpretation, by society.
A Science Teaching–Learning Practice Enabling Social

Constructivism
The overall goal of science education is seen as promoting scientific literacy (Estonian
Government, 2011; Roberts, 2007). Scientific literacy can be taken to mean develop-
ing an ability to creatively utilise appropriate evidence-based scientific knowledge
and skills, particularly with relevance for everyday life and a career, in solving person-
ally challenging yet meaningful scientific problems, as well as making responsible
socio-scientific decisions (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2009).
To enhance SL or STL based on a social constructivist approach, Holbrook and
Rannikmäe (2010) put forward a teaching-learning model involving 3-stages. The
first stage of the model is based on self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002) and
seeks to highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation in driving human behaviour
(students’ learning). This viewpoint is seen as being in line with an ‘education
through science’ approach, as opposed to a curriculum content approach, described
as ‘science through education’ (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007). Science learning
Table 18.1 Comparing constructivism and social constructivism based on the work of Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey and Bruner
Aspect Constructivism viewpoint Social constructivism viewpoint
266
Contributors Vygotsky: zone of proximal development (ZPD): Vygotsky: (a) Social development theory relating
see Chap. 20 to social interaction; the more knowledgeable
Piaget: Stage Theory of Cognitive Development other)
(sensorimotor, pre- operational, concrete, formal): (b) Constructivist theory (the role of culture in
see Chaps. 11 and 18 providing cognitive tools)
Dewey: Learning by doing: see Chap. 17 Dewey: Both teachers and students need to learn
Bruner: Discovery Learning Theory (guided together how best to enhance student learning
discovery, problem-based learning, Bruner: Theory of cognitive growth (focus on
simulation-based learning, case-based learning environmental and experiential factors)
and incidental learning): see Chap. 14 Bruner: Critical of Vygotsky’s intrapersonal
Bruner: Cognitive revolution focus and the lack of attention paid to a social and
(the role of structure in learning, readiness for political context
learning, intuitive and analytical thinking, motives
for learning)
Key features Emphasis on knowledge construction, which is Emphasis on the collaborative nature of learning
based on personal experiences The importance of a cultural and social context
Teacher as the facilitator of the learning process Learning as a process by which learners support
and encourage one another
Appearance in the classroom Self-regulated learning, e.g. metacognition, Collaborative learning, e.g. situated learning,
problem-based learning, critical thinking, concept collaborative inquiry, problem-solving as
mapping, inquiry-based learning, web-based anchored instruction, stimulating interest of
scientific inquiry students (example in this case, a scenario)
Informal learning and forming learning
communities
Misconceptions appearing during implementation Teachers believing they can construct concepts The curriculum is based solely on social
for students; (not appreciating students need to interactions (an emphasis on subject
construct everything themselves) conceptualisation is no longer essential but on
Teachers’ belief that a stimulating environment is guiding students to do the constructing)
sufficient for students to actually construct
knowledge (a confusion between the teaching
providing a stimulating learning environment and
M. Rannikmäe et al.
the need for students to self-regulate their

learning)
is initiated by a familiar contextual frame of reference, intended to link to a per-

ceived need in the eyes of students. In this initial stage, the aspect of relevance is
seen as a major focus. The learning, stemming from relevant aspects for students,
within a society, pays careful attention to the development of personal and social
attributes, seen to be part of the overall goals of education. Anchoring the relevance
of the instruction, by utilising approaches promoting the interest of students, is seen
as a further need to create social constructivist, motivational learning. In this stage
within the 3-stage model, an essential component of the relevance-anchored, interest-
enhanced instruction is a student motivational scenario. Within the learning process,
the scenario is contextualised by students and, with help of the teacher, is used to
stimulate science ideas, initiating the science learning from a known to an unknown
situation, through a student-perceived, collaborative learning need.
Stage 2 is driven by a ‘need to know’ science frame, which provides a scien-
tific bearing on the social concern/issue, expressed in the scenario. The ensuing,
de-contextualised learning focuses on the scientific ideas, solving inquiry-based sci-
entific problems and the seeking and evaluating of relevant scientific information.
This stage builds on students’ prior learning (as identified by the teacher during stage
1) and, with appropriate scaffolding (guidance, support and extrinsic motivation) by
the teacher and enhanced by student collaboration, seeks to promote the development
of students’ intellectual self-actualisation and self-efficacy. The conceptual science
learning that evolves needs to be seen by the teacher as being at a level commiserate
with the students’ learning potential, based on the creation of a zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978). In this de-contextualised mode, the teaching is no
longer context-based learning, but engaging in an inquiry-based, science education
approach.
Stage 3 is commensurate with consolidation of the scientific learning through
transference to the earlier contextual frame and promoting socio-scientific decision-
making. This is a phase of re-contextualisation, heavily driven by a social construc-
tivist viewpoint. This is the stage where students are encouraged to feel themselves
as members of a social environment, interact with stakeholders (for example, as in
a role play, or debate) and make reasoned decision, which consider value (ethical,
moral, social, environmental, economic) aspects.
Illustrating a Social Constructivist Approach Within Stages 1

and 2
The approach is taken from research within an EC project called, MultiCo, designed
to attract more students towards studying science. The project recognises that an
evidence-based, attractive science education provision can enable all citizens to play
a more active role in the science, technology and engineering processes, to make
informed choices and to more fully engage in a knowledge-based society. Within
MultiCo, the stage 1 is initiated via a scenario which further plays a central role in
promoting competences and awareness about science-related careers among students.

Such scenarios are created through stakeholder co-operation between scientists in
education, experts from science fields and industry and involving also civil society
organisations, non-formal science educators and students. The following principles
from Bruner’s work were taken into account in developing the scenario:
• Instruction needs to be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make
the student willing and able to learn (readiness).
– In MultiCo, the first stage involves creating a scenario for students to be able
to relate to a real-life issue and seeking to trigger motivation to learn.
• Instruction needs to be structured so that it can be easily followed by students
(spiral organisation, Bruner, 1966).
– In MultiCo, this is ensured by allowing students to ask questions during
the scenario presentation, guided by the teacher and therefore the scenario
presentation is a collaboration between teacher and students.
• Instruction needs to be designed to facilitate extrapolation and/or fill in the gaps
(going beyond the information given).
– In MultiCo, at the end of scenarios, students are faced with concepts or ideas,
which are new to them and therefore this encourages them to prepare for
learning new science content in the next phase.
The scenario creation is approached from two different aspects:
(a) The need to see the scenario as a situation, involving a concern or issue and
presented in a student-relevant context (students construct their initial ideas).
(b) The need to ensure progress from the scenario into actual classroom science
teaching (considerations need to focus on including a teaching element, rec-
ommendations on how best to get students involved and how to move into
curriculum-related science learning e.g. a ‘scientific’ question to be investi-
gated—for this, educators/teachers construct the teaching component of the
scenario).
Parameters which are considered in developing a scenario:
1. The scenario needs to be ‘relevant in the eyes of the students’ (not relevant as
perceived by the teacher).
The scenario context is thus most likely connected with:
• Students’ personal life, either now or in the future (personal relevance);
• A social problem/issue or problems/issues, which may have a (hidden) science
component (social relevance), and/or connected;
• Updated global, or local problems/issues (media relevance).
2. The scenario is interesting for students (this is intended to mean interesting to
students in general and hence the scenario is not gender specific).
With this in mind, the orientation needs to be towards an attractive problem or

issue, or an unexpected or extraordinary situation, with the possibility to involve
students in an unusual scientific, hands-on activity.
3. The scenario (for this project) includes career parameter(s).
This derives from a focus on industries related to science themes, which form
the challenge: e.g. (in the project) energy, water, waste, climate change, food,
health, transportation.
4. The scenario is expected to be an initiator, leading to learning that is related
to the intended science curriculum, both in terms of subject matter and general
(cross-curricular) competences.
5. The introductory scenario is expected to provide the rationale for gaining new
knowledge and competences, as outlined in the curriculum, and is thus anticipated
to have a positive impact on students becoming intrinsically motivated.
Examples of possible scenarios, incorporating a career awareness focus:
1. An industry visit (purpose of the visit can be descriptive, or problem-oriented).
2. Virtual scenario (e.g. a video showing work in industry, or a video of a visit,
pointing out different aspects).
3. A career story (given as a text, cartoon, or possibly as a role play, such as involving
interviews).
4. An issue (socio-scientific), or a problem (science related), which includes career-
related aspects.
5. A recognised problem (industry linked, science-related).
Exemplary Scenario 1 (Created by Students, Modified

by Teachers for Actual Teaching)
This scenario is created by 24 (grade 7, 13–14-year old) students, working in groups.

The given task is to develop a scenario, seen as motivating for other students (in
this case, social constructivism learning within science for teaching; SCT). To facil-
itate this, the students are taken on a visit to a famous international beer and soft
drinks factory and introduced to the process by which lemonade and beer is pro-
duced, starting from the raw materials and involving the development of economical
technologies, quality control plus advertising new products to the public. During the
visit students are encouraged to ask any questions they wished and make personal
contacts with employees of the factory during the visit and, if necessary, afterwards.
After the curriculum-related visit, students are asked to work in groups of two or three
to draft a learning scenario, which they are expected to introduce, during the next
science class, to other students (social constructivism for learning, SCL). The best
scenarios, from those presented, are chosen although students are allowed to make
modifications based on comments received (social constructivism for learning, SCL).
One of the best scenarios, created as powerpoint slides, is about applying a sugar
tax to soft drinks (a political consideration under review at that time) and how this
Fig. 18.1 A Set of PowerPoint slides from the scenario ‘A sugar tax for soft drinks. Yes or No?’
Fig. 18.2 Social constructivist use of scenarios in learning (cycle 1) and teaching (cycle 2)
may influence lemonade production. The context of this scenario is seen by the
teachers as relevant for the science content students are expected to learn within
stage 2. It is also seen as creating a readiness and willingness for students to learn
new science knowledge and skills, through the included attitudinal and value-related
aspects (e.g. new taxes, lemonade consumption, sugar consumption, health, different
professions in one factory, qualification needed for professions, science-related career
awareness). Illustrated in Fig. 18.1 is the set of powerpoint slides, created by students,
initiating the motivational student-relevant learning (stage 1).
The social constructivist cycles which take place during the scenario (cycle 1) and
the subsequent, stage 2, teaching module for the development and implementation
(cycle 2) are illustrated in Fig. 18.2.
The Overall Teaching Module (Created by Teachers)
The following (Table 18.2) describes the teaching approach, indicating activities
undertaken and how the module incorporates a social constructivist approach.
Table 18.2 A teaching module showing aspects included which relate to a social constructivist
classroom
The Lemonade 3-stage module Aspects of the (Social) constructivist
classroom
Stage 1(contextualisation) Curriculum emphasis linked to the various
Presentation of a perceived student relevant, factory operations, beginning with
motivational, socio-scientific scenario, on considering the factory operations as a whole
which is built student-relevant science
content, on a ‘need to know’ basis
Activities: Discussion to solicit students’
prior ideas about a sugar tax
The lemonade factory scenario introduces all
departments in the factory, plus the science
content (knowledge and skills) needed to
work in those departments, and possible
impact on workers in the context of a potential
introduction of a sugar tax
Stage 1 The pursuit of student questions and interests
Students ask and generate questions/ideas are valued
related to the scenario
Activities: A commitment to ask questions
related to the factory slides (e.g. What kind of
knowledge and skills are needed to work
there? What are these workers doing?)
Stage 1 Learning is interactive, building on students’
Discussion around the scenario helps the prior knowledge
teacher to be aware of students’
pre-knowledge
Activities: group work to seek more
information about a sugar tax (for or against
groups were formed who then use smart
technologies, computers, school books, etc.,
to seek information). Later, in a class
collaborative discussion, all students share
their findings and put forward their opinions as
to whether they agree with a sugar tax or not
Stage 2 (de-contextualisation) Learning is interactive, building on students’
Visit to a Lemonade factory prior knowledge
Activities: students given an opportunity to
ask questions from employees working in the
lemonade factory and to discuss with them
their own findings and related to knowledge
and skills needed and the necessity of a sugar
tax
Stage 2 Materials and apparatus used are based on the
Inquiry-based science learning ideas discussed with factory staff members
Activities: experimentation, modelling the
lemonade production
(continued)

The Lemonade 3-stage module Aspects of the (Social) constructivist
classroom
Stage 2 Teacher discusses with students, helping
Inquiry-based science learning students construct their own knowledge
Activities: the teacher is the facilitator
assisting student groups in designing
experiments (e.g. pH measurement with
indicator strips; determination of the mass of
CO2 by weighing)
Stage 2 Knowledge is seen as dynamic, changing with
Construction of students’ interdisciplinary gained experiences
knowledge
Activities: students draw concept and
consequence maps. (concept
maps—interlinking perceived concepts with
interlinking descriptors; consequence maps
putting concept map perceptions into a
learning sequence)
Stage 3 The teacher’s role is interactive, rooted in
Summary of the learning negotiation. (recognising the student’s zone of
Activities: role play (deciding for or against proximal development to encourage ideas/
the sugar tax); degustation (food tasting); interactions from all; poor ideas challenged to
industrial planning to design new drinks stimulate further thought)
Stage 1–3 Assessment is both formative and summative
Teacher formatively assesses students on (includes student work, observations and
• collaboration and group work points of view, as well as tests). The process is
• inquiry-based practical work (undertaken as seen as important, as well as the product
a group)
• creativity (as a group)
• design skills (as a group)
Stage 1–3 Students work primarily in groups
The whole module is based on group work
Evaluation of the Module
Students from five different European countries evaluated the scenario. Students liked
the format of the scenario and considered this type of teaching to be unique. This
indicated that creating scenarios, following ideas based on social constructivism
(e.g. involving students, giving them an opportunity to work with stakeholders),
was seen as useful in classrooms for motivating students to learn science. Most
students declared having better knowledge about possible science-related professions
in industry and the working life skills needed. Interviews with practicing teachers
highlighted aspects fitting with social constructivism in the process of teaching.
However, teachers seldom used educational terminology related to this, but they
showed a readiness to seek deeper insights into associated teaching processes. This
suggested that in order to support teachers’ thoughtful actions in the classroom, more
in-service in the area of educational theories was needed. The paradigm shift, from
constructivism towards social constructivism in science education, was needed to
ensure the teaching moved away from a surface concept formation emphasis towards
socio-scientific decision-making and student competence development.
Summary
General Overview of Constructivism
Bruner on a cognitive revolution leading to constructivism.

Social constructivism and Bruner.
Social constructivism in the classroom.
A Science Teaching–Learning Practice Enabling Social

Constructivism
Illustrating a social constructivist approach within stages 1 and 2.
Exemplary Scenario 1 (Created by Students, Modified

by Teachers for Actual Teaching)
The Overall Teaching Module (created by teachers).

Evaluation of the module.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). The process of education. New York: Vintage.
Bruner, J. S. (1997). A narrative model of self-construction. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 818(1), 145–161.
Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education, Revised Edition. Harvard University Press.
Capel, S., Leask, M., & Turner, T. (2000). Learning to teach in the secondary school. A companion
to school experience (2nd ed.). Great Britain: TJ International Ltd.
Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to
constructivism. Educational technology, 33(5), 12–19.
Estonian Government. (2011). Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava (National curriculum for gymna-
sium). Regulation of the Government of the Republic of Estonia, No. 2. Estonia: Tallinn.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, re-
contextualisation—A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific
literacy. In: I. Eilks, & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education (pp. 69–82). Shaker
Verlag.
Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers. Berkshire:
McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
MultiCo. (2015). Promoting youth scientific career awareness and its attractiveness through multi-
stakeholder cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.multico-project.eu/.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Vol. 1): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press.
Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: An educational Perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In
S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56).
United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Jerome S. Bruner and the process of education. The encyclopedia of informal
education. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/jerome-bruner-and-the-process-of-education/.
Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally
guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), educational theory (pp. 39–61). New York: Nova.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Problems of method. Mind in society (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Wertsch, J. V. (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. MA: Cambridge Press.
Miia Rannikmäe is Professor and Head of the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. She has considerable experience in science education within Estonia, Europe and world-
wide (Fulbright fellow—University of Iowa, USA). She is an honorary doctor in the Eastern Uni-
versity of Finland. She has a strong school teaching background, considerable experience in pre-
and in-service teacher education and has strong links with science teacher associations worldwide.
She has been a member of a EC high level group publishing a report on ‘Europe needs more
Scientists’. She has been running a number of EC-funded projects and Estonian research grants.
Her Ph.D. students are involved in areas such as scientific literacy, relevance, creativity/reasoning,
inquiry teaching/learning and the nature of science.
Jack Holbrook is a visiting professor at the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. Initially trained as a chemistry/maths teacher in the UK (University of London), Jack
spent five years as a secondary school teacher before moving into teacher training, first in the UK
followed by Tanzania, Hong Kong and Estonia. Currently, Jack is involved in guiding science edu-
cation Ph.D. students, European science education projects and being an International Consultant
in Curriculum, Teacher Education and Assessment. Jack’s qualifications include a Ph.D. in Chem-
istry (University of London), FRSC from the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) and Past President
and Distinguished Award Holder for ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science
Education). Jack has written a number of articles in international journals and as a co-editor a
book entitled ‘The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education in Post-Soviet Countries.’
Regina Soobard is a research fellow in the Centre for Science education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. She earned her Ph.D. in science education at the University of Tartu (2015) on gymna-
sium students’ scientific literacy development based on determinants of cognitive learning out-
comes and self-perception. She is teaching at the M.Sc. level and holding the position of director
of the gymnasium science teacher programme, as well as co-supervising Ph.D. students in sci-
ence education and educational sciences. She has been awarded BAFF a scholarship for research
in Michigan State University, USA.
Chapter 19
Mediated Learning Leading
Development—The Social Development
Theory of Lev Vygotsky
Keith S. Taber
Introduction
Lev Vygotsky worked in the Soviet Union (CCCP: So´z Sovétskih

Socialistíqeskih Respúblik) in the first third of the twentieth century,
before dying of tuberculosis at 37 years of age. Considering his early death, and
considerable political censure (at one point some of his work could only be read by
those to whom the KGB, the CCCP ‘secret police’, issued a special library pass),
Vygotsky’s influence on education internationally today is noteworthy. He was very
interested in cognitive development, and his work is relevant to education in general
(e.g. in terms of pedagogy and assessment) as well as having particular value in
supporting learners with specific developmental or learning difficulties and gifted
learners. Vygotsky was also very interested in literature and the arts more generally.
Vygotsky wrote in Russian, and most of his writing is in the form of discrete
papers. He is best known in the English-speaking world through two books: ‘Thought
and Language’ (1934/1986) and ‘Mind in Society’ (1978), the latter edited together
from a number of his discrete works. An English publication of ‘Thought and Lan-
guage’ (it is sometimes considered that it might have been better translated as ‘Think-
ing and Speech’ and appears under that title in other editions) included an introduc-
tion by Jerome Bruner (see Chap. 13) who recognised the potential importance of
Vygotsky’s work and sought to publicise it the West.
Vygotsky worked with a number of collaborators (perhaps the best known in the
West is Alexander Luria), and his ideas have been adopted, adapted and developed
by a range of thinkers working in different national contexts. This chapter intro-
duces Vygotsky’s work in terms of some of his best-known ideas with relevance to
research and practice in education. In particular, the chapter considers his emphasis
on language and the use of symbols as tools, the sociocultural aspect of education
K. S. Taber (B)
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK

278 K. S. Taber
and development, the zone of proximal development, and his model of cognitive
development. These themes are interlinked, and the treatment here will reflect that.
Vygotsky’s ideas are complex and have been much discussed and developed. As
with all texts, his writings are open to interpretations, something perhaps especially
significant when reading in translation. Vygotsky’s early death prevented him from
fully developing and refining many of his ideas. For example, Vygotsky is said to
have dictated the final chapter of Thought and Language on his deathbed, giving him
no opportunity to review the overall text once the draft was finished. If we see writing
as potentially a tool for thinking (a notion that fits well with Vygotsky’s perspective),
we would expect an author’s ideas to develop through the process of writing a book,
and authors often review their manuscripts after drafting to ensure consistency. This
luxury was not afforded to Vygotsky. This chapter focuses on introducing some of
the areas where the legacy of Vygotsky’s writings influences current thinking and
practice in relation to teaching and learning, and the nature of schooling.
The Importance of the Social in Learning and Development
Vygotsky was interested in human development, and he thought that a full under-
standing of this topic needed to consider four quite distinct levels or scales. One
had to understand the development of the human species as a biological entity, the
history of human peoples as they developed culture, the general course of the devel-
opment of an individual and the development of particular psychological processes
as they appear in an individual. The latter required microgenetic studies (Brock &
Taber, 2016) that intensely investigated an individual during the time when new
processes developed. Vygotsky noted that when such opportunities occurred during
psychological experiments (exploring children’s responses to tasks under controlled
conditions) his contemporaries were usually interested in looking at stable patterns
and so ignored the ‘training’ phase, whilst those patterns were being established. It
was that stage of cognition in flux that Vygotsky thought offered most interest.
A key focus of Vygotsky’s work was the social nature of learning and development
(cf. Chap. 7). He considered that the ability to teach others, and to learn from others,
was a characteristic quality of human beings (Moll, 1990). Indeed, Vygotsky went as
far as suggesting that it was generally the case that the learning of an individual always
involved a process of internalising (to an intra-personal or intra-mental plane) what
is first experienced in interaction with others (i.e. experienced on an inter-personal
or inter-mental plane) who had already previously internalised that learning. This
then is an emphasis on the role of culture (and therefore less directly, history) in
the development of the individual. That which affords one to develop as an adult
mind operating in some particular society at some point in its history would not
be available to a lone epistemic subject learning directly from interactions with the
physical/natural (non-social) environment.
This is perhaps obvious in the context of formal education such as in science
lessons—children are taught, with varying degrees of success, about Newtonian
19 Mediated Learning Leading Development—The Social … 279
physics, the circulatory system, atomic structure, and so much more: knowledge they
would have negligible chance of acquiring simply through lone direct interrogation
of nature. However, Vygotsky was thinking more widely—so even before school the
young child learns about the world supported by parents and others. For Vygotsky,
development was not purely related to the child being supported to transition into
an adult through social mediation. Rather, the nature of human society is that we
continue throughout our lives to learn, and develop, through the mediation provided
by the culture, that is, through interactions (directly or mediated through various
media) with others. Taking this view seriously should have implications for what we
see education to be preparation for, and how we consider it is best organised, as well
as how we view new forms of media that can mediate enculturation (see Chap. 9).
People then, by the nature of what it is to be human, exist within some specific
culture (Geertz, 1973). Such cultures have developed historically, such that they
represent the combined development of many generations. Enculturation depends
upon mediation by others who already share in aspects of the culture being acquired.
However, it is also important to note that Vygotsky’s theories were dialectical in
nature (he was working in a Marxist state, in more than one sense)—so he did not
conceive of a one-way process of the individual absorbing a static culture (cf. Collins,
2010), but rather he thought that the changes the learner goes through can change the
context itself. Cultures are themselves in flux (thus history) and subject to diverse
influences—so they are always in a kind of unstable equilibrium that may be readily
shifted. Vygotsky himself lived in revolutionary times.
Social Constructivism
One area where this social focus is important is the manner in which Vygotsky may be
considered a constructivist—in the sense of someone who believes that knowledge
is actively constructed (rather than being already innately present in some sense,
and being revealed by contemplation or experience; or being acquired by sense
impressions that impress fully formed knowledge directly onto mind). Vygotsky
was contemporaneous with (the early) Piaget and read and commented on his work.
Piaget (see Chap. 10) assumed that the learner was an active constructor of knowl-
edge, and his perspective focused on the learner’s actions in and on the environment
(Piaget, 1970/1972). Piaget certainly acknowledged the role of social interaction in
some learning, but he largely wrote about his epistemic subject as if the social was
secondary—and considered young children as too egocentric to effectively learn
through social interaction. For Piaget, when young children play together, they are
really each playing alone within the same social space, and the ability to genuinely
share in authentic collective activity only develops over time (Piaget, 1932/1977).
Vygotsky, however, considered social interaction to be a central part of all human
learning. Whereas Piaget’s research programme was one of genetic epistemology
(finding the common cognitive development sequence that each individual person
would be expected to pass through), Vygotsky’s programme was sociohistorical: that
280 K. S. Taber
is, it took the perspective that human psychological developments are mediated by
culture and so ultimately contingent on history (Cole, 1990, p. 91). Vygotsky believed
that from the age of about two years, development is closely influenced by the young
learner’s interactions with other minds (Crain, 1992). Vygotsky’s perspective, unlike
Piaget’s, did not suggest a single pattern of development as inevitable for all humans,
regardless of their cultural context.
For Piaget, action on the environment supported by existing cognitive structures
allowed the development of more advanced structures: which in turn allowed more
advanced learning. The nature of science (as primarily a body of theoretical knowl-
edge that develops through the interplay between theory and empirical observation
and hypothesis testing) suggests that understanding much school science depends
on learners having already acquired the stage of formal operations (Shayer & Adey,
1981). So, for Piaget, “development explains learning” (Piaget, 1997, p. 20).
In contrast to this, Vygotsky considered that learning should lead development.
He suggested at one point that “the only ‘good learning’ is that which is in advance
of development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). At first sight, this seems problematic—
if the learning of certain material requires a particular level of development, then
without that degree of development the learning should not be possible. However,
for Vygotsky ‘good learning’ is initiated on the inter-mental plane, mediated by oth-
ers who are further ahead in their own development, so that the learner vicariously
experiences what is to be learnt. At this point, the learner is (to borrow a term) a legit-
imate but peripheral participant in the activity (i.e. one who would no longer be able
to continue the activity successfully without the support of others—see Chap. 20).
Yet, by engaging in the interaction, the learner can begin to internalise and take
ownership of the knowledge—and so is able to eventually become a full participant
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Once this process is complete, the individual will be able
to demonstrate the learning without the support of the interaction with others. This
process is possible because of tools such as symbolic systems that support both (a)
communication with others and (b) thinking for oneself.
Tools and Mediation
Vygotsky saw an extensive use of tools as something specifically human. Although he

was aware some other animals used tools, he considered human tool use as different
in extent and kind. In particular, humans can use tools to make and improve other
tools, and Vygotsky thought that this second-level use of tools was important to our
development. There is a parallel here with Piaget’s notion of formal operations, the
most developed of his four main stages of cognitive development, where a person
can not only undertake mental operations to model aspects of the world, but is able to
mentally operate on those mental operations themselves. Tools include artifacts such
as a stepladder or hammer, but could also be tokens and other signs and symbols.
Another key term in Vygotsky’s thinking is mediation. Mediation allows what
would otherwise not be possible. Others can mediate for us; and we can use tools (in
the external world, or intra-mentally) to mediate activities. This is seen as essentially

social in nature, even when a child is solving a problem alone, because the tools
they use (be that physical objects or physical tokens of other objects or symbolic
tools used in thought) are provided by the culture. The child who has internalised
symbolic tools (such as number systems, or, say, chemical formulae) and can now
apply them unaided only does so following previous mediated access to such systems
in interaction with others. Teaching is the process by which such mediation of learning
is deliberately carried out.
One area of work that has developed from that of Vygotsky and his colleagues is
that of activity theory (see Chap. 21), or cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT).
Vygotsky’s work is considered to be the first generation in this tradition and is
associated with the mediation triangle which sets out graphically the subject (acting
person), object (to be acted upon to some effect) and mediating tool, as the apices of
a triangle. This is seen as a dialectical system with each component influencing the
rest.
This simple image (Fig. 19.1) is itself of course an example of a symbolic tool.
It has been pointed out (Taber, 2014) that it has a strong parallel with the idea of the
experiential gestalt of causation, which has been suggested to be a common way in
which people understand action in the world, and which influences much learning
about natural mechanisms in science classes. Andersson (1986) has suggested that a
wide range of reported alternative conceptions in science may be understood in terms
of this pattern of thought. Leontiev and others developed a ‘second generation’ of
CHAT which extended the mediation triangle to collective activity by including rules,
community and division of labour. CHAT offers an important theoretical perspective
for understanding and analysing education (Smardon, 2009).
Fig. 19.1 The general form

of the semiotic triangle
282 K. S. Taber
Language in Development
Vygotsky put a strong focus on the role of language in human learning and devel-
opment. For example, he looked at the role of private speech, talking to oneself, that
is, common among young children. Piaget was also interested in this feature, and
for him it linked to the egocentric nature of the child: the difficulty young children
have decentering from their own perspective and seeing the world from a different
viewpoint (Piaget, 1959/2002). Most adults sometimes talk out loud to themselves,
but most of their internal dialogue is undertaken as verbal thought without being
spoken. Children, however, often accompany an activity with a commentary that is
spoken out loud even though only intended for themselves.
Talking to ourselves, whether out loud or internally, invites an explanation. Lan-
guage is not necessary for thought (not all our conscious thinking is verbal) but is
needed for communicating with others. Vygotsky suggested that private talk actu-
ally had a strong social element, as language had its origins in the need for people to
communicate with each other. Vygotsky considered that the child adopted the tools
of communication with another as a means to help plan and carry out actions—even
when no one else was present. Later, such talk would be internalised, but in its origin
private talk is social in nature (Vygotsky & Luria, 1994). This reflects the general
principle that in development what is acquired on the intra-personal plane (within the
mental life of the individual) follows what is acquired on the inter-personal plane (in
interaction with others). Once this tool becomes available, it could be used not only
to communicate with others, but to support the individual’s thinking, and so aid plan-
ning, problem-solving, reviewing experience, etc. A key skill for a scientist is to be
able to critique their own ideas, considering the potential objections and challenges
others may suggest, and so looking to weed out weak ideas, and strengthen the more
promising against criticism. Part of learning to be a scientist is to learn to engage
in this kind of internal dialogue, having in effect mentally modelled (internalised)
potential interlocutors.
Conceptual Development
Vygotsky (1934/1994) discussed the nature of concept development and, in particu-

lar, the relationship between spontaneous concepts and ‘scientific’ (or academic, or
schooled) concepts in the learner’s development of a conceptual system. Scientific
concepts (such as xylem, symbiosis, oxidation, transition metal, photon, magnetic
flux density—but Vygotsky’s category was broader and would also include gestalt
switch, price elasticity of demand, the industrial revolution, distributive justice, the
baroque, and so forth) cannot be acquired by familiarity with instances met in every-
day life—which may be sufficient for acquiring so-called natural kind concepts such
as cat or tree. They therefore need to be taught by being explained through language.
In particular, Vygotsky considered words to be key tools, acquired through medi-

ation, which were essential to developing high-level thinking and mature concepts.
Children may learn new words from conversations without initially having a sophis-
ticated understanding of their intended meaning—clearly limiting their commu-
nicative affordances (Fodor, 1972). Vygotsky thought that personal word meanings
evolve—a process that can be mediated by talk with others and through internal
processes of conceptual development. Once a word is acquired, initial impressions
of what it could mean can be tested and developed in conversations with others, and
indeed in internal dialogue.
Vygotsky saw conceptual development as an interaction between spontaneous
and scientific concepts. Spontaneous concepts, with their experiential grounding,
allow scientific concepts to be understood as more than just formal definitions—so,
in effect, the student can develop a ‘feel’ for what is meant by technical notions such
as momentum or density or combustion or excretion, or indeed (by building up layers
of concepts ultimately grounded in spontaneous concepts) what is meant by atomic
orbital, electromagnetic induction or cellular respiration. Scientific concepts provide
sophisticated tools for thinking and communicating about spontaneous concepts. So,
spontaneous concepts abstracted from perceived regularities in experience can come
to be understood in terms of, for example, friction or viscosity or thermoregulation.
The notion of a dialectic is operating here as both types of concept are themselves
changed in the interaction—Vygotsky used the image of the spontaneous and scien-
tific concepts moving or growing towards each other. In effect, the resulting system
of concepts is neither spontaneous nor scientific (nor just a collection of these two
types) but some kind of hybrid that is the synthesis of the thesis–antithesis of spon-
taneous and scientific concepts. Our mature concepts are actually melded concepts
that draw upon both sources (Taber, 2013).
These ideas are reflected in more recent influential work exploring the metaphor-
ical nature of human concepts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This suggests that our
abstract conceptions are built upon direct perception in terms of metaphors that
allow us to extend the use of terms that originally had direct experiential referents.
So, we know what a big mistake is, and why the time to the holiday is described
as long, and so forth. We refer to the element carbon being ‘above’ that of silicon
in a reproduction of a periodic table laid flat on a desk, and to nucleophiles being
‘hard’ or ‘soft’. Darwin (1871/2006) wrote of the ‘Descent of Man…’, which was
an enquiry into whether Homo sapiens had ‘descended [sic] from some pre-existing
form’ (p. 778), rather than an account of his ‘fall’ from grace.
This is again consistent with the general principle of constructivism: human cog-
nition builds up complex abstractions incrementally from what can be directly per-
ceived in the world (Taber, 2014). Language is a core resource for these processes. A
child who understands what big means in relation to a big dog, a big chair, a big bed
and a big box (i.e. examples where big is something perceived as large in relation to
others of its kind) is through mediation via dialogue able to appreciate how within
the culture an idea can be said to be big even though an idea is not perceivable and
does not have a physical size.
284 K. S. Taber
Even with the tools of language, communication between minds is inevitably fal-
lible, and the teaching of concept abstractions is clearly challenging. The teacher is
charged with introducing the learner to the cultural tools of the subject being taught
(e.g. concepts such as oxidation, transition element, alkali metal, halogen) and help-
ing the learner to engage with these tools with support till the learner can internalise
them so that they become part of the available repertoire of interpretive resources
for making sense of, and communicating, experience. The skilled teacher will use
models, stories, gestures, images, analogies, similes and various other mediating
tools (Lemke, 1990; Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & McGillicuddy, 1996): Vygotsky’s
perspective would suggest that these devices support the process of understand-
ing the abstract concepts in terms of the learners’ existing interpretive repertoire of
spontaneous concepts (or existing melded concepts deriving partially from them).
Given the importance of spontaneous concepts in concept development, it can be
valuable to spend time eliciting student ideas at the start of a topic—a very common
constructivist technique in science teaching (Driver & Oldham, 1986). The effective
teacher does not just present the academic ideas in the abstract but tries to work with
the students’ own thinking and shift it towards the target knowledge (Scott, 1998).
Dialogue between pupils to share, explain and challenge ideas has been found to
have much potential to support this process (Tudge, 1990). Mortimer and Scott
(2003) highlight the importance of dialogue in science teaching, and the role of the
teacher in eliciting students’ ideas and supporting the process of engaging students
in active dialogue as they move towards understanding and adopting authoritative
science concepts.
The Zone of Proximal Development and Assessment
One of Vygotsky’s best-known ideas is the so-called ‘zone of proximal development’

(ZPD). Vygotsky considered that the usual approach to assessing students by giving
them a test they should complete unaided and without reference materials was often
inappropriate. He discussed the kind of intelligence testing that calculated students’
mental ages. Binet had introduced such tests to identify pupils who were retarded
in their development compared with their physical age and who would not benefit
from being in class with their same-age peers (Gould, 1992). This was progressive
at the time (certainly an improvement on the previous method of measuring the size
of a pupil’s head). Vygotsky’s insight was that several pupils of the same mental age
may have very different potentials for further learning in the near future.
Vygotsky imagined a kind of ‘phase space’ relating to the potential competencies
of a learner. At any moment in time, a learner’s current level of development would
encompass a wide range of competencies, a zone of actual development (ZAD),
outside of which lie all those things they cannot yet do (techniques they have not
mastered, problems they could not solve, etc.). In effect, traditional educational
assessment looked to identify the extent of the ZAD in relation to some particular
domain—such as perhaps what the student already knows and understands about
acids or the extent to which the student can find solutions to exercises requiring the
use of the equations of motion. Vygotsky, however, considered it was much more
useful to know about the extent of the zone around the ZAD which reflected what
the learner could not yet do autonomously but was ready to do with suitable support
(i.e. the ZPD). This zone of next, or proximal, development would (like the ZAD)
vary from student to student, and indicated what the student was ready to learn.
If we want to assess people purely in terms of what they can do unaided without
support, the traditional test or examination makes sense. If, however, education is
about preparing people for their roles in society—where their work will be mediated
by others and a wide range of cultural tools—then it would seem to make more sense
to assess people in situations that better reflect how people actually work, and learn,
in the workplace, in organisations and in other social contexts (see Chap. 20). So,
contexts such as project-based learning, working in teams, open-book exams, assess-
ment by interactive interview, etc., would seem much more useful foci for assessment
(cf. Chap. 23). In recent decades, there has been a strong emphasis in many countries
on a shift from summative assessment to diagnostic and formative assessment—
assessment to support learning—at least during educational courses if not at their
conclusion. Vygotsky was arguing for diagnostic assessment—assessment in, and of,
the ZPD—in the 1930s. In science education, there has been an ongoing programme
of work to develop diagnostic tools to support diagnostic assessment in teaching
(Treagust, 1995).
Scaffolding and Pedagogy
A key notion developed from Vygotsky’ ideas is that of ‘scaffolding’ learning (Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976). If one accepts Vygotsky’s principle that learning precedes
development, then teachers should be looking to get their students working in their
ZPD. Students can be very busy (and successful) working in their ZAD, but this
does not support further development. Drill and practice might increase efficiency
(accuracy, speed) but does not help a student move on to a new level of skill or under-
standing (cf. Chap. 11). However, by definition, a student given a task considered
beyond their ZAD, in their ZPD, will fail: unless they are given suitable support (see
Fig. 19.2). So, learning activities need to be both beyond the ZAD, and yet mediated
to allow success with suitable support. Scaffolding is structure put in place to enable
the learners to succeed in such a way that they will learn new competencies.
Scaffolding has entered the educational lexicon, and the term is sometimes used
very loosely. Designing educational scaffolding is a challenging task because it has to
be matched to the ZPD (Taber & Brock, 2018). Insufficient support leads to frustra-
tion and failure. Yet, support that takes over too much of the task will not encourage
learning. The scaffolding therefore has to be dynamic, so it moves the learner in man-
ageable stages from legitimate peripheral participation (sometimes starting as just an
observer) to taking over full central participation (with the teacher now being purely
an observer), giving the learner full agency and allowing the learner to internalise
286 K. S. Taber
Fig. 19.2 Educative learning activities are those that balance task challenge and the support
provided
the new competency. This model is used, for example, in the professional prepara-
tion of new school teachers. A new science teacher-in-preparation initially observes
the regular teacher at work, before assisting them (perhaps by supporting students
during deskwork), before taking responsibility for leading on particular tasks (e.g.
introducing a laboratory activity) and so on until they are eventually preparing, teach-
ing and assessing sequences of lessons monitored by the experienced class teacher.
Such preparation may include regular shifts between studying in the university and
teaching on school placement (Taber, 2017), potentially supporting the development
of personal concepts melding classroom experience and taught pedagogic theory.
As one example from school science learning: at the end of secondary chemistry
education, a student might be expected to identify an unknown (a cation, an oxidation
state, the concentration or purity of a reagent, etc.) through a series of measurements
involving back titration. As well as carrying out the laboratory actions, the student
will need to access and manipulate chemical equations, and undertake a series of
calculations—having first mentally mapped out the activity to conceptualise how a
series of processes can lead to the solution to the task. It is expected that a successful
student in advanced chemistry can undertake and solve such a problem. Very few
students studying at senior school level are initially able to complete such a task even
when the appropriate mediational tools (laboratory apparatus, reference works, the
relevant symbolic systems, etc.) are available. This is so, even when the components
of the process are individually within their ZAD (they know the chemical equations,
have the required mathematics, etc.).
The teacher’s role here is to set up the learning so that the scaffolding is initially
rich enough to take the learner through the task, but is then gradually reduced (the
term used is ‘faded’) as the student internalises more of the individual components.
The teacher could begin by reducing the whole activity to a recipe to be followed,
but that would likely support limited learning (cf. Fig. 19.2: a key competency here
is understanding, and being able to plan according to, the overall logic of which
measurements and symbolic manipulations are needed).
The teacher might then instead decide to provide a briefing sheet asking basic
questions about relevant prerequisite knowledge that will be needed (perhaps about
titration, redox, balancing equations, half-equations, etc.) and a flow chart with all
the required stages (to help the student appreciate the logic and see where the steps
fit into a larger picture), and a list of the relevant chemical equations. The teacher
may also encourage students to work in pairs as this will require them to talk through
and explain their thinking to each other. Later in the term when a similar activity
is undertaken, the flow chart provided may omit some information that the students
have to identify and input, and no chemical equations will be provided. At some later
stage, the students will be expected to build the flow chart themselves when planning
their activity. Eventually, students would be expected to design and undertake the
activity alone, drawing only upon reference materials.
There are different types of possible scaffolding tools that can be introduced.
Elsewhere, I have suggested scaffolding planks (platforms for new knowledge) and
poles (provided outlines lending support, or provided outlines lending epistemologi-
cal support) as two examples (Taber, 2002). The ‘planks’ help the learner identify and
organise existing prerequisite knowledge and the ‘poles’ help set out a framework
for carrying out the new activity. Both may be considered to help limit the ‘degrees
of freedom’ among which choices might be made (Taber, 2018). In the back titration
example, the titration practical briefing sheet (a scaffolding plank) sets out which
previous learning is going to be called upon, and the flow chart (a scaffolding pole)
directs the purpose and nature of each stage of the laboratory work and subsequent
analysis.
Much teacher scaffolding uses speech. The typical nature of the language game
in the classroom, where, for example, teachers ask series of questions to which they
already know answers (Edwards & Mercer, 1987), can be seen as functioning as part
of the scaffolding process by breaking ideas down into manageable learning quanta,
limiting the degrees of freedom within the talk—reducing memory load by high-
lighting what is to be considered now (a kind of scaffolding plank)—and managing
the sequencing of ideas being presented and considered (a kind of scaffolding pole).
Special Needs and Gifted Pedagogy
One area of Vygotsky’s work was ‘defectology’ (a term which seems ugly and
incorrect in modern English usage), the study of children for whom development
was impeded by some defect. Regardless of the term, Vygotsky’s perspective was
288 K. S. Taber
progressive. Vygotsky felt that too much emphasis was placed on measuring the level
of defect, rather than looking to compensate for it. Vygotsky’s theoretical perspective
implied that for learning activities to be educative they needed to challenge the
students in their ZPD but provide support to allow the student to achieve. This
suggested that if a child was visually impaired or deaf, for example, this would
exclude them from some of the usual cultural mediation supporting the acquisition
of the symbolic tools that were the basis of higher cognitive functioning. A child with
some disability would fail to develop normally in terms of cognitive development
not because of lack of potential of the cognitive apparatus, but rather because normal
development would not be mediated in the usual ways. For Vygotsky then the aim was
to find compensatory means to provide the tools needed for development. Students
need to be provided with support in their ZPD, and if the usual means of mediation
were not accessible, alternatives needed to be found or developed. (An example
would be braille as an alternative to print—an alternative tool for accessing texts.)
One area sometimes classed under special needs or inclusion is the issue of those
students who are considered as ‘gifted’ (or in different educational contexts, ‘tal-
ented’ or of ‘high ability’). Conceptions and definitions of giftedness vary, but in
many educational contexts there will be some students who have developed further
than their peer group such that learning activities which are appropriate for most of
the group have little value for the gifted learner (Taber, 2007).
Whilst some traditional approaches treat the gifted child as a discrete category
from others, it is also possible to see the label of giftedness as dynamic and contex-
tual—that is, specified in relation to a particular lesson and activity—so that who
is considered as gifted might vary over time and according to curriculum subject
or even topic. Some students will have extensive experience of part-time work or
hobbies or cultural traditions which put them at a very different starting point for
learning particular material. An obvious example would be a child from a bilingual
home in a class being introduced to a ‘foreign’ language that is effectively L1 (first
language) for that child. In science, some students bring to class extensive experi-
ence of building mechanisms or circuits, or collecting natural history specimens, or
amateur astronomy.
Vygotsky’s theory suggests that ‘good learning’ takes place in the ZPD, and
therefore educative experiences are those experiences that are both challenging and
suitably supported (see Fig. 19.2). Activities that are within the ZPD of most students
in a class may well fall within the ZAD for gifted students and so have little educative
value for them. In principle (if not in practice), the solution is simple: the teacher
needs to shift the balance between challenge and support for the different students in
a class. Gifted learners require more challenging activities, or less scaffolding, than
others in the class (Taber, 2016).
Whilst the need for more challenge for these students is widely recognised, Vygot-
sky’s theory offers a novel perspective suggesting starting planning teaching so lesson
activities are challenging for the most able in the class, and then designing differ-
entiated scaffolding to provide the optimal balance of challenge and support for all
the different students in the class. If teachers are able to plan differentiated teaching
in this way, there ceases to be any value in labelling particular students in a class as
gifted or having special needs.
Further Reading
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky & Pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge.
References
Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconcep-
tions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155–171.
Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2016). The application of the microgenetic method to studies of learning in
science education: characteristics of published studies, methodological issues and recommenda-
tions for future research. Studies in Science Education, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.
2016.1262046.
Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence from cross-cultural
research. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications
of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 89–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.). London: Prentice-
Hall International.
Darwin, C. (1871/2006). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. In E. O. Wilson (Ed.),
From so simple a beginning: The four great books of Charles Darwin (pp. 767–1248). New York:
W W Norton & Company.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the
classroom. London: Routledge.
Fodor, J. A. (1972). Some reflections on L. S. Vygotsky’s Thought and Language. Cognition, 1(1),
83–95.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gould, S. J. (1992). The mismeasure of man. London: Penguin.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system.
Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated cognition: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Piaget, J. (1932/1977). The moral judgement of the child. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
290 K. S. Taber
Piaget, J. (1959/2002). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1997). Development and learning. In M. Cole, S. R. Cole, & M. Gauvain (Eds.). Readings
on the development of children (2nd ed., pp. 19–28). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A review of studies
from a Vygotskian perspective. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and
curriculum demand. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books.
Smardon, R. (2009). Sociocultural and cultural-historical frameworks for science education. In W.-
M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North
America (pp. 15–25). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions—Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical
background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2007). Science education for gifted learners? In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education
for gifted learners (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representa-
tions of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and
development of learners’ ideas. New York: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2016). Giftedness, intelligence, creativity and the construction of knowledge in the
science classroom. In K. S. Taber & M. Sumida (Eds.), International perspectives on science
education for the gifted: Key issues and challenges (pp. 1–12). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Working to meet the needs of school pupils who are gifted in science through
school-university initial teacher education partnerships. In M. Sumida & K. S. Taber (Eds.),
Policy and practice in science education for the gifted: Approaches from diverse national contexts
(pp. 1–14). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2018). Scaffolding learning: Principles for effective teaching and the design of class-
room resources. In M. Abend (Ed.), Effective teaching and learning: Perspectives, strategies and
implementation (pp. 1–43). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Taber, K. S., & Brock, R. (2018). A study to explore the potential of designing teaching activities
to scaffold learning: understanding circular motion. In M. Abend (Ed.), Effective teaching and
learning: Perspectives, strategies and implementation (pp. 45–85). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn &
R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotswky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implica-
tions for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional impli-
cations and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155–172). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. London: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1994). The development of academic concepts in school aged children. In
R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.). The Vygotsky reader (pp. 355–370). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. van der Veer &
J. Valsiner (Eds.). The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174).
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
ondary schools and a further education college in England. He joined the Faculty of Education
at Cambridge in 1999 to work in initial teacher education. Since 2010, he has mostly worked
with research students, teaching educational research methods and supervising student projects.
Keith was until recently the lead Editor of the Royal Society of Chemistry journal ‘Chemistry
Education Research and Practice’, and is Editor-in-Chief of the book series ‘RSC Advances in
Chemistry Education’. Keith’s main research interests relate to conceptual learning in the sciences,
including conceptual development and integration. He is interested in how students understand
both scientific concepts and scientific values and processes.
Chapter 20
Situated Cognition and Cognitive
Apprenticeship Learning
Gultekin Cakmakci, Mehmet Aydeniz, Amelia Brown,

and Joseph M. Makokha
Introduction
Throughout the educational literature, there has been a shift from the behaviorist to
constructivist theories of learning (Aikenhead, 1996). Besides, within constructivist
theories of learning, there has been a substantial shift from radical to social con-
structivism theories of learning. Accordingly, these theories have been influential in
the design of a number of curricula. For instance, in some countries such as Ger-
many, France, Switzerland, and South Korea, with dual education systems, people
engage in many apprenticeship occupations (e.g., carpenter, dentist’s assistant, elec-
trician) in collaboration between companies/industries and schools. The dual edu-
cation system is seen as an effective system in particular in vocational schools for
creating a fourth industrial revolution (often called industry 4.0) ecosystem (Leopold,
Ratcheva, & Zahidi, 2016) and also for promoting participants’ social and emotional
skills (OECD, 2017). In the U.S. constructivist views of learning has dominated the
discussion around curriculum development efforts in science and mathematics edu-
cation as well. With the publication of the National Science Education Standards
in 1996 and the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve Inc., 2013) in 2013,
G. Cakmakci (B)
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
M. Aydeniz · A. Brown
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A. Brown
J. M. Makokha
Stanford University, Stanford, USA

294 G. Cakmakci et al.
a greater emphasis has been placed on students’ participation in authentic scien-

tific practices such as inquiry, modeling, and argumentation. Student’s effective and
meaningful participation in such practices can best be guided and interpreted through
situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship theories of learning.
This chapter discusses situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship learn-
ing, which are situated within social constructivist approaches to instruction. More
specifically, we focus on the contributions of Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989)
and Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) to the establishment and evolution of these
theories and the relevance of these theories for reform efforts in science education.
According to situated learning theory, learning is a social activity that takes place
when someone is doing something in a social context; accordingly, learning envi-
ronment has social, cultural, and physical contexts (Brown et al., 1989; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Cognitive apprenticeship learning reflects situated
learning theory (Collins et al., 1991; Rogoff, 1990). The notion of apprenticeship
has been influential in teaching and learning throughout history. Children learn their
first languages from their families; novices learn how to grow crops, make houses,
do farming, cooking; employees learn job skills; and scientists learn how to carry
out research by working with seniors. Cognitive apprenticeship focuses on encul-
turing learners into adopting the cognitive processes and skills of those who are
legitimate participants of a particular community through scaffolding. Therefore,
cognitive apprenticeship suggests that the learning environment should be designed
to make targeted cognitive processes explicit and visible so that students can observe,
enact and practice them in contexts that make sense to them and can enhance their
domain specific as well as domain-general knowledge and skills.
Situated Cognition
Educational scientists have used learning theories to understand how learning takes
place, how knowledge and skills are acquired, and how these knowledge and skills
are used in different contexts. Empirical and theoretical developments in learning
sciences have led to the emergence of the situated cognition (Brown et al., 1989;
Collins & Greeno, 2010; Smith & Semin, 2004), whose main argument assumes
that cognition is fundamentally a social activity, and is distributed across members
of a learning community and that knowledge is situated in the contexts, cultures,
and activities, in which it is produced and used (Clancey, 1997; Robbing & Ayd-
ede, 2009; Roth & Jornet, 2013; Wilson & Myers, 2000). Two other assumptions
of situated cognition theory are that: (i) “cognition arises in, and for the purpose of,
action, thus cognition is enacted” and “cognition is distributed across material and
social settings because of features” (Roth & Jornet, 2013, p. 2); and (ii) cognition
becomes distributed when a team of people engages in solving a problem through
talk, questioning, and coordination of cultural and representational tools (Hutchins,
1995). These assumptions of situated cognition are rooted primarily in Cultural His-
torical Activity Theory, which considers “thinking, acting (praxis), and environment
20 Situated Cognition and Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning 295
as interacting and dependent parts of the same analytic unit” (Roth & Jornet, 2013,
p. 2).
In the 1980s Brown et al. (1989) published one of their most influential semi-
nal works Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Since this publication,
the impact of the situated cognition perspective on learning has influenced many
fields ranging from education, social psychology, communication, and computation.
Yet, the social cognition perspective has had a tremendous impact on the field of
education. According to situated learning theory, learning arises from the dynamic
interaction between the learner and the environment in which the learning takes
place (Roth & Jornet, 2013). Therefore, scholars who have conducted research in
this domain, have focused on learner’s actions in connection with their cognition in
a specific social, cultural, and physical context as opposed to taking learners’ mental
processing of information as the sole unit of analysis (Roth & Jornet, 2013). One
of the main contributions of situated cognition to the field of learning is that “per-
ceiving, remembering, or reasoning are not independent phenomena—to be explored
as operations of the brain alone—but are integral to agents-in-their-context-acting-
for-a-purpose-and-with-tools.” (Roth & Jornet, 2013, p. 473). In science education,
these assumptions have become very instrumental in our understandings of what
and how students learn science in authentic scientific contexts. For instance, situated
cognition can help us explain how students may be able to appropriate the goals,
epistemologies and practices of scientists as they learn science.
Lave (1991) located cognition in practices, rituals (patterned actions) that are spe-
cific to certain cultural communities, and learning as a process of legitimate periph-
eral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in these patterned actions and of cognitive
apprenticeship (Lave, 1988). This is a radical shift from traditional views of cogni-
tion where learning is viewed as the acquisition of knowledge through information
processing and construction of mental representation of the external world. This new
perspective views learning “in terms of expanding the learner’s action possibilities
in larger systems of activity” (Roth & Jornet, 2013, p. 4) rather than limiting learning
to cognitive phenomena solely to encoding, retrieval, or processing of information.
Language and other cultural tools of practice play a crucial role in this new per-
spective on learning. According to situated cognition, “language is not a system
of correspondences between symbols and elements in the world, but a means for
humans to coordinate their situated actions, with others and for agents to stimulate
their own minds” (Roth & Jornet, 2013, p. 468). From a situated cognition perspec-
tive, “cognitive phenomena are not restricted to what happens inside the brain, but
refer to the interactions within the person-in-situation unit” (Roth & Jornet, 2013,
p. 468), often via language.
If teaching practices and methods were viewed as an evolutionary timeline, most
of the timeline would be dominated by what are commonly referred to as conven-
tional teaching methods. These are the methods that many of us experienced in
school, such as lectures, presentation, note-taking, memorization practices and tech-
niques, worksheets, and many more. These conventional teaching methods take on
multiple manifestations in the classroom, but share the common characteristics of
teachers somehow being in charge of transferring required knowledge to students.
This experience is counter to how science is practiced and how scientific models are
constructed, evaluated, and critiqued in authentic scientific contexts.
These conventional teaching practices are more recently referred to as the “Bank-
ing” model of education, based on the writings of Paulo Freire. Freire (2005) used
the term “Banking” to intentionally show that teachers were in control of depositing
information into students, and students were thus passive (and thus in a power-
negative and oppressive situation) in the learning process. Freire argued for lib-
erating educational practices; namely, educational practices that empower instead
of oppress students. Freire proposed multiple methods of achieving liberating edu-
cation, including allowing students to construct their own learning by recognizing
the cultural capital of students and the context in which the learning takes place as
essential to the learning process.
Freire’s concepts are often combined with the works of Dewey and Piaget to form
the basis for a modern constructivist model of education. Piaget, often called the father
of constructivism, tirelessly promoted the importance of human experiences and the
learning process. Dewey echoed these calls, especially in the realm of science, by
encouraging laboratory experiences in the sciences to encourage real-world learning
experiences and problem-solving skills.
Research on educational methodology based on the theoretical frameworks of
Freire, Piaget, and Dewey is now commonplace. The past 50–75 years on our edu-
cational timeline shows a clear shift away from the conventional banking model of
education toward the various methods that a constructivist and/or liberating construct
of education can manifest in a teaching and learning environment. An examination of
this research shows two related yet distinct veins of investigations: research into the
social interactions and contexts of the educational process (largely related to Freire’s
concepts of liberating education) and research into the cognitive and conceptual
processes and procedures of knowledge acquisition (largely related to constructivist
theories of education).
Situated cognition (also referred to as situated learning) recognizes the importance
of overlapping these two research veins and theoretical frameworks. As defined by
Collins and Greeno (2008), situated cognition is “the view that knowing and learn-
ing by individuals are inextricably situated in the physical and social contexts of
their acquisition and use” (p. 335). Vosniadou, Loannides, Dimitrakopoulou, and
Papademetriou (2001) explain the situationality of knowledge by stating “students
do not come to school as empty vessels but have representations, beliefs, and presup-
positions about the way the physical world operates” (p. 392). Brown et al. (1989)
further elaborate that all knowledge is situated, not just in the teaching and learning
process but also in the “context and culture in which it is developed and used” (p. 32).
This has significant implications for science education. Scientific practice, its goals,
epistemologies, the knowledge it produces and the process that lead to the produc-
tion of that knowledge is not only context driven but also influenced by sociocultural
practices of the community in which it is being practiced.
If students were empty vessels no construction of knowledge would be needed;
we could simply fill the empty vessel with knowledge. Instead, effective science
instruction must recognize that culture and society frame both the knowledge a
student possesses upon entering school, as well as the knowledge and skills the
student is expected to obtain once in the classroom setting.
In order to understand the role of situated cognition in education and research, we
need to clarify what is meant by the terms knowledge, the role of context in learning,
social context, cultural context, physical context, and activity.
Knowledge
Situated cognition recognizes that “knowledge is social, and no other knowledge

is more social than any other” (Khan, Mitchell, Brown, & Leitch, 1998, p. 772).
Examples of this viewpoint of knowledge abound, including Brown et al.’s (1989)
description of language acquisition. Brown et al. (1989) point out that while dictio-
naries are useful resources, we do not teach children to read, write, and speak by
sitting them down in front of a dictionary. Language acquisition cannot happen by
an individual alone, even with useful resources; acquiring the knowledge of using
and understanding a language is a social event that requires multiple interactions
between several individuals in the social system.
Given the social nature of knowledge, we also can see that knowledge is contex-
tual. If learning is social, that means that all learning has a social context, and thus all
learning is contextual. Brown et al. (1989) explain the contextual nature of knowl-
edge by simply pointing out that the jargon, slang, accent, and even the language
that a child learns to use depends directly on the cultural context where their socially
dependent learning takes place.
Finally, with a recognition that knowledge is both social and contextual, one can
naturally ask the question of how to take this social and contextual knowledge and
transition into the more specialized body of knowledge required of many scientists.
Children may learn to read and write and communicate from the social interactions
driven by the rich cultural tapestry where they spend their formative years; but how
do these children socially and culturally learn the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform surgery or conduct research or engineer technological improvements? For
this explanation, we look to the concept of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown,
& Newman, 1987), which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Role of Context in Learning
Now that we understand how knowledge is defined, we will look closely at the
essential component of situated cognition, which is that knowledge, is “inextricably
situated” in context (Collins & Greeno, 2008). Situated cognition recognizes several
contexts that are closely linked to knowledge acquisition and use, including social
context, cultural context, and physical context. While we want to emphasize that these
contexts are all interrelated, we now look at them individually in order to examine
the unique applications to science education of each individual context type.
Social Context
In addition to recognizing the role of social interactions in the learning process,

situated cognition recognizes that the social constructs and identities of the members
of a community of learners impact the learning process (Gee, 1997). Of particular
interest to science educators is the role of social identity and how that contributes to
the social context of learning science. Social identities have been shown to directly
impact both achievement in science as well as motivation to pursue science higher
education and careers. One example is that students with female gender identity are
often less likely to pursue science fields in higher education and/or careers in the
sciences (Aydeniz & Hodge, 2011; Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Identity development
as females in a social context that promotes males as the dominant learning group of
scientists perpetuates this participation gap. Tan, Calabrese-Barton, Kang, and O’Neil
(2013) observed that when the school classroom environment is not supportive of
identity-based learning, female students who had previously expressed interest in
science actually lost interest or distanced themselves from pursuing higher science
education. Riedinger (2015) found that youth derive their sense of self and identity
from perceived membership and belonging in a learning group. Thus, negotiating
and developing one’s identity as a member of the learning group, such as female
science students needing to navigate social roles and power dynamics unique to
female science students, are essential to science learning. The importance of female
science students needing to navigate identity development in the science classroom
is only one example of social context and its impact on science learning. In a social
context where females were not statistically shown to participate in science careers at
much lower rates than their male counterparts, or in a social context where textbooks
and other learning media did not over-represent males as practitioners of science, the
role of identity development in science learning for female students would not be
of much concern. It is the role of a practitioner of situated cognition to identify the
social contextual factors unique to their learning environment and recognize these
as a part of daily practice.
Cultural Context
Brown et al. (1989) place such importance on the cultural context of learning that
they create a term for this: “enculturation” (p. 33). While it is easy to understand
how a child’s language acquisition (to refer to our earlier example) is dependent
on the cultural context in which learning takes place, many struggle to see how
this concept applies to science learning. Science taught in schools often minimizes
or leaves out entirely the cultural context of the scientific understanding in favor
of the scientific facts as they are currently understood and explained. Thus, when
scientific understanding involves as a product of new technology or new research,
many students of science are left behind, clinging to their notions of science as
they learned them in school based on the misguided misunderstandings that science
is universally above cultural influence. The recognition of the cultural context of
learning as provided by the situated cognition framework is especially helpful to
science teachers as a method to prevent these common misconceptions regarding the
nature of science.
Physical Context
The physical context of where learning takes place is often seen as troublesome from
the situated cognition standpoint. While Dewey (1938) was successful in imple-
menting more experiential learning in the sciences through additions of laboratory
activities, more recently we have begun to question the authenticity of these science
learning experiences. The idea that students must engage in practices common to
their subject area, as well as learning experiences that are meaningful to the social
and cultural world outside of school is often referred to as authenticity.
Brown et al. (1989) point out that school activities are inherently inauthentic for
several reasons: (1) often school activities do not incorporate the social and cultural
aspects of learning, as discussed above, making them inauthentic learning experi-
ences, (2) the practices taught and expected in school are not the practices expected
by experts or practitioners in the field, and (3) even if a school or teacher attempts to
address either or both #1 and #2, the culture of the school and the classroom context
often overshadow these attempts, creating at best a “hybrid” learning activity rather
than an authentic learning activity (p. 34). In addition to promoting the benefits of
authentic learning, Brown et al. (1989) caution that inauthentic school activities and
assignments lead to ineffective learning, stating that these inauthentic environments
“create a culture” of “phobia” for the subject area being presented. (p. 34). Echoing
Brown et al.’s sentiments, Bricker and Bell (2014) state that school can be disrup-
tive to science learning, specifically that the formality of the classroom setting is
not conducive to a learning pathway that considers culture and identity as an aspect
of science learning (Aikenhead, 1996). As creating a phobia or lack of motivation
toward science is not the goal of any conscientious science teacher, special attention
needs to be allocated toward the contextual authenticity of learning experiences in
the science classroom.
We must also recognize that the physical context of learning—where the learn-
ing takes place—is largely dependent on the social and cultural context of learning.
School quality, both in teacher quality and availability of resources, varies widely
based on the socioeconomic level and cultural respect for education in the area in
which the school is located. This has led to the proliferation of alternate learning
environments, often referred to as place-based learning or out-of-school learning, in
science education. From the situated cognition standpoint, there is certainly potential
for place-based learning and out-of-school learning to provide more authentic learn-
ing experiences than can be provided in a school classroom. However, eventually
science educators will need to correct and adjust the classroom climate to provide
more authentic, socially, and culturally contextual science education experiences.
Relying on experiences out of school to correct for the lack of situated cognition in
school is shortsighted at best, and at worst discriminatory toward those who cannot
attend the out-of-school experiences.
Activity
From the situated cognition standpoint, we have discussed the nature of knowledge,
and the contexts in which this knowledge occurs (or does not occur, as the case may
be). There is one more component of situated cognition to discuss, and that is the
activity of learning. All learning or attempted learning is activity. Brown et al. (1989)
forcefully attest that “the activity in which knowledge is deployed… is not separable
from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Rather, it is an integral part of what is
learned” (p. 32).
Fortunately learning activities are best suited for science education and situated
cognition abound. In recognition of the need for meaningful, practitioner-based activ-
ities, science education offers problem and project-based learning, modeling, visu-
alization, argumentation, collaborative learning, questioning, forecasting, labs, and
experiments, etc. The role of the teacher in the science classroom is often creating,
selecting, preparing, and delivering these activities for their students. Many resources
are available to teachers in the quest to select activities that will lead to knowledge.
However, science educators must remember, “different ideas of what is appropriate
learning activity produce very different results” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 32). This
means that the activity you acquire from a science educational supplier might work
one year and not the next. Or an activity you received from a colleague in a school
across town might have been magical for their classes but a total failure for your class.
Or, that list of labs that all science teachers in your district are supposed to complete
with fidelity to the instructions—well, probably not all of them will be successful
in your classroom. Why? According to situated cognition, activity is integral with
learning, and learning is dependent on context, therefore the learning successes of
classroom activities vary according to the classroom social, cultural, and physical
context. The role of the effective science teacher is not just selecting authentic activ-
ities as good learning experiences, but tailoring and executing these activities based
on their professional knowledge of the unique contexts within and surrounding their
classroom and the goals of their curriculum.
Given the complexities that are now apparently involved with becoming a science
teacher practitioner of situated cognition, there is no list of lesson plans or labs that we
can distribute as examples of situated cognition in the science classroom. Examples
do exist, yet these examples are often discussed in the context of the features they
contain rather than a step-by-step implementation plan for use in the classroom.
This lack of demonstrability certainly leads to the rift between the theory of situated
cognition and implementation of the tenets of situated cognition in the classroom.
In order to help bridge this rift, we offer the following reminders for those looking
to promote situated cognition in the science classroom:
• The traditional banking model of education offers limited opportunity for situated
learning to occur;
• Knowledge and learning are socially, culturally, and contextually situated;
• Promotion of identity development alongside of science learning is key to
addressing the social context of science learning;
• Ignoring the cultural impact on science will not promote an accurate conception
of the nature of science;
• School settings have the potential to be detrimental to authentic science learning
activities;
• While no activity is fail-safe in all educational contexts, the activity chosen must
allow for students to construct their own knowledge; and
• The individual responsible for tailoring instruction to meet the needs of all learners
by selecting appropriate learning activities and recognizing the social and cultural
components of science learning within those activities is ultimately the science
teacher.
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Cognitive apprenticeship is an important construct in describing cognitive and social

growth in children. Rogoff (1990) argues that children’s development is an appren-
ticeship in nature. Children are guided to participate in social activity within the
social community who supports their understanding of the cultural norms of the
social group, and development of skill in using the tools of the culture they belong.
Teaching and learning have been based on apprenticeship throughout history with
a different emphasize. Nonetheless, in education, there has been a move from tra-
ditional apprenticeship to cognitive apprenticeship. A focus on cognitive skills and
process rather than only physical skills development, the use of skills in varied
contexts rather than only the context of their use, and the use of structured rather
than entirely naturalistic opportunities for skill development differentiate cognitive
apprenticeship from traditional apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1991). When we teach
science, we are enculturating students into the community of scientists and expect
them to acquire epistemology, knowledge skills, ways of thinking, and tools of the
scientific or engineering community.
Collins et al. (1991) suggested four dimensions that should be considered while
designing learning environment based on cognitive apprenticeship learning: content,
method, sequencing, and sociology. In addition, they also suggested a pedagogical
Fig. 20.1 On the first picture two learners carry out a task from a real-world context. On the second
picture, the teacher facilitates their learning by explicitly discussing key scientific concepts and
practices in the task (Photograph © Gultekin Cakmakci)
framework that included six processes teachers would use to promote student learn-
ing: modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration. In this
chapter, we framed design thinking methodology from a cognitive apprenticeship per-
spective with these four dimensions and six processes of cognitive apprenticeship
learning (Brown, 2009; Cross, 2011). We believe that as represented in Fig. 20.1,
pedagogical practices of cognitive apprenticeship and strategies like design thinking
(Cross, 2011) would help teachers to make key aspects of thinking visible to students
(Cakmakci, 2012; Collins et al., 1991).
Design Thinking from a Cognitive Apprenticeship

Perspective
Humans have been designing since antiquity. Design thinking is a method of solving
problems in a practical, creative, iterative way that can be applied in different domains
(Cross, 2011). In this method, one begins by identifying the need or problem, then
proceeds with understanding the context, within which a solution is implemented
and tested, then refined using feedback from users. This exemplifies the cognitive
apprenticeship theory given that learners encounter authentic tasks and real-life sit-
uations; interact with skilled instructors and coaches to learn domain-specific and
domain-general skills; focus on cognitive rather than only physical skill development
through deliberately planned activities; and the use of methods that scaffold learn-
ing. The result from applying design thinking, a hands-on learning method, is that
students are likely to better understand, internalize and apply learned concepts. The
hands-on nature also lends itself to science teaching as well as many other domains.
This approach allows learners to encounter concepts within real-world settings
where they observe from, and enact solutions with the help of their instructors—
who scaffold the learners as they practice their skills. These concepts may span
different disciplines (Brown, 2009) from physics, material science, anthropology,

biology, psychology, and others, which together form the basis of solutions to prob-
lems ranging from tasks such as creating a better electronic device to designing a
modern patient care facility that takes advantage of cutting-edge technology. Using
this method, students have the opportunity to come up with different ways of applying
the knowledge and skills gained from learning activities while interacting with their
instructors, then crafting solutions and at times coming up with novel ideas. They
make sense of their scientific knowledge within the given contexts from interacting
and understanding their users in a real-world setting—and solving real-world prob-
lems with help from experts—which fosters a higher level of learning and mitigates
issues around authenticity, context, and thought processes (Brown et al., 1989) com-
mon to other styles. A briefcase study using a project-based college class illustrates
this learning method.
In one such year-long class that employs design thinking—in the engineering
department of a leading university, (ME310 Design Methodology, www.goo.gl/
W9AS8C)—novice product design students are presented with complex problems
from different industries, and of varying specifications from open to very narrow
prompts, and asked to craft solutions. For instance, the tasks may vary from design-
ing the next generation space shuttle for a leading aeronautics company to coming
up with a single detailed feature of a smart building to be constructed overseas.
In order to successfully solve such tasks, students not only have to understand the
context—physical, social, and conceptual—within which they are working, but also
the relevant tools and technologies available within these contexts. These examples
demonstrate the in-context nature of the learning environment, where the students
explore the problem space to understand their intended users and their corresponding
needs, followed by idea generation based on what they have learned from interaction
with these users, and finally applying their science skills to create tangible solutions.
The process is iterative since new insights from users often lead to a point of view
which might inspire ideas that once prototyped, point to other new ideas and may
even require a new round of observations in order to understand new aspects—which
may have been previously disregarded or were deemed insignificant.
As for the cognitive process, these ME310 students engage with multiple stake-
holders under the guidance of their instructors and coaches, learning by doing actual
design work despite their limited experience in the industries they engage with;
while creating knowledge, exploring new concepts and immediately applying new
knowledge to their designs. This apprentice model therefore presents both the maker
aspects as well as the cognitive apprenticeship characteristics through engaging with
design tasks under the supervision of experienced faculty members and industry pro-
fessionals. Another important feature of this program is the industry partnership from
which one or more corporate personnel are provided to actively engage with each
ME310 team that is working on their task. They often bring extensive knowledge and
skills, as well as connections with the corporate entities that might be interested in
the outcome, adding yet another resource for the students. These corporate liaisons
act as sounding boards for the students’ ideas and also provide guidance for the
students as they get out to visit actual industries, users and spaces, allowing them to
investigate every important aspect related to their task.
Students in the ME310 class come in as novices and transform within a year to
accomplished engineering designers with a tangible product developed under the
guidance of specialists from whom they learn along the way, while also creating
new knowledge by combining different aspects of their experience. This learning
experience can be simplified into three general, distinct steps: understanding the
process, practicing the process, and delivering a target solution. In each of these
steps, students are guided as they explore, discover, and apply new knowledge in
solving complex problems under the supervision of their instructors and coaches. We
can therefore view design thinking within three broad aspects under this framework:
understand; practice the process; and delivering solutions.
Understanding the Process
This first stage involves getting the students to understand the design thinking
methodology and equipping them with the basic skills required to effectively con-
duct user-research to understand the context within which their problem and solution
lies. It takes advantage of the curiosity that learners have toward science, people, and
their interactions with their surroundings—which effectively provides the contextual
setting.
Practicing the Process
Once the students get the general ideas around design thinking, they are presented
with fast-paced tasks to get them familiar with the concepts. They may be asked
to identify a problem (discover a need) within a specific space, propose solutions
and then test them to find out if they fit. This process is often fast paced in order to
give the students a chance to explore multiple possibilities instead of concentrating
on perfecting a single idea. One common introductory task is building of “paper
bikes”—something that few, if any of incoming students have ever done before,
allowing them to explore their creative imagination and to employ the many science
skills and knowledge they already possess. Beyond this, they engage with designated
industries to begin exploring their long-term project such that subsequent prototypes
reflect identified problems/needs within their space.
Delivering Solutions
The student teams are each sponsored by a corporate entity, and while they are
composed of students from two to three universities from around the globe, they
work with and learn from all instructors and eventually deliver a finished product to
their sponsor. Given that different schools offer different areas of specialization, the
instructors, coaches, and partners ensure that each team leverages their differences—
for example, industrial design, mechatronics, and manufacturing in one team. They
use their knowledge and skills to design, manufacture parts, and assemble their
prototype, then test and improve it using feedback from their intended users. Once
testing is complete and modifications have been made to reflect feedback, the final
product is manufactured. Some researchers argue that in some cases entrepreneurship
or impact aspect could be added or explicitly addressed in the design thinking model.
This ME310 example presents a brief overview of the design thinking method in
practice, including a summary of the activities that highlight different aspects and
processes, to demonstrate how it is implemented in one university course. While there
are many unique aspects that make the course a great fit for this method, educators
in other settings may find their own ways of implementing this model of cognitive
apprenticeship within their specific situations. Let us now consider the above process
in terms of the dimensions for designing a learning environment (Collins et al., 1991)
as well as ways in which instructors promoted student learning in ME310.
Dimensions of Cognitive Apprenticeship for Designing

a Learning Environment
Collins et al. (1991) suggested four dimensions to be considered when designing

learning environment based on cognitive apprenticeship learning: content, method,
sequencing, and sociology. Using the ME310 class example, we see these dimensions
embodied in the different components that constitute the learning space. Let us
explore each of them, followed by processes that were applied to support learning.
• Content: The content incorporated real-life examples and scenarios that were used
to model skills, as well as to generate the tasks that were assigned to student teams.
• Method: Learning was hands-on, iterative problem solving, which was scaffolded
by instructors and coaches, allowing learners to gain and practice new skills with
support from experts.
• Sequencing: The learning activities and tasks were deliberately planned to advance
mastery by presenting just the right level of difficulty on subsequent tasks.
• Sociology: Learning in this class was inherently co-operative, with students learn-
ing from and interacting freely with each other, instructors, coaches, as well as
potential users of their products.
Six Processes Used in Promoting Student Learning
Modeling
The instructors and coaches in ME310 begin with learning activities that allow them
to model the skills as they invite students to participate through assigned tasks, such
as making observations, asking questions, annotating, and others.
Coaching
Once students begin working on assigned tasks, the instructors and coaches monitor
and provide directions as necessary, pointing out opportunities for best performance
and successful completion of tasks. This could be in as simple a task as assigning
responsibilities within a team, or setting up a shared planner/timeline.
Scaffolding
The instructors continue to monitor learning while providing specific help, directions,
and opportunities to perform advanced tasks once students demonstrate mastery, or
revisiting previously covered skills if necessary. An example is asking students to
create multiple variations of a prototype for extra score.
Articulation
Students learn from the instructors and coaches who verbalize their thought process
and describe the interconnectedness of different aspects needed to complete tasks.
The instructor may explain what constitutes a great user testing, for instance.
Reflection
Once students have completed a specific task such as interviewing a user, or assem-
bling a prototype, they reflect on the process verbally or in writing. This is shared
with their team as well as with instructors.
Exploration
The students are encouraged to go beyond the examples presented by imagining new
scenarios as they seek to understand and resolve problems. This is where novel ideas
emerge from—such as designing a manufacturing platform as a way of inventing
the future space shuttle—something that would have seemed far removed from the
originally assigned task.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we discussed two fundamental learning theories, namely, the situated
cognition and cognitive apprenticeship learning, which are situated within social
constructivist approaches to instruction. We also supported our discussion with a
case study in which engineering design was looked at and implemented through a
cognitive apprenticeship perspective. While situated cognition and cognitive appren-
ticeship both have contributed to our understanding of learning, the characteristics of
emerging learning contexts and tools have made the use of these two theories more
relevant than ever. According to situation learning theory, learning arises from the
dynamic interaction between the learner and the environment in which the learn-
ing takes place (Roth & Jornet, 2013). Thus, any interpretation of learning should
acknowledge the social, cultural, and historical context in which learning takes place.
What these two theories suggest is that learning is not only about memorizing and
retaining knowledge, it is also about becoming someone, belonging to a culture,
learning how to become a legitimate, competent and productive member of a group.
This requires learning how to use the rules, tools, and norms of the specific culture
in which one is trying to achieve legitimate membership (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Accordingly, learners’ social and emotional skills are also central to this process
(OECD, 2017). Science education colleagues have studied how students learn when
the learning tasks are designed based on cognitive apprenticeship and the learning
contexts emulate the authentic scientific contexts (Barab & Hay, 2001; Charney et al.,
2007). The findings suggest that students develop more robust and meaningful under-
standings and acquire a deeper understanding of the nature of science (Bell, Blair,
Crawford & Lederman, 2003).
Collins et al.’s (1991) emphasis on four dimensions such as content, method,
sequencing, and sociology that needs to be considered while designing learning envi-
ronment must be taken very seriously by educators as they design learning environ-
ments in and outside of classrooms. Applying these dimensions in design of learning
environments will result in more productive student engagement. However, making
learning relevant to students’ lives and taking context and culture into account will
make learning more authentic. This implies that the goals of our learning activities
should focus on epistemologies of science, engage students in deep questions related
to the nature of science, and the activities we design should engage students in such
practices as modeling, argumentation, and questioning, the types of practices that are
used to construct, justify, evaluate, critique, and validate the scientific knowledge.
When it comes to practical applications and limitations of this theory, the blended
and online learning platforms as well as online instructional videos—where learners
engage with a trainer in isolation (mostly), rather than within a direct, personal, social
setting—contrasts the theory and suggests a different approach. The online learning
videos scenario thus limits the application of this theory, as some of the component
parts that make up the theory are missing. Thus, online learning platforms need to
improve their approaches in that sense.
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Prof. Larry Leifer and Prof. Mark Cutkosky
of Stanford University School of Engineering, whose project-based design class ME310 is sited in
this article, and for their generosity in allowing us to share the experience.
Further Readings
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the
science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.
Bell, R., Blair, M., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science appren-
ticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires
innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007).
Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International
Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
ME310: https://web.stanford.edu/group/me310/me310_2016/index.html
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development and social context. London:
Oxford University Press.
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies
in Science Education, 27, 1–51.
Aydeniz, M., & Hodge, L. (2011). Identity: A complex structure for researching students’ academic
behavior in science and mathematics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 509–523.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!:
Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 260–285.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires
innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Cakmakci, G. (2012). Promoting pre-service teachers’ ideas about nature of science through
educational research apprenticeship. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 114–135.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women
of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8),
1187–1218.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.
American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of
reading, writing, and mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. Center for the Study of Reading.
ERIC Document 284181.
Collins, A., & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Situated cognition. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman
(Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia. Gale: Farmington Hills MI.
Collins, A. & Greeno, J. G. (2010). A situative view of learning. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B.
McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. London: Elsevier. Reprinted in V. G.
Aukrust (Ed.). (2011). Learning and cognition in education (pp. 64–70). London: Elsevier.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition: Translated by Myra
Bergman Ramos with an introduction by Donaldo Macedo). New York: The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc.
Gee, J. P. (1997). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner
& J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Khan, T. M., Mitchell, J. E. M., Brown, K. E., & Leitch, R. R. (1998). Situated learning using
descriptive models. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(6), 771–796.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, &
S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Leopold, A. L., Ratcheva, V., & Zahidi, S. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and
workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum, Davos. Retrieved
from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf.
OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2017). Social and
emotional skills: Well-being, connectedness and success. Retrieved from http://bit.do/e2qpH.
Riedinger, K. (2015). Identity development of youth during participation at an informal science
education camp. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(3), 453–475.
Robbing, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M.
Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development and social context. London:
Oxford University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. G. (2013). Situated cognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 463–478.
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53–117.
Tan, E., Calabrese-Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neil, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related
fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179.
Vosniadou, S., Loannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning
environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D.
H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gultekin Cakmakci is a Professor of Science Education at Hacettepe University and has been
teaching courses on STEM education and public engagement with STEM. His research interests
focus on developing scientific literacy among students and the general public and on the design,
implementation, and evaluation of STEM teaching. He is currently a board member of the Public
Communication of Science and Technology (PCST), EU STEM Coalition, Turkish STEM Alliance
and Journal of Research in STEM Education.
Mehmet Aydeniz is a Professor of Science Education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Dr. Aydeniz’s research focuses on students’ appropriation of epistemic and social norms of sci-
ence and science teachers’ pedagogical knowledge to support student learning along these goals.
Dr. Aydeniz is also interested in studying science teachers’ pedagogical knowledge of engineering
design and computational thinking. He is the editor of Journal of Research in STEM Education.
Amelia Brown has B.S. in Plant Sciences, and spent 10 years as a STEM professional in Food
and Agricultural Sciences before deciding to pursue a M.S. in Science Education. After teaching
middle school science for several years, Amelia decided to further her education. She is currently
a Ph.D. candidate in Science Education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her research
focuses on culturally responsive pedagogies.
Joseph M. Makokha is a Ph.D. student in engineering design at Stanford University. He is inter-

ested in the interaction between novice users and autonomous systems; and how design enables
effective understanding between them. He has taught math and robotics to high school students,
co-founded a technology startup, and still works as an academic technology specialist among
others.
Chapter 21
Activity Theory—Lev Vygotsky, Aleksei
Leont’ev, Yrjö Engeström
Tony Burner and Bodil Svendsen
Introduction
Commonly, various systems and institutions undergo a change in order to improve

practices or make them more effective. However, there are few systematic theories
that can be used in research to both study the changes and contribute to change
and transformation of practice. Activity Theory can be used to study developmental
change in systems and institutions such as hospitals and schools. It applies both a
historical and a situational perspective; both an individual (micro) and a systemic
(macro) perspective. In this chapter, we explain the history of Activity Theory and
how it can be used in practical terms to understand change and development in
general, and inquiry-based science teaching in particular.
Activity Theory has developed within the sociocultural approach to learning and
development (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991, 1998), and pays attention to historic-
ity, the present situation, to the individual, and the collective system. Research with
human participants will to some degree involve intervention, and “the introduction
of research instruments into practice, including dialogue between researcher and
participants, is itself change-inducing” (Wardekker, 2000, p. 270). Activity Theory
is about learning and change and is a suitable research and development approach in
order to address the gap between theory and practice.
Activity Theory is based on theories developed by a group of revolutionary Rus-
sian psychologists in the 1920 and 1930s. The fundamental concept of the approach
T. Burner
Professor, Department of Languages and Literature Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway,
Drammen, Norway
B. Svendsen (B)
Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

312 T. Burner and B. Svendsen
was proposed by Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), the founder of the school. The rela-
tionship between the individual and the social community appears to be a classic
challenge in psychology. After the Russian Revolution in 1917 Russian psycholo-
gists tried to solve this issue, and it was not an easy task since a solution had to fit the
philosophy of the Marxist doctrine. Vygotsky was a central character in this context
and he tried to reconcile the philosophical side of Marxism with a psychology of
human development and link socialization to the social individual. In particular, he
stressed three key elements that were central to his thinking: First, that human mindset
is influenced by its living conditions. There are common features in the environment
around humans, resulting in a united mindset and how they understand each other.
Second, artifacts surrounding humans impact their living conditions. Third, humans
can attain more in life by collaborating than striving alone (Vygotsky, 1978).
Activity Theory is an object-oriented theory (Engeström & Sannino, 2010).
According to Engeström (2001, pp. 136–137), Activity Theory can be summed up
with five characteristics.
1. Prime unit of analysis: “A collective, artifact-mediated and object-oriented activ-
ity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the
prime unit of analysis” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136).
2. Multi-voicedness: “An activity system is always a community of multiple points
of view, traditions and interests” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136).
3. Historicity: “Activity systems take shape and get transformed over lengthy peri-
ods of time. Their problems and potentials can only be understood against their
own history” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136).
4. Contradictions: Contradictions play a central role as “sources of change and
development…[They] are historically accumulating structural tensions within
and between activity systems” (Engeström, 2001, p. 137).
5. Possibility of expansive transformations: “An expansive transformation is accom-
plished when the object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to
embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode
of activity” (Engeström, 2001, p. 137).
Yrjö Engeström has together with colleagues at CRADLE (Center for Research on
Activity and Learning) at the University of Helsinki used the theory to analyze and
intervene in many settings and situations. Activity Theory is an approach that can be
used to analyze human interactions and relationships within specific social contexts.
It focuses on collective social practices and considers the complexity of real-life
activity. It is being increasingly used to examine issues in teacher education, as well
as in other fields.
Activity Theory has developed through the following three generations or schools
(Engeström, 2001): The first school was developed by Vygotsky and later his stu-
dents, contributing with the cultural historical aspects of Activity Theory. The second
school was mainly Leont’ev’s work, a student of Vygotsky, contributing to the dif-
ferences between individuals and collective activity. The third and last school was
developed by Engeström, with its networks of interacting activity systems.
21 Activity Theory—Lev Vygotsky, Aleksei Leont’ev, Yrjö … 313
Vygotsky and First School of Activity Theory
Vygotsky’s ideas, developed during the 1920 and 1930s, were a response to what
he called “a crisis in psychology”, which was most evident in the study of “con-
sciousness”—a synonym for “mind” (Bakhurst, 2007). It was a reaction towards a
reductionist understanding of psychology, where human processes were reduced to
physiology or neurology by proponents like Ivan Pavlov and Vlamidir Bekhterev.
Pavlov, the winner of Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1904, developed the theory of con-
ditional reflexes through his famous experiments with dogs (Van der Veer, 2007). He
found that dogs would salivate not only when they got food, but also when various
conditions preceding food reminded them of food. From this, Pavlov inferred that
mental activity is reflexive. Bekhterev, the founder of reflexology, claimed that all
human behavior consists of complex forms of reflexes (Van der Veer, 2007). Pavlov’s
findings inspired the American John B. Watson, who is considered to be the founder
of the school of behaviorism, and his later colleague B. F. Skinner. Signalization, or
stimuli, was at the core of Pavlov’s theory. It meant that organisms learn that certain
stimuli signal others (Van der Veer, 2007). However, Vygotsky considered this an
inadequate description of human being’s higher mental functions. He introduced the
concept of signification, meaning that humans are not passively reacting to their envi-
ronment but actively determine their behavior through signs (Van der Veer, 2007).
Bakhurst (2007) explains it in this way:
The cornerstone of Vygotsky’s “dialectical method” is the idea that everything in time must
be understood in its development. Accordingly, he argues that to understand the mature
human mind, we must comprehend the processes from which it emerges. The higher mental
functions, he argues, are irreducible to their primitive antecedents; they do not simply grow
from the elementary functions as if the latter contained them in embryo. To appreciate the
qualitative transformations that engender the mature mind, we must look outside the head, for
the higher mental functions are distinguished by their mediation by external means (p. 53).
Vygotsky’s identification of mediated action as a unit of analysis was revolution-

ary. It overcame the Cartesian individual and the untouchable societal structure split.
Vygotsky based his findings on reading Marx’s theories on changing social and mate-
rial conditions. The foundational idea of dialectical materialism is that human beings,
besides acquiring knowledge and being the result of the evolution of species, also
produce and transform culture. Vygotsky extended Marx’s theory to psychology,
emphasizing that a unit of analysis has to pay attention to the history and devel-
opmental processes (Vygotsky, 1986). He claimed that “[…] humans personally
influence their relations with the environment and through that environment person-
ally change their behavior, subjugating it to their control” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 51).
Moreover, Vygotsky was influenced by Engel’s writings on the centrality of tool
and sign mediation in human functioning (Wertsch, 1985). He formed what is called
“the basic triangle”, illustrating that the subject cannot act on the object directly but
through tool mediation. “This type of organization is basic to all higher psychological
processes”, according to him (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40).
Mediation also provides “a link between social and historical processes, on the
one hand, and individuals’ mental processes, on the other… the focus is on how
the inclusion of tools and signs leads to qualitative transformation” (Wertsch, 2007,
p. 178). Thus, change is fundamental to understanding higher mental functions. From
this point of view, the goal of instruction in schools is “to assist students in becoming
fluent users of a sign system” (Wertsch, 2007, p. 186). Teachers try constantly to do
this with their students—whether the sign system is reading literacy, ICT, classroom
management or inquiry-based teaching.
Vygotsky (1986) emphasized cultural mediation and its importance for thinking:
“The rational, intentional conveyance of experience and thought to others requires a
mediating system” (p. 7). He argued that tools and signs mediate higher mental func-
tioning and human action. Mediational means, particularly language, are products of
cultural, historical, and institutional forces (Wertsch, 1991). In fact, Wertsch (1998)
argues for mediated action as a unit of analysis in order to overcome the pitfalls of
individualistic reductionism. As in the definition of “activity” in Activity Theory,
he claims that the action is characterized “[…] by dynamic tension among various
elements” (Wertsch, 1998, p. 27). As pointed out by Wertsch (1998), there are often
resistance and tensions involved in mediated action through cultural tools. Now we
turn to the second school of Activity Theory.
Leont’ev and Second School Activity Theory
Aleksei N. Leont’ev, Alexander Luria and other Soviet researchers developed Vygot-
sky’s ideas into what is called the second generation of Activity Theory (Engeström,
2001). The focus then moved from the individual to the collective.
Leont’ev, one of Vygotsky’s students, contributed with the concept of activity
(Leont’ev, 1978, 1981). He criticized American psychology, which was mostly occu-
pied with explaining what makes children what they are. Leont’ev distinguished
between activity, action, and operation, and operated with collective activity as a key
unit of analysis. The focus should, according to Leont’ev, be on the object and motive
(Leont’ev, 1981). The activity of driving a car can be illustrative of these concepts.
When one shifts gear while driving, the action is the shifting of gear from first to
second gear. After one has learned to shift gears, the action becomes an operation.
Thus, an activity is realized through actions. Activities have their own language, for
example, teachers working in schools. For somebody who does not know what a
school is, the activity will seem foreign. That is why one has to study an activity
from the inside. Within a school, there are several activities, for example assessing
student performance, which also has its own jargon. For someone unacquainted with
assessment, the activity will not make so much sense. Teachers’ work within an activ-
ity, for example, student assessment, becomes automatized. Their actions within the
activity thus become operations. It is important to study the actions and verbalize the
operations to understand the activity (cf. Vygotsky’s idea of the social preceding the
individual).
Leont’ev claims “[…] the main feature that distinguishes one activity from another
is its object. After all, it is precisely an activity’s object that gives it a specific direc-
tion”, which also shows that there is always a need, a motive: “There can be no
activity without a motive” (Leont’ev, 1981, p. 59). Moreover, Leont’ev formally
operationalized the roles of communities, the rules that structure them, and the nego-
tiation of tasks. He was much more concerned with practical life and activity than
his predecessor Vygotsky, who was more concerned with genesis and the mediation
of mind by cultural tools.
The second generation of Activity Theory is inspired mostly from Leont’ev’s
work. In his well-known example of “primeval collective hunt”, Leont’ev (1981,
pp. 210–213) explained the essential difference between an individual action and a
collective activity. The distinction between activity, action, and operation became
the basis for Leont’ev’s three-level model of activity. The highest level of collective
activity is driven by an object-related motive; the middle level of individual (or group)
action is driven by a conscious goal; and the bottom level of sub-conscious operations
is driven by the conditions and tools of the action at hand. The idea of internal
contradictions as the energetic forces of change and development in activity systems
was conceptualized by Il’enkov (1982) and started to grow as a guiding principle
of empirical research. Cole (1988) was one of the first to outline the deep-rooted
insensitivity of the second generation Activity Theory towards cultural diversity.
Nevertheless, Leont’ev never graphically extended Vygotsky’s original model into a
model of a collective activity system, the graphical extension was done by Engeström
(1987, p. 78). With this, we turn to the third school of Activity Theory.
Engeström and Third School Activity Theory
When Activity Theory went global, questions of diversity and dialogue between
different traditions or perspectives gradually became serious challenges. It is these
challenges that the third generation of Activity Theory deals with. It develops con-
ceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives and voices, and networks
of interacting activity systems. In this mode of research, the basic model is expanded
to include a minimum of two interacting activity systems.
The minimum elements in the activity system are: Subject, mediating artifact,
object, rules, community, and division of labor. The upper triangle with subject,
object, and mediating artifact as its nodes is Vygotsky’s original triangle (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 40) turned upside down. The acting subject could be a person or a group; it is
through the subject’s eyes and interpretations the activity is constructed. Mediating
artifact is what links the subject to the object in Vygotsky’s original triangle. The
object is the goal of the activity, whereas the outcome is the ultimate goal or vision of
the activity. Rules include norms and conventions in the activity system, community
refers to all the people involved in the activity system, and division of labor refers to
the object-oriented actions that are conducted by the people involved in the activity
system. All the nodes in the triangle interact.
The principles of Activity Theory for inquiry and development are useful in con-
ducting and studying development. Conducting developmental research which uses
the activity system as a starting point can add knowledge about the situation before
and after an intervention. A significant goal of using an inquiry approach is to learn
from the often unexpected ways in which the intervention reveals new understandings
of both theory and practice.
According to Rantavuori, Engeström, and Lipponen (2016), when whole col-
lective activity systems, such as work processes and organizations, need to refine
themselves, traditional modes of learning are not enough. Nobody knows exactly
what needs to be learned. The design of the new activity and the acquisition of the
knowledge and skills it requires are increasingly intertwined. In expansive learning
activity, they merge (Engeström, 2015). Earlier studies of expansive learning (e.g.,
Engeström, 2008, pp. 118–168) have demonstrated that features of expansive learn-
ing may be found when participants face an open-ended problem-solving task, such
as a need to plan something that is new for them. In an expansive learning cycle, the
initial simple idea is transformed into a complex object, a new form of practice.
Relying on Activity Theory, the theory of expansive learning is fundamentally
an object-oriented theory where the object is both the resistant raw material and the
future-oriented purpose of an activity (Rantavuori et al., 2016). The object is the
true carrier of the motive of the activity. In an expansive learning activity, motives
and motivation are not tailed predominantly inside individual subjects—they are
in the object to be transformed and expanded. As pointed out by Rantavuori and
colleagues (2016), a powerful object of learning has an expansive potential to go
beyond the exchange value, being typically an open-ended problem or challenge that
has relevance for the learners and is not limited to reproducing predefined correct
answers. Expansive learning is understood as a circular process in which strategic
actions based on contradictions drive new strategic actions and contradictions in a
cyclic process (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 2). Engeström’s (1999) expansive
cycle of learning is related to his activity system and shows the levels of action during
formative interventions. This model assumes that development does not necessarily
follow a linear pattern.
In expansive learning, learners learn something that is not yet there (Rantavuori
et al., 2016). The learners construct a new object and concept for their collective
activity and implement this new object and concept in practice. The theory of expan-
sive learning is based on the dialectics of ascending from the abstract to the concrete
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010). This is a method of grasping the essence of an object
by tracing and theoretically reproducing the logic of its development, that is, its his-
torical formation through the emergence and resolution of its inner contradictions.
Contradictions are the driving force of transformation (Engeström & Sannino, 2010).
Contradictions may create disorder and conflicts that can be perceived as a problem,
but contradictions may also lead to change and new knowledge (Leont’ev, 1978).
Through the process of the expansive cycle, the object and motive of the activity are
reconceptualized to allow greater possibility and flexibility than the previous pattern
of activity.
The idea of contradictions as a source of innovation was introduced by Il’enkov

(1982) and is a guiding principle of Activity Theory, which is illustrated with
Engeström’s (1999) expansive circle. The contradictions between the various ele-
ments in the activity system are the starting point for development. When contra-
dictions are identified, the development forms the formative cycle, which can be
illustrated in the expansive learning cycle (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 8). The
expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive of the activity
are reconceptualized to embrace a broader perspective of potentials than in the earlier
means of the activity.
Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) is another central
root to the theory of expansive learning. Vygotsky (1978, A full cycle of expansive
transformation can be understood as a collective journey through the zone of proximal
development of the activity (Engeström, 2000, p. 526; Engeström, 2001, p. 137).
Meira and Lerman (2001) argue that the ZPD is not something that pre-exists; it
is a symbolic space for interaction and communication where learning leads the
development. They refer to Wertsch’s (1985) statements about how the ZPD is not
a measurable object. Nor is it only related to the interactional events which lead
to cognitive change. According to Wertsch (1985), the ZPD is not just a property
of the child, nor is it merely the result of inter-psychological functioning alone.
As pointed out by Engeström, who has developed the individual understanding of
Vygotsky’s ZPD (1978, p. 174), “it is the distance between the present everyday
actions of the individuals and the historically new form of the societal activity that
can be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentially embedded
in the everyday actions.” The ZPD is redefined as space for expansive transition from
actions to activity (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 4). In the following, we turn to
inquiry-based science teaching within a framework of Activity Theory.
Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Mediating Artifacts
Inquiry-Based Science Teaching (IBST) is according to Linn, Davis, and Bell (2004)
basically about teachers teaching students to obtain a better understanding of the
world in which they work, communicate, learn, and live. Inquiry is the intentional
process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alter-
natives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information,
constructing models, debating with peers, and forming coherent arguments (Linn,
Davis, & Bell, 2004).
Questioning and finding answers are extremely important in IBST as aids in
effectively generating knowledge. Teaching strategies that actively engage students
in the learning process through inquiries are more likely to increase conceptual
understandings, and there can be variable amounts of direction from the teacher,
in both open and guided inquiry. IBST is not only about asking questions but is
a way of transforming data and information into valuable knowledge. As a tool
for teaching inquiry, teachers can use the 5E model (Fig. 21.1). The 5E model (cf.
Fig. 21.1 The 5E model

(Svendsen, 2015)
Chap. 4: Malone’s intrinsic motivational theory) can be used to support teachers

in planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching. The model has its origins in
the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), in which American scholars
developed educational programs and research on teaching and learning in science.
The five Es are the initial letters in the words engage, explore, explain, elaborate,
and evaluate. The intention of the model is to be used for planning, implementation,
and evaluation of learning and teaching.
Teachers teach by engaging students with a starter. A startup should be both
motivating and related to phenomena that students can relate to (like everyday phe-
nomena). The students’ prior knowledge is accessed by the teacher or the syllabus
and helps students to become engaged in a concept through the use of short activ-
ities, or introduction to phenomena in order to endorse interest and provoke prior
knowledge. The activities of this phase make connections to past experiences and
expose students’ misconceptions; they should serve to ease cognitive imbalance.
Activity refers to both mental and physical activity (Bybee et al., 2006). Once the
activities have engaged the students, they need time to explore the ideas. Inquiry-
based activities are designed so that the students have common, concrete experiences
upon which they continue formulating concepts, processes, and skills. Students work
actively with the material (read, write, investigate, observe, etc.) and add knowledge
and skills to reach new learning goals. This level is concrete and hands-on, and
the use of touchable materials and concrete experiences is essential, but not nec-
essary. The aim of inquiry-based activities is to establish experiences that teachers
and students can use later to introduce and discuss concepts, processes, or skills.
Explanation provides openings for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process,
or skill. Students explain their understanding of the concept. An explanation from
the teacher may guide them toward a deeper understanding, which is a critical part
of their new understanding. By facilitating activities that build on the knowledge
and skills students already possess, and allow students to reflect, discuss, read, and
write to achieve the learning objectives, the teacher can introduce new concepts that
challenge student’s conceptual understanding (Bybee et al., 2006).
Teachers have a variety of techniques and strategies at their disposal to stimulate
and develop student explanations. Once students have explanations and terms for their
learning tasks, it is important to involve them in further experiences that extend, or
elaborate, the concepts, processes, or skills. This level facilitates the transfer of con-
cepts to closely related but new situations. Students’ theoretical understandings and
skills are challenged by their new experiences and by guidance of their teachers. They
develop deeper and extensive understanding, more information, and adequate skills.
Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting supplementary
activities. Elaborative activities provide further time and experiences that contribute
to learning.
Evaluation should be continuous, varied, and be a part of all levels. Assessment
is self-assessment, continuous assessment, and final assessment. It can be oral and
written. Teachers need to evaluate their own learning in a reflective way. Students
consider their own learning and understanding, and the teacher will assess student
learning in relation to learning objectives in each subject or in an activity, and in
relation to the objectives of the curriculum. Students might also benefit from col-
laborative learning when working inquiry-based. Students engaged in collaborative
learning capitalize on one another’s resources and skills, asking one another for
information, evaluating one another’s ideas, monitoring one another’s work, etc. The
importance of the difference between individual actions and collective activities is to
be found within the second school of Activity Theory. When students interact across
activity systems, conceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives and
voices, and networks of interacting activity systems need to be developed. In this
mode, the basic model from the first school of Activity Theory is expanded to include
a minimum of two interacting activity systems, known as the third school of Activity
Theory.
In conclusion, the 5E model can be supportive in making inquiry-based teaching
explicit and targeted. By shaping clear learning aims for teaching, teachers can use the
model as a reflection tool for designing, planning, implementing, and evaluating their
teaching sequences and in this way expand their professional learning. Rendering the
activity system, the 5E model represents a mediating artifact on which teachers and
students can act and create their own understanding of the model to enhance learning
and understanding of science. Mediating artifact is what links the subject to the object
in Vygotsky’s triangle, and it is acted upon by the subject to the object. According to
Leont’ev (1981), mediation is the subject’s activity. The object refers to the “problem
space” at which the activity is focused and which is formed and transformed into
outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal mediating
instruments, including both tools and signs. The goal of the activity is the object, and
the outcome is the goal of the activity, in this case, IBST.
Summary
• Activity Theory can be used to study the developmental change in systems and
institutions.
• Activity Theory has developed within the sociocultural approach to learning and
development.
• Activity Theory has developed through the following three generations or schools:
– The first school was developed by Vygotsky. The important part here is the
concept of mediation.
– The second school was developed by Leont’ev. The important part here is the
difference between individual actions and collective activities.
– The third school was developed by Engeström. The important part here is the
network of activity systems.
• Expansive learning is central in Activity Theory. In expansive learning, learners
learn something that is not yet there.
• Science teaching can benefit from using mediating artifacts to understand the
principles behind inquiry-based teaching and trigger a learning process.
• Inquiry-Based Science Teaching is about asking questions and a way of trans-
forming data and information into valuable knowledge.
Books
Miettinen, R. (2009). Dialogue and creativity. Activity theory in the study of science, technology
and innovations. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
Journal
Mind, Culture, and Activity: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmca20.
Internet Source
CRADLE (Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning): http://www.helsinki.fi/
cradle/index.htm.
References
Bakhurst, D. (2007). Vygotsky’s demons. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The
Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 50–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The
BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition. Human Development, 31,
137–151.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation
in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity
theory (pp. 377–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work.
Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualiza-
tion. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and
learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and
future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.
Il’enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s Capital. Moscow:
Progress.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis,
& P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–27). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meira, L., & Lerman, S. (2001). The zone of proximal development as a symbolic space. Social
Science Research Papers. 13. London, South Bank University, Faculty of Humanities and Social
Science.
Rantavuori, J., Engeström, Y., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Learning actions, objects and types of inter-
action: A methodological analysis of expansive learning among pre-service teachers. Frontline
Learning Research, 4(3), 1–27.
Svendsen, B. (2015). Mediating artifact in teacher professional development. International Journal
of Science Education, 37(11), 1834–1854.
Van der Veer, R. (2007). Vygotsky in context: 1900–1935. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch
(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 21–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wardekker, W. (2000). Criteria for the quality of inquiry. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 259–272.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge:
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge
companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tony Burner (Ph.D.) works as a Professor of English at the Department of Languages and Liter-
ature Studies at the University College of Southeast Norway, where he has taught in-service and
pre-service courses for teachers and student teachers the last 13 years. He has broad international
experience with research, among others from Finland, Australia, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Vietnam. His
main research interests are English education, classroom assessment, research and development
work, teacher mentoring, multilingualism, and professional development.
Bodil Svendsen (Ph.D.) works as an Associate Professor of Natural Science at the Department of
Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where she has taught
in-service and pre-service courses for teachers and student teachers since 2007. Bodil has teach-
ing experience from elementary school, middle school, senior high school and adult education
teaching Natural Science, Biology and Geography. She has international experience with research,
among others from Finland, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden and England. Her main research inter-
ests are Natural Science education, school development, R&D work, teacher mentoring, profes-
sional development and gifted children research. She established and led the Center for Gifted and
Talented in STEM in Trondheim, Norway, from 2016 until 2019.
Chapter 22
Multiliteracies—New London Group
Shameem Oozeerally, Yashwantrao Ramma, and Ajeevsing Bholoa
Introduction
The concept of ‘multiliteracies’ was, for the first time, articulated by the New Lon-
don Group (NLG) in 1996 to raise awareness of the use of multiliteracy-based
approaches to literacy pedagogy. Traditionally, literacy pedagogy has been related
to ‘formalised, monolingual, monocultural and rule-governed forms of language’
(NLG, 1996, p. 61). The fulcrum of the reflection around multiliteracies is the chang-
ing social environment, rooted in change and dynamism, in a landscape of increasing
cultural and linguistic diversity. In other words, one of the driving forces of this type
of reflection is an increasingly heterogeneous linguo-cultural landscape, exacerbated
by the expansion of technology and access to the Internet. Falling frontiers, as well
as increasingly osmotic cultural-linguistic barriers can be considered as part of the
factors stimulating the genesis of a multiliteracies-based philosophy. There are two
defining aspects of multiliteracies:
i. Multiplicity of communication channels and media and
ii. Increasing saliency of cultural and linguistic diversity.
Since the work of the New London Group, the term ‘multiliteracies’ now encom-
passes a multitude of disciplines, in particular, visual literacy (Bell, 2014; Drapper,
2015), oral vernacular genres (Newman, 2005), emotional literacy (Oksuz, 2016),
information literacy (Rowsell & Walsh, 2011) and cultural literacy (Claassen, 2007).
With the advent of digital technology, online critical literacy (Freebody, 2007) has
S. Oozeerally (B) · Y. Ramma · A. Bholoa

Mauritius Institute of Education, Reduit, Mauritius
Y. Ramma
A. Bholoa

324 S. Oozeerally et al.
emerged to represent the basic skills that a learner displays when online. The concept
of multiliteracies has since then been extended beyond the boundary of linguistics to
other disciplines and includes science (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011) and mathematics
(Chinnappan, 2008) multiliteracies.
One of the fundamental characteristics of multiliteracies being multimodality, we
argue that knowledge is transformed through the filters of the ‘subject-experiencer’,
who is not only a passive subject but an active agent. Robillard (2008b, p. 145)
proposes the term ‘acteur-L’, a ‘socialised, historicised and reflexively-constructed
being’ (own translation from French). In this sense, the (science) teachers as well as
the learners are seen as active meaning-makers who are able to navigate and negotiate
information in order to ‘achieve their various cultural purposes’ (NLG, 1996, p. 64).
The multiliteracies approach also comes as a critique to the monocultural
paradigms prevalent in the philosophy of education which considers ‘literacy peda-
gogy […] [as a] carefully restricted project—restricted to formalised, monolingual,
monocultural and rule-governed forms of language’ (NLG, 1996, p. 2). Dominant
perspectives on literacy were based on linear, text-centric and ‘language-centric’
postures. As the linguistic dimension is central to the definition of multiliteracies, it
is possible to draw parallels with recent literature in the epistemology of language
studies. Literacy pedagogy, in the traditional sense, has been embedded in a form
of reasoning that is analogous to that of the techno-linguistic perspective, which
advocates a mono-dimensional and unimodal approach (Robillard, 2008a). Multilit-
eracies offer interesting perspectives where the sociolinguistic landscape is diverse
(Carpooran, 2007).
The NLG demonstrates how the conception of a singular notional form of language
(stable system based on rules), based on the assumption that we can discern and
describe the correct usage, which corresponds to an authoritarian kind of pedagogy,
reduces the very notion of literacy to a mechanistic process.
Learning Experience and Multiliteracies
Learning, in the multiliteracy paradigm, seeks to seamlessly integrate different

communicative systems, akin to modes, in a complex process involving different
sub-processes (Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001):
i. Selection
ii. Adaptation
iii. Transformation
Learning is, therefore, a dynamic process of knowledge network formation medi-
ated by multimodal realisations of language practices. Jewitt et al. (2001, p. 5) define
the term ‘mode’ as ‘organised, regular, socially-specific means of representation’.
This is a fundamentally heterogeneous definition as it allows the flexibility of inte-
grating communication systems in the actional, linguistic, paralinguistic, graphical
and symbolic (among others) dimensions.
22 Multiliteracies—New London Group 325
The research of Jewitt et al. (2001) shows that learning, through the multi-
modal/multiliterate lens, is an active process of meaning-making and remaking. The
reflexive dimension, whereby the subject-experiencers (acteurs-L) negotiate with
their identities and cognitive schema, via transduction, is fundamental in knowledge
transformation as well as reconfiguration. Hence, meaning emerges as a consequence
of choice and experience. The notion of experience is a generic term that has two dis-
tinct meanings (Engel, 2007), the first being traditional empiricism, which considers
experience as a set of data to be used for analytical purposes, from a controlled and
controllable setting (experimentation). The second meaning states that not all events
are controllable; humans live events prior to any form of logical or analytical reason-
ing, and not all experiences can or should be rationalised. Such a stance integrates
elements like sensitivity, affectivity and imagination.
Science and Multiliteracies
In science, multiliteracies have largely been restricted to the multimodal nature

of scientific texts (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011) and visual representations (Jewitt,
2005)—the latter being in conjunction with ICT.
Science deals with the study of nature and is itself ontologically and epistemologi-
cally multimodal. Alvermann and Wilson’s (2011) depiction of experiencing science
via an outing, where the students are learning physics concepts through conversation
and experienciation, points to the fact that science (including physics) is intrinsically
multimodal and deals with a wide variety of semiotic devices.
Multimodality, Science and Semiotics
Multimodality, in essence, concerns the possible varieties of communicational modes

beyond ‘verbal’ language and therefore deals with semiotics, which is a field studying
signs, symbols and their meanings. Signs can be in the form of phonemes (sounds),
gestures, diagrams, graphics, etc. In his discussion about the multimodal nature of
scientific language, Lemke (2004) goes in the same line of thought, stating how the
science learner is de facto exposed to a wide variety of communicational modes. He
also puts forth the fact that ‘natural language’ cannot express the wide range of infor-
mation embedded within scientific thinking, explaining the need for heterogeneous
modes of expression like diagrams and formulae. Lemke (2004), however, adopts
a structural perspective on linguistics, evoking the combinatorial properties of ‘dis-
crete’ semantic units. What he identifies as limitations in linguistics has already been
extensively discussed in subsequent ‘branches’ of linguistics, like discourse linguis-
tics. Benveniste (1966) as a linguist and semiotician, for example, already identified
issues pertaining to structural perspectives that appeared to relegate the human actor
to the background. Likewise, modern perspectives on linguistics (Robillard, 2008a)
reinstate the human communicator as an important actor in meaning-making, and

acknowledge that ‘linguistics’ move much beyond ‘verbal language’ and encompass
the whole spectrum of meaning-making devices. In this sense, while we agree with
Lemke’s posture regarding the importance of semiotics, especially in science teach-
ing, we also argue that our alignment on language experienciation moves beyond the
structural perspective and aligns with the more modern take on language studies.
We argue also that reflections around multiliteracies, especially applied to science
teaching and learning, are incompatible with traditional structural views of linguis-
tics. This is fundamental as language is a central part of science. Lemke (1987) goes
in the same direction, saying that talking about science goes beyond ‘talking’ and is
more about ‘doing’ science through the medium of language. Additionally, two of
the premises of Wellington and Osborne’s (2001) book on language and literacy in
science education are the fact that language is a major part of science education, and
that language is a major barrier to most pupils in learning science.
The value of Lemke’s (2004) arguments lies in the fact that it tallies with the first
definition criterion of multiliteracies, i.e. multimodality, as he highlights the central-
ity of semiotics, as well as the possibilities offered by the use of a wide variety of
communicational modes. However, multiliteracies are also about linguistic and cul-
tural diversity. Notwithstanding the seemingly accepted multimodality encompassed
within the scientific expression, our research demonstrated that the respondents (see
below) did not make use of their multilingual resources in dealing with scientific con-
cepts. This led us to interrogate the presence (or absence) of multiliteracies-based
thinking in the scientific classroom.
Interest and Motivation in Light of a Multiliteracies-Based

Approach
Researching the notion of ‘interest’ emanated at least partially from a criticism of the
limits of a strictly cognitive/structural view of how individuals decode, understand,
store and remember information. This is relevant to us as it allows us to link mul-
timodal experiential learning which is central in a multiliteracies-based approach
and the notion of interest, which we posit as being a constitutive dimension of
multiliteracies.
Beyond being an important motivational variable, ‘the term interest also refers
to a relatively enduring predisposition to re-engage with particular content such
as objects, events and ideas’ (Hidi, 2006, 70). The centrality of engagement and
re-engagement in this definition is useful for a multiliteracies-based approach, in
the sense that the multimodality and experiential meaning-making imply a certain
level of engagement with knowledge. The example of the outing (see Alvermann
and Wilson, 2011 above) encompasses experiential meaning-making which can be
linked to predisposition of the learners present during the event of the outing to
engage with the knowledge constructed while being in the situation. The affective
dimension is also important in the conceptualisation of interest. Hidi (2001, 2006)

highlights the importance of the ‘affective factor of interestingness of ideas’ (Hidi,
2001, 192), notably on how learners processed discourse. She also states that despite
the possibility of researching the emotional and cognitive dimensions separately, the
two are actually mutually inclusive and feedback into each other.
The concept of ‘situational interest’ is also relevant to our reflection as it concerns
a broader category of ‘environmentally-triggered interest’ which encompasses text-
based interest. Hidi (2001, 2006) establishes a distinction between situational interest
and individual interest. While the latter tends to develop slowly, the former is triggered
by elements in the immediate environment. By stating that ‘a person’s interest can
also be triggered by a visual stimulus such as play object, or viewing a picture, an
auditory stimulus […] or a combination of visual and auditory stimuli like a TV show’
(Hidi, 2001: 192–193) Hidi categorises multimodal triggers of interest as being part
of situational interests.
While providing scope for a wide variety of interest-triggers, whether individual
or situational, Hidi’s approach appears to be focused on text and reading. It is true
that the text is one of the mediators of knowledge when it comes to science teaching
and learning. It is, however, only one of the trajectories through which knowledge
can be constructed. As mentioned earlier, science is intrinsically multimodal and
multiliteracies allow the opportunity for the different actors in science teaching and
learning to explore interests that go beyond the text. In other terms, knowledge could
be potentially accessible to learners, even though their learning styles, preferences
and interests might not be focused exclusively on texts. Multimodality, for example,
allows the opportunity for the flourishing of different types of ‘situational interests’,
like actional or visual and provides pathways for their legitimization as part of the
multimodal learning processes that are central in science, notably in the acquisition
of scientific concepts.
Integration of Multimodality in Physics
On the epistemological front, physics integrates mathematics; therefore, knowledge

of physics and mathematics are interdependent. The same multimodal characteristic
applies to the practical dimension: physics, like other sciences, integrates not only
graphical and symbolic representations, but also hands-on activities where students
carry out various experiments. The multiliteracy-based approach argues for a coher-
ent integration of the hands-on and minds-on aspect, which relates to the cognitive
dimension. As Holsterman, Grube, and Bögeholz (2010) state, learners display moti-
vation and interest when hands-on and minds-on activities are carefully structured
in the lesson.
We argue that two additional processes are fundamental in the conception of a
multiliteracy-based approach in the teaching and learning of science: transduction
(Jewitt et al., 2001) and negotiation. Transduction is a useful metaphor emanating
from biology. In the biological sense, transduction is the process whereby a virus
injects its DNA in a cell for reproduction. While the process remains parasitic, we
argue that multiliteracies lay emphasis on how the learner reflexively transduces his
own ‘socio-cognitive DNA’ into the process of meaning-making to create meaning-
ful, assimilable and transferrable knowledge. As for negotiation, it not only concerns
others (on how knowledge is to be conveyed and communicated to learners, for exam-
ple) but also within the self. In other words, knowledge is filtered and infused with
different identities of the self in order to be meaningful. The process of transduction
and negotiation, combined with the three above-mentioned processes, are based on
the conceptualisation of communication as being inherently multimodal. Knowledge
construction is about the acteur-L operating a set of essentially multiple choices from
a general conception of multiplicity.
A multiliteracy-based approach also integrates analogies and metaphors in reason-
ing, meaning-making, and communication as being central (Jewitt et al., 2001). The
authors also argue for the need to move away from unimodal linear and exclusively
linguistic-textual processes. In this sense, science needs to consciously attend to
and integrate various modes of communication, inclusively and variably. Moreover,
awareness needs to be developed on how these modes are coherently integrated into
teaching, learning and general reflection. Correlatively, as there are different cogni-
tive and representational demands associated to each mode, the teacher-experiencer,
as well as the student-experiencer (and anyone involved in the process of meaning-
making) needs to negotiate the suitability of these modes with respect to what is best
adapted to the learning needs. Such negotiation can best be achieved while taking
into consideration students’ interest development (Hidi, 2006).
Methods
We adopted a qualitative approach designed to explore how multiliteracy skills were

constructed by prospective physics educators during a physics task. The task required
the physics trainee educators to describe the motion of a plain piece of paper and
a similar crumbled one in a situation of free fall. The study was conducted in a
teacher training institute during the course of a 15-week module in physics which
was taught by the second author. The module which was delivered through the inquiry
approach consisted of multimodal tasks, involving the trainees, to engage in meaning-
making of physics concepts. Initially, five trainees registered for the course, but after
three weeks, two dropped out. From the remaining three, data for the study were
collected from two trainees who formally consented to being interviewed. Consent
was obtained to videotape the session.
A semi-structured task-based interview was carried out by two interviewers. A
think-aloud protocol (Charters, 2003) was considered to gather verbal data. The
interview proceeded concurrently while the participants interacted with the task and
with the interviewers. The task-based interview provided opportunities not only to
explore and explain the multiliteracy skills of the participants, but it also provided
opportunities to assess their knowledge and understanding of physics concepts. In
this study, the interview involved both participants interacting with the researchers
and with each other. The participants were given the free choice of individual or pair
interviews, but both of them agreed to participate in the interviews in pairs, as they
felt they would be more secure to express their opinions and their combined effort
and the snowballing effect on the responses (Crawford, 1997) may generate a wider
range of information, insights and ideas.
In addition, the first and second authors were the facilitators of the interview
session. The session was held in the physics lab where the second author taught the
physics module to the trainees. It was at the end of the module (that is, in the 15th
week) that the task-based interview was conducted. Also, as the second author was
known to the participants, his presence in the interview session created both a fruitful
and candid atmosphere that maximised confidence among the trainees because of
his position as an insider researcher (Costley, Elliot, & Gibbs, 2010).
The video think-aloud session was coded by the three authors during regular meet-
ings. The meetings also served to review and agree on the final codes (see Fig. 22.1).
The codes were classified into three themes, namely, linguistic communication [LC],
actional [AC] and visualisation [VN], which relate to deductive analysis of the mul-
tiliteracy skills. A fourth theme emerged inductively from the data and was labelled
‘Physics Conceptual Understanding’ [PCU].
Conceptual Analysis of the Physics and Multiliteracy Tasks
The concepts associated with the task are organised in the concept map (Fig. 22.2)
In Table 22.1, we illustrate the generic information with respect to the four themes.
In particular, we report on the (mis)use of linguistic features with respect to their
relevance and articulation with scientific concepts.
Discussion
The discourse of the trainees was dominated by monolingual communication (Robil-

lard, 2008a, b). All the explanatory elements were communicated in English, despite
the students having the choice of languages among the three transcommunal vehicu-
lar languages of the local linguistic landscape (Carpooran, 2007). This translates into
a singular notional form of language and communication (NLG, 1996). In this sense,
only one of the defining criteria of multiliteracies was observed, i.e. multimodality.
Consequently, the formation of knowledge networks was not dynamic or mediated
by multimodal realisations of language practices, but was instead focused on a linear
process with high reliance on the linguistic aspect.
Whereas if I’m considering air resistance, they will experience different resistances due to
their differences in shape, so F will not be the same; therefore I have different ‘g’, I have
different ‘a’ for both, so if I place it in this equation again, ‘t’ will be different.
Linguistic
communication
(LC)
Multiliteracy
Visual (VN) Actional (AC)
competencies
Physics
Conceptual
Understanding
(PCU)
Fig. 22.1 Multiliteracy themes
Fig. 22.2 Concept map—physics concepts

Table 22.1 Multiliteracy—linguistic features and physics conceptions

Linguistic features Sub-category Code Examples Comments
Syntax and Conjunctions are
conjunctions used to connect
elements of a
sentence. They can
be used to express
different logical
relationships like
addition, cause
and effect,
comparison, etc.
Conjunction LC-S1 If-then Used in
(causality) [1] conditional
statements to
express cause and
effect
Conjunction LC-S2 So Depending on the
(Causality, context, it can be
comparison, used to express
conclusion) [2] cause and effect,
comparison and
conclusion
Preposition [3] LC-S3 On/upon The phrasal verb
act on v/s act upon
is a point of
discussion
regarding
directionality and
vector with respect
to a force applied
(see discussion)
Transition word LC-S4 Therefore Depending on the
(causality, context,
conclusion) [4] ‘therefore’ may
indicate causality
or conclusion
Reference Anaphora and LC-R1 It Pronoun used to
cataphora [5] refer to a thing/an
object/an event
previously
mentioned
(anaphoric)
Semantic [6] LC-R2 [polysemy, The semantic
semantic dimension deals
ambiguity, etc.] with meaning
(continued)

Linguistic features Sub-category Code Examples Comments
Expressions and The pragmatic
Pragmatics dimension
concerns language
in use and with
respect to contexts
Probability [7] LC-EP1 Probably, maybe Adverbs denoting
a possibility and
indicating a
posture where the
speaker is not
certain with
his/her statements
(see below)
Language register LC-EP2 A little bit (colloquial) loose
[8] quantifier
Implicature [9] LC-EP3 Meaning a speaker
conveys or implies
without directly
expressing
Physics [10] PCU During the course
conceptual of the interview,
understanding correct (CPCU) as
well as incorrect
physics
understanding of
concepts (IPCU)
were detected
In the above example, the transition word ‘therefore’ is wrongly used because it
does not express the conclusion drawn from previous statements. This is also linked
and meshed into a misconception when the trainee teacher made reference to different
values of acceleration of free fall. One of the consequences, as observed, was the
misuse of linking words (connectors and conjunctions) to articulate their statements.
Similarly, as can be deduced from the statement, ‘if I am going to say that the paper
is going to fall …’ the term ‘if’ is not appropriate as it conjures up unwarrantable
assumptions, such as there might be a possibility that when released the paper might
not fall. It also implies a possibility that the respondent may not say that the paper is
going to fall. Additionally, the formulation of ‘if I am going to say’ also indicates a
colloquial transposition of linguistic structures from the first language of the trainee.
There are several instances of the intricate meshing of the various aspects we observed
(see Table 22.1). Issues can also be found at the level of implicature, which directly
links to loose assumptions made by the students. In the example ‘But only if it stays
in that position, if it falls in that position, there won’t be much air resistance’ the
ambiguous syntactic construction may lead the listener to believe that air resistance
adapts to the object, which is conceptually inaccurate. Moreover, there was no active
Table 22.2 Think-aloud session
Concepts Think-aloud task Multiliteracy Comments
Air resistance S1: … they both will take the same time to fall a certain CPCU Trainee S1 rightly inferred that both
distance in vacuum. Nevertheless, the air resistance will [minds-on] objects will take the same time to fall in
be greater for the plain paper if it is not in vacuum … and vacuum. However, no mention was made
we’ve seen an experiment on that as to why the plain paper will experience
greater air resistance as compared to the
crumbled paper. Insight into area of contact
could have been discussed and supported
by means of a diagram
22 Multiliteracies—New London Group
Air resistance S2: But only if it stays in that position, if it falls in that Expression and pragmatics [LC-EP3] Here, from the trainee’s explanation, it is
position, there won’t be much air resistance implicature implied that it is the air resistance that
[Hands-on—partly] adapts to the object. The sentence
construction is ambiguous. Moreover, there
was no attempt to let go of the paper from a
certain height to validate their assumptions.
Such an approach adopted by the trainees
relates to a deductive way of reasoning,
which is usually a recourse for less
experienced problem-solvers (Llyod &
Scott, 1994)
(continued)
333
334

Air resistance S1: Even if it stays flat, there will be a difference in air LC-Reference[LC-R2] It is unclear whether ‘size’ relates to
resistance because the size is different for both surface area/shape/dimension.
Here also, there was no attempt to release
the plain paper
Time of fall S2: But if [they are] in vacuum [they] will both fall at the LC-Reference [LC-R2] ‘at the same time’ implies the release of the
same time, i.e. they will take the same amount of time to objects at the same moment, whereas here
fall a certain distance ‘duration’ of motion is of interest
Newton’s Second Law S1: If we were to explain the concept, so Newton’s LC-Syntax and conjunctions [LC-S2] ‘so’ is wrongly used as a conjunction to
Second Law comes in handy, we have to apply F = ma, if IPC explain cause–effect relationships,
there is no resistance, so the resultant force on both will LC-Syntax and conjunctions [LC-S2] especially given that it follows ‘if’ in the
be the weight, so the acceleration will be g, therefore it V- Visual-symbolic first two instances (‘then’ should be used
will take the same time. Then we apply the equation of instead)
motion The third use of ‘so’ as a conclusive
connector is correct. However, the
conceptual links with the last statement
whereby the student is proposing the
application of the equation of motion, are
loose, as the equation of motion is
irrelevant. It is not clear what will the
equation of motion bring to the motion
under consideration. The expression is
ambiguous
First use of equation (F = ma) after prompt
from interviewer
(continued)
S. Oozeerally et al.
Newton’s Second Law S2: One thing that S1 explained about Newton’s Law and LC-Expression and pragmatics [LC-EP2] ‘All that’ is a colloquial expression that
Area all that, but ultimately, everything should be tested Expression and pragmatics [LC-EP1] lacks accuracy. The reference is also
Viscosity experimentally as far as possible Reference [LC-R1] unclear whether the term is referring to
We will have to start by making a few assumptions, for IPC what has been mentioned before
example, if I am going to say that the paper is going to Actional (anaphoric) or what has been mentioned
fall, I start it in this position, well it’s not going to stay in after (cataphoric) in the text
that same position when it’s falling, but if I were to The use of ‘if I am going to say…’ implies
consider all that, it’s going to move and it’s going to be a posture whereby the speaker is using a
too complicated, so I have to make a few assumptions ‘safety net’ strategy through the use of a
that for example, there is no rotation when its moving or hypothetical statement which indicates that
falling down. Make a few assumptions and then consider he is unsure of his statement, in which case
the area, the viscosity of air, and things like that there is no legitimacy to say that this
I think we have to do the same thing about this [holding statement is wrong
crushed paper], we cannot consider this complicated ‘ultimately’ also appears to be used in
sheet, we have to consider it as a sphere, else it becomes contradiction with ‘as far as possible’
too complicated to calculate, at least on paper, maybe The reference of ‘it’ is unclear following
simulations can be better ‘all that’
Considering ‘rotation’ and ‘viscosity’ in
the argument adds more variables to the
simple problem and thus complicating the
task further
Attempt to have recourse to the actional
dimension. However, the action was not
completed (that is, the objects were not
released). The concepts are normative (they
are only being evoked) and the actional
dimension appears to be limited, being
present only as a spatial indicator (height,
position [vertical/horizontal])
It is unfortunate that the trainee did not
release the paper as this would have helped
him to situate to what extent his
hypotheses, in light of the assumptions he
mentioned earlier, were valid
(continued)
335
336

Mass S1: No, but I think that we can simply introduce the LC-Syntax and conjunction [LC-S3] The weight is the force due to gravity that
Weight concept, at least for the ‘A’ level, I think we do that at LC-Syntax and conjunctions [LC-S1] acts on a mass. Learners may be confused
Newton’s Second law HSC [Higher School Certificate]; just introduce the LC-Syntax and conjunctions [LC-S4] in this particular case: ‘weight acting on it’.
Acceleration due to gravity concept of both objects having the same mass and hence IPC Kibble (2006) lays ample emphasis to
Laws of motion the same weight; so in vacuum we have only the weight revisit the use of language to allow learners
Air resistance acting on it; so the resultant force will be the weight, to find their own voice, which should be in
according to Newton’s Second Law, it will be F = ma, F conjunction with the correct conception
= weight (W), so we have W = mg, I have the that physicists use. In this particular case,
acceleration g, I apply the Laws of Motion, I will have the weight is the force that acts downwards
the same t, I have S = ut + ½ at2 , the distance is the same from the centre of gravity of the object
if they are at rest and dropping them, acceleration is the The ‘if’ appears inconsistent with the
same so it will be the same. Whereas if I am considering students’ arguments as they had the
air resistance, they will experience different resistances opportunity to experiment with the objects,
due to their differences in shape, so F will not be the which they did not do
same, therefore I have different g; I have different ‘a’ for The transition word ‘therefore’ is wrongly
both, so if I place it in this equation again, t will be used as it does not adequately express the
different conclusion drawn from previous
statements. Furthermore, a misconception
surfaced the moment she made reference to
different values of acceleration of free fall
(continued)
S. Oozeerally et al.
S2: The resultant acceleration will be different There is a tendency to mix up acceleration
of free fall g with the net acceleration a
Resultant force S1: In the presence of air resistance, the weight remains CPCU Trainee S1 has now reviewed her initial
Air resistance the same; it’s the resultant force acting on the body that Expression and pragmatic [LC-EP3] version. Earlier, she claimed that g would
Weight changes; so ‘a’ changes. So, if I were to explain, I would LC-Syntax and conjunction [LC-S3] be different
Acceleration simply, maybe I would say that in the absence of air LC-Reference [LC-R2] In this case, simply and maybe appear to be
resistance, the resultant force = weight. So the Expression and pragmatics [LC-EP1] contradictory. ‘Simply’ means ‘without
acceleration of the body = g, the acceleration due to ambiguity’ and cannot be followed by a
gravity. In the presence of air resistance, weight still acts tentative statement
on both objects but the resultant force is not equal to the The notion ‘weight still acts on …’ remains
weight because I have other forces acting on the body. problematic. Furthermore, there is
Then if I say that F resultant fr = ma and I have weight ambiguity in the interpretation of resultant
which is the downward force, I’m considering linear force. It stands to reason that the resultant
motions that is along this direction. If I say that the force is the vector sum of all the forces
resistive upward force is fres so I would have fr, the experienced by the object
motion is downward fr = downward force—upward Here, the term ‘resultant’ is misused as it is
force so I have fr = mg – fres so g is still remaining the semantically inaccurate: the student states
same it is the ‘a’ which is changing. In the absence of air other forces subsequently acting upon the
resistance fres = 0 so I have ma = mg as I said here. So a body after having evoked resultant force
=g ‘If’ again denotes a posture where the
speaker is unsure of his statements
Air resistance S1: We are considering linear motion and I’m not Expression and pragmatics [LC-EP1] ‘Maybe’ denotes a hypothetical posture.
Rotational motion considering air resistance in other directions The premise should be clearly established
Maybe we should make it clear that the shape, the in terms of assumptions (e.g. assuming
rotational motion will not be taken into consideration that)
Rotation S2: What about the objects? Because we are moving Again, the trainee refers to ‘less-than-fully
from something that we are going to do practically and established propositions’ (Fortus, 2009,
then we are going to explain it; so there must be some p. 87) as these propositions or assumptions
assumption, like I said because of it’s the shape, it’s not are advantageous to them in the
going to rotate—if I assumed all of that construction of their arguments
337
remaking of information; often, the students had recourse to a (loose form of) a priori
and explicit/propositional knowledge, such as viscosity of air, and the application
of the equation of motion. The statement made by one of the respondents, namely
‘… therefore I have different g …’ was not challenged by her peer and is another
example of fragmented knowledge or weak conceptual link (Kibble, 2006).
Moreover, it was also noted that there was an absence of reflexivity (Robillard,
2008a, b), notably through the absence of experiential knowledge. There was only
one instance of reference to an external resource (Jewitt et al., 2001) where the
trainee gave an answer based on a documentary film he had seen as he explained: ‘…
because we have seen an experiment on that’. These situations may hinder learners
in developing situational interest (Hidi, 2001, 2006) which may eventually affect
performance (Hidi, 2001).
The subject-thinker-experiencer (Robillard, 2008b) was backgrounded (or com-
pletely erased); instead, there were attempts of linearly reproducing knowledge with-
out transduction or transformation. The absence of links to lived experiences, coupled
with the scarcity of using analogies and metaphors, further indicates the absence of
transduction and meaning-making (Jewitt et al., 2001). Exclusive reference was made
to experiment while the experience was absent. In other words, the trainees were
unable to integrate conceptual and experiential knowledge in order to proceed with
their own meaning-making process and the transmission of meaning. Holstermann,
Grube, and Bögeholz (2010) also stress on the importance of experience, stating that
hands-on activities, per se, are not the direct trigger of a scientific attitude. What
was striking is that the minds-on engagement of the trainees was loosely associated
with the corresponding hands-on. The trainees were operating within the traditional
set-up, driven by instructions, which produce recipe approaches in science. Within
this approach, there are limited opportunities that foster harmony between elements
of minds-on and hands-on. We, therefore, posit the following model where adequate
acquisition of multiliteracy competencies is essential for development of minds-on
engagement, which in turn encourages hands-on connections (Fig. 22.3).
Fig. 22.3 Multiliteracy and

hands-on, minds-on Multiliteracy
Minds-on
Hands-on
Conclusion
Based on the study, we have identified a number of shortcomings in trainees’ argu-

mentation in their understanding of a particular physics concept. There is evidence
that problems developed in multiliteracy skills impinge significantly on the minds-on
engagement of the trainees, and thus, limit their efforts for hands-on connection.
The interview has revealed that the trainees’ thinking and reasoning are incon-
sistent with their attempt to make rational choices in physics within the premises of
multiliteracy competencies (linguistic communication, actional, visual and physics
conceptual understanding). The trainees demonstrated limited multiliterate com-
petencies, as their interaction was founded on linear stimulus-response dynamics
since they systematically operated on prompts. This created issues in coherence,
particularly when they were unable to form meaningful links between their state-
ments. This led to ambiguous conceptual links (see Table 22.1). Unimodality (Robil-
lard, 2008a, b) was also one of the defining traits of their communication. The pre-
dominant mode was verbal; other modes (drawing a diagram, raising the items but
not displaying the process of free fall) came only after the cues of the interview-
ers. Despite having been provided with the items (a sheet of paper and a crumpled
one), there was no recourse to the actional dimension (Jewitt et al., 2001). In other
words, the actional dimension was largely bypassed, which led to fragile connections
among the physics concepts. The students experienced difficulties to conceptually
relate resultant force to the mathematical equivalence of a vector sum of all the
downward forces acting on the object.
While multiliteracies provide fertile perspectives in the teaching and learning of
science, it is also true that English-centrism, and general language-centrism when it
comes to assessment and evaluation, especially in multilingual contexts like Mauri-
tius, is a potentially hindering factor. The former reduces the perspectives of exploring
the integration of the diverse repertoire of multilingual speakers in scientific com-
munication. Research in this direction is relatively scarce but also opens avenues
for further research which could potentially feed-forward to reflections around mul-
tiliteracies. The latter is also somewhat paradoxical. While our above discussion
acknowledged the multimodal nature of science, language-centrism de facto reduces
possibilities for allowing more leeway to other forms of expression, including actional
and gestural. However, multiliteracies remain a valuable theoretical pathway that
could potentially have significant benefits in how learners approach the learning of
science. Concept acquisition and development can potentially be reinforced through
the simultaneous integration of multilingual resources and experiential strategies,
where the learner can be encouraged to make use of his/her active-meaning capac-
ities, in meaningful situations, via intelligible language. Concomitantly, the experi-
ential dimension also corresponds to the ‘practical’ aspect, bridging the gap between
laboratory-based, in vitro experimental practice and real-life, in vivo experiential
practice, thereby providing opportunities to empower the learner to autonomously
engage in scientific inquiry. Furthermore, a multiliteracies-based perspective would
also have ramifications in the learning of other subject areas, like mathematics and
even language, as factual, scientific knowledge feeds forward to certain topics which
are in the syllabi of language studies. As such, language studies are also about situ-
ating real-life meaningful experiences and the expression thereof through linguistic
devices. Notwithstanding the potential benefits of a multiliteracies-based approach,
there remains significant work to be done on the integration of the multilingual
resources of the learner in the teaching–learning of science. As we highlighted above,
this provides opportunities for further research, notably in the context of hetero-
geneous multilingual contexts, which represent potential laboratories in exploring
multiliteracies in the teaching and learning of science.
Chapter Summary
• The notion of multiliteracies encompasses a wide range of disciplines, like

emotional literacy, oral vernacular and cultural literacy among others.
• In this study, four themes were identified with respect to multiliteracy skills:
linguistic communication, actional, visualisation and Physics conceptual under-
standing.
• It was observed that trainees manifested low multiliteracy skills. Their discourse
was dominated by monolingual communication, with attempts mainly geared
towards linear reproduction of knowledge, which had direct implications on how
physics concepts were understood and used.
• Physics trainees need to improve their multiliteracy competencies to be able to
navigate between minds-on engagement and hands-on connections.
Ajayi, L. (2010). Preservice teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perception of their preparation
to teach multiliteracies/multimodality. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08878730.2010.488279.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to
think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “A pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and
emmergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.
References
Alvermann, D. E., & Wilson, A. A. (2011). Comprehension strategy instruction for multimodal
texts in science. Theory and Practice, 50(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.
558436.
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Bell, J. C. (2014). Visual literacy skills of students in college-level Biology: Learning outcomes
following digital or hand-drawing activities. The Canadian Journal for Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2014.1.6.
Carpooran, D. (2007). Appropriation du francais et pédagogie convergente dans l’Océan Indien:
Interrogations, applications, propositions. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research. An introduction to
think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.
Chinnappan, M. (2008). Productive pedagogies and deep mathematical learning in a globalised
world. In P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogi (Eds.), Learning and the learner: Exploring
learning for new times (pp. 181–193). University of Wollongong.
Claassen, G. (2007). Journalism and cultural literacy: An exploration towards a model for training
journalism students. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 21(1),
12–20.
Costley, C., Elliot, G., & Gibbs, P. (2010). Doing work based research: Approaches to enquiry for
insider-researcher. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
Crawford, I. (1997). Marketing research and information systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations.
Drapper, D. C. (2015). Digital knowledge mapping as an instructional strategy to promote visual
literacy: A case study, D. M. Baylen & A. D’Alba (Eds.). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-05837-5_11.
Engel, P. (2007). Experience Dictionnaire des concepts philosophiques, M. Blay (Ed.). Paris:
Larousse & CNRS Editions.
Fortus, D. (2009). The importance of learning to make assumptions. Science Education, 93, 86–108.
Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy education in schools: Research perspectives from the past, for the
future. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational
Psychology Review, 13(3), 191–209.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69–82.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Hand-on activities and their influence on
students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-
009-9142-0.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading” and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315–331.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional
and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational
Review, 53(1), 5–18.
Kibble, B. (2006). Understanding forces: What’s the problem? Physics Education, 41(3), 228–231.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. Wendy Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and
science instruction. (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press.
Lemke, J. (1987). Talking science: Content, conflict, and semantics. Paper presented at Ameri-
can Educational Research Association meeting, Washington DC, 1987. Arlington VA: ERIC
Documents Service (ED 282 402).
Llyod, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15, 125–140.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Newman, M. (2005). Rap as literacy: A genre analysis of Hip-Hop ciphers. Text, 3, 399–436.
Oksuz, Y. (2016). Evaluation of emotional literacy activities: A phenomenological study. Journal
of Education and Practice, 7(36), 34–39.
Robillard, D. (2008a). Perspectives alterlinguistiques (Vol. 1). Paris: Démons: l”Harmattan.
Robillard, D. (2008b). Perspectives alterlinguistiques (Vol. 2). Paris: Ornithorynque: L’Harmattan.

Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality,
multiliteracies, and new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Dr. Shameem Oozeerally is a Lecturer in the French Department at the Mauritius Institute of
Education. His research interests gravitate around complexity theory and the epistemology of lan-
guage sciences. He also conducts research in Creole studies and has worked on interdisciplinary
research projects in the area of early childhood language experienciation, as well as ecolinguistic
discourse analysis in the primary education and curriculum context of Mauritius.
Yashwantrao Ramma is Professor of Science Education and Chair of Research at the Mauri-
tius Institute of Education. As a physicist, he has worked on several research projects related to
technology integration and misconceptions of both physics teachers and students. Currently, he
is leading research projects on exploring teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge across various subject areas, on indiscipline and school violence in primary schools
and also on students’ transitions from secondary to university and teacher training.
of Education. He is currently the Programme Coordinator for pre-service B.Ed. honours and is
teachers.
Chapter 23
Project and Problem-Based Teaching
and Learning
Michael R. L. Odell and Jaclyn L. Pedersen
Introduction
Today’s educators are tasked with preparing students for an uncertain and com-
plex future. Traditional education approaches are not up to the task of preparing
students to live and work in a global, information-based economy that is rapidly
changing. In the report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (National of Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2007, p. 6),
the report emphasizes the need for “world-class science and engineering” as the prin-
cipal means of creating “new jobs for U.S. citizenry as a whole as it seeks to prosper
in the global marketplace of the 21st century” (p. 40) in light of increasing competi-
tion from emerging economies. Today’s modern economies have steadily increased
their capacity and ability to create and commercialize knowledge as a means for
economic growth. Creating and commercializing knowledge reinforces the impor-
tance of quality STEM Education that prepares students for a rapidly changing future
where innovations can be developed and introduced in short order, rendering current
knowledge and skills in the workforce obsolete (National Research Council, 2000,
2012).
It should be noted, that preparing students for an uncertain future is not a new
idea. In My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey (1897) discussed providing students an
education that prepares students for the “modern” world as the twentieth century
dawned.
M. R. L. Odell (B)
College of Education and Psychology, College of Engineering,
University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA
J. L. Pedersen
College of Education and Psychology, University of Texas at
Tyler University Academy, Tyler, TX, USA

344 M. R. L. Odell and J. L. Pedersen
With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell
definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to
prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means
to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready
use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that
his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the
executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently (Dewey, 1897, p. 77).
Teaching a finite set of knowledge and skills will not suffice to address the chal-
lenges of this century and beyond. Today’s educators face the challenge of preparing
students for jobs that have not yet been created and problems that are yet to arise
(Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; National Science Teachers Association, 2011). Simply pro-
viding students with a predefined set of knowledge and skills is no longer viable, as
these will be obsolete before the student enters the workforce. Educators in the fields
of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) need to reexamine
teaching and learning through a 21st century lens and utilize pedagogies that facil-
itate students’ abilities to access, understand, and use knowledge. This includes an
education approach that supports the 21st century skills of communication, creativ-
ity, critical thinking, and collaboration (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2015).
Although not specific to PBL, research indicates that students are more successful
at applying what they learn when instruction utilizes real-world contexts (Bransford
et al., 1999).
Unfortunately, education systems are slow to respond and pedagogies utilized in
most schools remains largely traditional. Although there have been efforts to provide
schools with more technology, use of technology still mirrors past practices. If we
are to prepare students for the 21st century and beyond, STEM education should
be designed to prepare learners with the skills to confront new challenges (Boud &
Feletti, 1997). In addition, STEM teacher education programs must prepare teachers
to utilize 21st century pedagogies to facilitate student learning.
The foundational concept behind project-based learning (PBL) and problem-
based learning (PrBL) is to develop students who can manage their own learning.
Directing and managing one’s own learning is a central tenet of 21st century peda-
gogy. See Chap. 32, 21st Century Skills, for additional information. Students engaged
in PBL/PrBL learn by designing and constructing solutions to real-world problems.
PBL has five characteristics, including: (1) project outcomes tied to curriculum stan-
dards and learning goals; (2) driving questions and/or problems that are ill-defined
and can lead students to conceptual understanding; (3) student knowledge building
and inquiry through investigations; (4) students managing their own learning; and
(5) projects based on real-world problems and questions (Trilling & Fadel, 2009)
(Table 23.1).
In the STEM context, this allows students to recognize the interdisciplinary nature
of complex problems and fosters critical thinking beyond disciplinary boundaries
when approaching a problem. Working in teams also mirrors how STEM is carried
out in the workplace. Similar to the workplace, students must take responsibility
for different aspects of their project, collaborate for a common outcome, critique
each other’s work, and create professional quality products that in many cases will
23 Project and Problem-Based Teaching and Learning 345
Table 23.1 PBL and PrBL Similarities

Similarities of project- (PBL) and problem-based learning (PrBL)
Both PBL and PrBL
• Are inquiry approaches
• Focus on open-ended or ill-defined tasks
• Provide real-world applications of content and skills
• Build 21st century skills (Four C’s)
• Foster self-management and independence
• Foster deeper learning
• Foster self-reflection
• Develop presentation skills
be judged by experts outside the school. In traditional school settings, the teacher
controls time spent on an assignment. Please refer to Chap. 17, Experiential Learning,
for additional insights.
Contrarily, problem-based learning (PrBL) fosters and motivates students to man-
age their own time while still being held accountable for deadlines; checkpoints for
deliverables throughout the learning process. Students are encouraged, and often
times required, to seek expert advice and critiques from professionals in the field,
which pertains to the current topic in their project. Ultimately, students present their
work in a formal setting designed to mirror the 21st century workplace equipping
them with valuable communication skills necessary for success. Beyond employ-
ing the tenets of the Four C’s (critical thinking, communication, collaboration and
creativity), both PBL and PrBL foster deeper learning and relevance by allowing
students to learn in a real-world context (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). While both PBL
and PrBL utilize collaborative teams and require students to design and carry out
projects or investigate problems that cross discipline boundaries, the amount of time
spent on PrBL is shorter. The following chart summarizes the differences in the two
approaches (Table 23.2).
Figure 23.1 illustrates the PBL model approach as practiced by STEM Academies
Table 23.2 Differences Between PBL and PrBL

Differences between project- and problem-based learning
Project-based Learning (PBL) Problem-based Learning (PrBL)
Often interdisciplinary using multiple subjects Typically single subject. More common as a
strategy in mathematics.
Long duration (weeks/months) Shorter duration (Days/Weeks)
Focus on developing a product Focus on solving a problem
Product addresses a real-world task Product includes proposed solution to a
problem
Fig. 23.1 The project-based learning approach
in the State of Texas in the U.S. The arrow indicates the path of a project. Each activity
launches with an entry document.
The entry document can be a scenario or a task that is ill-defined, embedded with
the standards, and that students must address to create a product or solve a problem
to address a real-world issue. Students then begin an iterative process to determine
what they know about the problem and what they need to know.
“Know” and “Need to Know”, statements are documented and posted in the
classroom where they are visible. One of the instructional goals is to address the
“Need to Know” statements and move them to the “Know Statements” so that a
final solution or product can be created. “Workshops”, which are otherwise known
as lessons, are designed based on the standards and address the “Need to Know”
statements (Next Generation Science Storylines & STEM Teaching Tools, 2016).
As students work on their project, PBL pedagogy builds in checkpoints so that the
teacher can monitor progress and provide coaching and feedback where necessary.
During each checkpoint, some sort of “deliverable” is typically due. A “deliverable”
is simply one piece of the overall final product. It is important to note that the standing
checkpoints and deliverables throughout the process are the key pieces to not only
holding students accountable and providing students with immediate feedback, but
also provide the rationale that the process is considered PBL, versus a traditional
project. Students are actually building the final product as they go by acquiring new
knowledge in workshops, research or outreach to professionals, and then immediately
applying that knowledge to their product in the form of a deliverable.
The important difference here is that in a traditional project, students would be
taught all the information up front and then given time at the end of the lesson to build
a project, typically of the teachers’ choosing. If students are struggling, the teacher
will develop extra “workshops” to address the content or skills needs of the students.
Checkpoints also give students a chance to self-reflect, as they are then able to take the
feedback they received from their checkpoint and revise their deliverables as needed.
In many instances, this “just-in-time” learning provides students with immediate
needed skills or information to address a “Need to Know” to work towards completion
of their project or solution. This process is repeated until final products are ready for
review. Presentations to an authentic audience are done when the product is polished
and finalized. Students are then given critiques and provided with the opportunity
to self-reflect. The products are all aimed at meeting the same parameters set by
the teacher, however, the students are able to exhibit creativity and choice in their
products. Students are given the autonomy to display their own voice and choice as
long as they are still meeting the standards and constraints set by the project rubric.
PrBL derives from a theory originally described in 1977 titled the information
processing approach to learning (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977). This type
of approach suggests that for students to effectively learn material, they need to be
placed in situations in which they are required to restructure information they already
know within a real-world context, all while gaining new knowledge. Students are
then able to deepen their depth of knowledge by discovering new ways to manipulate
the content, teaching the information to their peers, discussing the information in a
broader context, and even being able to debate the content amongst their classmates.
This type of teaching differs from more traditional types of instruction due to students
being engaged in more self-directed pedagogical methods. Instructional methods like
PBL and PrBL can be traced back to John Dewey’s belief that students learn best
by thinking and doing in settings that appeal to our natural instincts to investigate
and create (Dewey, 1938). PrBL, more specifically, has its roots in medical school
environments (Hutchings & O’Rourke, 2004). Problem-based learning was devel-
oped in order to teach doctors how to explore and solve medical cases. Today, this
method is used in schools in order to accomplish the same type of learning, just in a
non-medical context.
Figure 23.2 illustrates the PrBL approach. PrBL, like PBL, is a student-centered
inquiry approach to learning. The process is very similar to PBL, however, PrBL
takes much less time to execute in the classroom than PBL.
The PrBL process begins with the required curriculum standards, which are rewrit-
ten and posed in a problem-like context and presented to the students. The model can
be described in phases when facilitated in the classroom. In the introduction phase,
students initially approach the problem by going through a “know/need to know”
process just as they did with PBL. They sort through their current knowledge and
decide what it is that they are yet to know. Students are then encouraged to approach
the problem individually and come up with possible ways to solve the problem and/or
possible solutions to the problem. During this phase of the process, students may
experience some struggle, which is a positive point and key component of the process.
It is during this phase that students learn through cognitive dissonance, when two or
more ideas may come to mind and seem to collide, but only one can be correct. This
phase challenges students to think deeper because the answer will not be obvious. If
students have always been “spoon-fed” answers, shown exactly how to solve every
problem they face, and have never had to truly rely on their own problem-solving
Fig. 23.2 The problem-based learning model
skills, then this phase will seem very uncomfortable at first. However, it is a necessary
step in the overall process in order to achieve the most effective learning outcomes.
At the end of the individual work time, students share and discuss their possible
methods for solving the problem as well as possible solutions if they have any.
Students are then placed in groups for the next facilitation phase and use their ideas
to come up with a common method and solution. During this phase, teachers also
conduct “workshops” just as occurred during the PBL approach, and teach new
concepts if needed or fill in any gaps the students may have that have prohibited
them from being able to solve the problem thus far. Once a solution has been found,
students share their method and solution with the class through a presentation. Post-
problem, students are encouraged to reflect on their method, solution, the process
they went through, the social-skills they have developed, and self-evaluate. This time
can also be used to re-teach if needed, or extend thinking for students who need more
of a challenge.
When compared to PBL, the overall process is very similar; however, in PrBL,
the process generally consists of a period of one to three days, while implementing
PBL in the classroom can typically take several weeks. PrBL has been shown to
be an effective instructional method, in particular in math classrooms (Strobel &
van Barneveld, 2009). It is important to remember that in PrBL, the process and the
methods students use to solve the problem, are just as important (if not more) than
the actual solution.
Reflection in PBL
PBL/PrBL-based pedagogies build the process of reflection. Students, through a pro-

cess termed “critical friends”, conduct an initial review of the solution or final product.
The process focuses on developing collegial relationships, encouraging reflection,
and collegial dialogue. In general, the critical friends’ process serves as a peer eval-
uation structured to provide safe and meaningful feedback in a professional manner.
This allows students to focus on the quality of their work and develops a mindset
centered around continuous improvement. Based on the feedback received, students
utilize the reviews from the critical friends’ process to refine their final projects and
develop solutions. Students present final projects and solutions in a formal setting
and are assessed for a grade.
Benefits of PBL
There have been a number of studies comparing both PBL and PrBL-based learning
to traditional direct instruction. Research studies have found that student outcomes
in the learning of facts and basic skills are equal to or better than outcomes achieved
using more traditional classroom instruction. Studies comparing student learning
outcomes of PBL/PrBL when compared to traditional instruction indicate that when
implemented well, students who experienced these approaches showed increases in
long-term retention of content, showed equal or better performance on high-stakes
tests, improved problem-solving and collaboration skills, and improved students’
attitudes towards learning (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009; Walker & Leary, 2009).
In 2016, MDRC and the Lucas Education Foundation reviewed the research and
literature found that the design principles utilized in PBL promoted deeper learn-
ing. In addition, there was evidence that PBL promoted higher level thinking skills,
and intra/interpersonal skills in students (Boss et al., 2011; Condliffe et al., 2017).
This chapter addresses PBL and PrBL in relation to STEM Education. Chapter 31
addresses the STEAM pedagogical approach and can provide additional insights.
Preparing Future Teachers in PBL/PrBL Pedagogies
Like many other countries, the United States of America has a perpetual shortage
of STEM teachers. Every year, school districts struggle to fill positions in physical
sciences, mathematics, engineering, and computer science classrooms. One of the
contributing factors to the STEM teacher shortage was that universities in the U.S.
over the past two decades had made it difficult for future STEM educators to seek
teacher licensure while completing a Bachelor’s Degree. This was caused by state
governments limiting the number of credits for a bachelor’s degree in order to lower
the cost of higher education. Discipline departments responded by removing non-

essential courses from STEM degrees. This included pedagogy courses for future
STEM teachers and was an unintended consequence of higher education policy
designed to help more students earn a college degree by reducing time to degree
completion.
In response, the University of Texas at Austin developed the UTeach Program.
The UTeach program is an innovative university-based teacher preparation program
working to increase the number of qualified STEM teachers in U.S. secondary schools
(Pérez & Romero, 2014). The program combines students earning STEM degrees
to include secondary teaching certification without adding time or cost to earning
a Bachelor’s degree. The UTeach model has proven an effective solution and been
replicated at over 40 universities across the U.S. Fig. 23.3 provides a map of the
universities replicating the UTeach Program today.
One of the hallmarks of the UTeach Program is a focus on rigorous research-
based instruction that embeds 21st Century skills and pedagogies. UTeach courses
are designed to develop preservice teachers’ deep understanding of STEM and
build strong connections between mathematics and science. The courses are also
designed to bring together educational theory and practice. This approach is unique
to university-based STEM teacher preparation programs in the U.S.
All preservice teachers enrolled in the UTeach program complete one project-
based instruction (PBI) course that includes components of PrBL as well. Preservice
Fig. 23.3 UTeach Universities across the United States

teachers develop PBL or PrBL instructional units, and plan, implement, and analyze
their teaching experiences in secondary school classrooms. In addition, preservice
teachers enrolled in PBI courses are required to complete clinical hours in schools
to practice PBL/PrBL methodology in a classroom setting and observe effective
implementation of both from cooperating teachers trained in the pedagogies.
During their capstone course in the UTeach sequence, known as Apprentice Teach-
ing, these future STEM teachers are provided a teaching assignment in a STEM class-
room in a local school district for an entire semester. During this semester, they are
encouraged to implement inquiry-based practices, which include PBL/PrBL. This
practice has proven to not only prepare future teachers but also help share these inno-
vative teaching models with current teachers in hopes of making changes in their own
teaching styles. As more teachers are prepared in PBL/PrBL, there is optimism that
schools will adopt the 21st century pedagogy as the primary instructional approach.
PBL as a School Reform Model
PBL can also provide an effective model for school reform. In the report Rising Above
the Gathering Storm, it was recommended that if the U.S. is to remain competitive
in the 21st century economy, there must be a serious effort to “enlarge the pipeline
of students who are prepared to enter college and graduate with a degree in STEM”
(National of Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute
of Medicine, 2007, p. 6). This would be accomplished by increasing the number of
students who complete and pass advanced STEM courses. A recommendation was
made suggesting that states develop statewide specialty STEM high schools
Specialty secondary education can foster leaders in science, technology, and mathematics.
Specialty schools immerse students in high-quality science, technology, and mathematics
education; serve as a mechanism to test teaching materials; provide a training ground for
K–12 teachers; and provide the resources and staff for summer programs that introduce
students to science and mathematics. (National of Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2007, p. 6).
Since distribution of this report, the implementation of dual-credit courses, where

students receive both high school and college credit, has become commonplace in
U.S. schools. The State of Texas created an initiative to develop specialty STEM
schools similar to those described in Rising above the Gathering Storm. The Texas
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (T-STEM) Academies initiatives
creates “rigorous secondary schools focusing on improving instruction and academic
performance in STEM-related subjects and increasing the number of students who
study and enter STEM careers.” T-STEM Academies are demonstration schools and
learning labs that develop innovative methods to improve STEM instruction. The
primary instructional strategy of these academies is PBL/PrBL. T-STEM academies
are open enrollment schools designed to provide a high-quality STEM Education for
all students (Texas Education Agency, 2018).
The T-STEM Academy initiative is designed to prepare students to thrive in the

21st Century economy by providing students a course of study that allows them
to enter into STEM majors during their university experiences, and ultimately into
STEM fields critical to the economy of Texas after graduation. “The cornerstone of
T-STEM Academy learning is student engagement and exposure to innovation and
design in STEM-focused instruction and learning that models real-world contexts”
(Texas High School Project, 2010, p. 2). Academies also serve as demonstration
schools to inform math and science teaching and learning statewide. The initiative
aims to closely align high school curriculum with admission requirements of com-
petitive colleges and the STEM qualifications for 21st century jobs (Texas Education
Agency, 2018).
Schools seeking T-STEM designation are required to apply and agree to imple-
ment the T-STEM Academy Design Blueprint (Texas Education Agency (2018). The
Academies implement the T-STEM Design Blueprint, and use the T-STEM Rubric
and Glossary, as a guidepost to build and sustain the academy. T-STEM schools are
required to address seven benchmarks: (1) Mission-driven leadership; (2) school cul-
ture and design; (3) student outreach, recruitment, and retention; (4) teacher selection,
development and retention; (5) curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (6) strategic
alliances, and; (7) academy advancement and sustainability. It should be noted that
benchmark 5 outlines a series of curriculum, instruction, and assessment indicators
that are considered essential for 21st century success. These include ensuring that
the STEM Academy
• Graduates students with a Distinguished Level of Achievement with a primary
focus on a STEM Endorsement; and a Performance Acknowledgement;
• Develops a STEM-focused, integrated curriculum, assessment and instruction for
the Academy;
• Ensures that students complete three years of STEM electives during their middle
school (ages 11–14) experience, and four years of STEM electives during their
high school (ages 15 = 18) experience;
• Provides extracurricular STEM activities, field experiences, clubs, and competi-
tions
• Provides an Internship and/or capstone project; and
• Provides PBL/PrBL curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Achievement data in 2011 indicated T-STEM Academies outperform their peer
schools in meeting college-readiness benchmarks. T-STEM academies scored at a
12% higher rate and achieved a 21% higher completion rate in dual-credit- and
advanced placement courses (Texas Education Agency, 2018). As of August, 2018,
there are 132 T-STEM academies operating in the State of Texas.
Impact of T-STEM Designation and PBL/PrBL Pedagogies

as a Reform Strategy
In 2014, a school district in East Texas, The Innovation Academy, in response to

poor academic performance, adopted the PBL/PrBL instructional model, as well as
the T-STEM Design Blueprint as a reform strategy. Schools in the district performed
poorly on state assessments and were in danger of losing their accreditation. As a
result, the district faced closure if the schools performed poorly for a third straight
year. After significant research and deliberation, a school improvement plan was
developed using the T-STEM Blueprint as the school improvement model and PBL
was adopted as the primary instructional strategy for all subjects, and PrBL was
adopted for all mathematics classes since the strategy was better aligned with the
outcomes of the mathematics standards and assessments.
The improvement plan also included the creation of a professional development
(PD) plan to re-train all teachers in PBL/PrBL. Teachers had already received training
in both after they were initially hired, but the duration of the training and follow-up
support post-training had not been adequate. In the revised PD plan, all teachers
were required to complete two weeks of common PBL/PrBL training. Newly-hired
teachers received additional training. Where possible, UTeach graduates were hired
for open positions as their teacher preparation program had already provided them
experiences in PBL/PrBL.
To provide post-training support, the district invested in PBL/PrBL coaches that
would work with teachers throughout the school year as mentors. The coaches were
selected by the district administration from the pool of existing veteran teachers who
had demonstrated they implemented PBL/PrBL instruction in their classrooms with
fidelity, and that their students performed well on state assessments. The district also
created a common planning time for all teachers in addition to the teachers’ normal
planning period. The common planning time was facilitated by the coaches where
teachers completed projects designed to improve school culture, student achieve-
ment, PBL instruction, and the development of 21st century skills in students.
Progress was slow at first, but over the next three years following the implementation
plan described above, positive results became evident.
Table 23.3 shows the impact of the approach over the past 5 years. The district
test scores have shown continuous improvement while the state average on assess-
ments has remained constant or declined. It is important to note, all subject area
assessments improved and the district continues to outperform the state average
on all assessments. The district also noted other benefits including better student
engagement as measured by a decrease in the number of discipline referrals issued
by teachers and an increase in the attendance rate from 95 to 97%. In the U.S.,
school funding is determined by a school’s average daily attendance (ADA). The 2%
increase in attendance resulted in significant additional funding that was used for
increased STEM programming compared to previous years.
Table 23.3 State assessment scores before, during, and after PBL/PrBL STEM implementation
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Math Pre-intervention Post-intervention
State 75 75 81 75 79
District 44 56 75 80 85
Science
State 79 78 78 80 79
District 54 67 78 88 85
Reading
State 76 76 76 75 72
District 72 71 83 85 86
Writing
State 70 71 70 70 67
District 52 54 78 76 78
Lessons Learned Implementing PBL/PrBL
In the case above, there were a number of challenges to implementing PBL in the
district’s three schools. Implementing PBL/PrBL-based approaches requires teach-
ers to take on a new role. Teachers must transition as the “source of knowledge”
to coaches that facilitate knowledge. This shift from teacher-centered learning to
student-centered learning can be difficult for many teachers. The difficulty most
often lies in the fact that they themselves were not taught in ways other than those
supported by teacher-centered environments when they were in school, nor were they
trained to teach in other ways during their teacher preparation programs.
In 2010, several East Texas middle schools were given grants to start PBL/PrBL
instruction in their schools. Each school contracted with an outside team to train all
sixth grade teachers and to have mentors on-site each day throughout the school year
to coach and advise teachers through the transition. The thought was to start with the
sixth grade class of students and follow them through their middle school experience,
each year training the next set of teachers. Each school had its own set of challenges
but the primary challenge was changing the instructional methods and thinking of
the teachers. Some of the teachers had been teaching in their more “traditional” ways
for twenty plus years, which made it harder to learn and implement an entirely new
way of teaching. Most teachers made comments throughout that year that indicated
they felt like first-year teachers all over again, but that they enjoyed the challenge of
implementing PBL/PrBL.
In order to entirely change the way teachers are accustomed to teaching, two things
should happen based on this particular experience. First, the teachers must “buy-in”,
in other words, the teachers must want to change their instructional practices. Second,
the administration has to “buy-in” and truly understand PBL/PrBL approaches in
order to be able to provide instructional feedback to their teachers. In other works,
the administration has to fully support the PBL/PrBL model or there is little chance
that the entire faculty can and will consistently implement PBL/PrBL strategies.
Conclusions
In this chapter, we have highlighted PBL/PrBL learning as a STEM pedagogy and

as a means of school reform to improve student learning and prepare students in
content and the context of 21st century skills. Ata time when needed knowledge and
skills are constantly changing due to the rapid technological developments in the
global economy, PBL/PrBL provides students the opportunity to engage in critical
thinking and problem-solving versus rote memorization of a defined set of knowl-
edge and skills. PBL/PrBL pedagogies foster the development of 21st century skills.
In addition, there is evidence to support that effective implementation of PBL/PrBL
also develops content and skills as measured by high-stakes assessments. As more
schools implement PBL/PrBL, there will be increased pressure on teacher prepa-
ration programs to produce new teachers prepared in these approaches. Evidence
exists citing these approaches as effective reform tools to improve schools, increase
relevance for students, and prepare students for the workforce. There is also a need
for more research on the outcomes of PBL/PrBL after school programs to study the
impacts in the workplace.
Chapter Summary
• Project- and Problem-based pedagogies are inquiry-based that promote deeper

learning and develop 21st century skills.
• Integrating PBL/PrBL can be used as a reform strategy to improve student
achievement in STEM.
• The development of specialty schools may be one solution to integrating
PBL/PrBL as the primary instructional approach for STEM learning.
• There are STEM teacher preparation programs that are recognizing the impor-
tance of PBL/PrBL by providing preservice teachers with coursework and clinical
experiences in these approaches.
References
Boss, S., Johanson, C., Arnold, S. D., Parker, W. C., Nguyen, D., Mosborg, S., Nolen, S., Valencia,
S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (2011). The quest for deeper learning and engagement in advanced
high school courses. The Foundation Review, 3(3), Article 3.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan
Page.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council (US). (1999). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science
and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352. Retrieved
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20147/epdf.
Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., & Nelson, E.
(2017). Project-based learning a literature review working paper. MDRC. Retrieved from https://
s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ler/MDRC+PBL+Literature+Review.pdf.
Dewey, J. (1897). Education today: My pedagogical creed. New York: Putnam.
Dewey, J. (1938): Experience and education. In J. A. Boydston & S. M. Cahn, John Dewey: The later
works of John Dewey, 1925–1953: 1938–1939/Experience and Education, Freedom and Culture,
Theory of Valuation, and Essays, vol. 13 (pp. 1–62). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational
Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:
EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.
Hutchings, B., & O’Rourke, K. (2004). Medical studies to literary studies: Adapting paradigms
of problem-based learning process for new disciplines. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.),
Challenging research in problem based learning (pp. 174–189). SRHE & OUP: Berkshire, UK.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer
appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.
National of Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine.
(2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter eco-
nomic future. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.
edu/catalog/11463/rising-above-the-gathering-storm-energizing-and-employing-america-for.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscut-
ting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2011). Quality science education and 21st century skills.
Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.
Next Generation Science Storylines & STEM Teaching Tools. (2016). Using phenomena in NGSS-
designed lessons and units, (Achieve). Seattle, WA: STEM Teaching Tools, Institute for Science
and Math Education, University of Washington.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2015). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.
p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf.
Pérez, M., & Romero, P. (2014). Secondary STEM teacher preparation as a top priority for the
university of the future. The Journal of the World Universities Forum, 6(4), 21–36.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-
analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.
Texas Education Agency. (2018). Texas science, technology, engineering, and mathematics initiative
(T-STEM). Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/T-STEM/.
Texas High School Project. (2010). Texas science technology engineering and mathematics
academies design blueprint, rubric, and glossary. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills learning for life in our times. San Francisco,
CA: Wiley.
United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. Department of Education. (1983).
A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary
of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.:The Commission: [Supt.

of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor].
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across prob-
lem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061.
Michael Odell Ph.D., holds a joint appointment as Professor of STEM Education in the College
of Education and Psychology and in the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at Tyler,
United States of America. His research interests focus on STEM Education, STEM school design,
school reform, and education policy.
Jaclyn Pedersen M.Ed., is the Curriculum Director for the Innovation Academies at the Univer-
sity of Texas at Tyler. Her research interests mathematics education, instructional coaching, and
STEM teacher preparation.
Chapter 24
Radical Constructivism—von Glasersfeld
Gráinne Walshe
Radical Constructivism
Constructivism has been hugely influential in education in all disciplines for many
years (Slezak, 2014; Young & Muller, 2010). The variant under discussion in this
chapter, radical constructivism, has had considerable impact in science and mathe-
matics education, since it was first developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld in the seventies
(Lerman, 1996; Olssen, 1996; Riegler, 2001; Slezak, 2010). While constructivism
may have abated in influence to an extent since its highpoint in the late nineties, it
continues to underpin much thought, theory and pedagogy in science education (see
for example Chap. 18: Social Constructivism; Chap. 19: Lev Vygotsky). Concepts of
student developmental learning and hypothetical learning pathways that originated
in radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 2007; Steffe, 2007) have heavily influ-
enced the underlying philosophy of the recent Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). In many respects, radical constructivist theories about student learning have
now become accepted wisdom in science education research, teaching and learning.
Constructivism emerged as a reaction to the empiricism and behaviourist psychol-
ogy that dominated educational theory in the twenties and thirties (see for example
Chap. 6: Classical and Operant Conditioning), and in education has its roots in devel-
opmental psychology (Matthews, 2012; Olssen, 1996), particularly the work of Jean
Piaget (see Chap. 10: Jean Piaget). Von Glasersfeld defined radical constructivism as
a ‘theory of knowing that provides a pragmatic approach to questions about reality,
truth, language and human understanding’ (von Glasersfeld, 1995, Abstract). The
main application of radical constructivism in science education is in the realm of
learning science, and how teachers can best support their students to acquire and
develop scientific concepts. The use of the word ‘radical’ to describe this version
of constructivism reflects his notion that it is a particularly controversial theory for
G. Walshe (B)
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

360 G. Walshe
educators to take on board. As he points out ‘to introduce epistemological consid-

erations into a discussion of education has always been dynamite’ (von Glasersfeld,
1995, p . xi). Indeed the theory of radical constructivism has been quite controversial
within the community of philosophers of science and science educators ever since it
first emerged (Quale, 2008; Riegler & Quale, 2010).
This chapter begins with a brief biography of von Glasersfeld. It goes on to
outline the epistemological issues he raised in his theory of radical constructivism,
the implications of radical constructivism for learning about scientific practice, that
is, how scientists come to develop new scientific knowledge, and its implications for
teaching and learning science. The final section discusses some of the criticisms and
limitations of radical constructivism.
Biography of Ernst von Glasersfeld
Ernst von Glasersfeld was born in Germany in 1917, and spent his early childhood in
Austria. He initially studied mathematics in Zurich, and then moved to Vienna, where
he was introduced to the work of Wittgenstein. He and his wife lived in Ireland during
the Second World War, where he learned of the work of the Irish idealist philosopher
Berkeley and of the philosopher Giambattista Vico. These thinkers, along with other
philosophers, had a profound influence on his ideas. He moved back to Italy after
the war, where he became part of a circle of intellectuals who were developing a
theory of semantics. Von Glasersfeld went on to become one of the pioneers in the
field of cybernetics, working on a project to develop machine translation. In 1967
he started working in the University of Georgia where he became interested in Jean
Piaget’s work on cognitive development, and became gradually more involved in
the world of education, particularly in mathematics education. In 1987, he moved to
work with a physics education group in the Scientific Reasoning Research Institute
in the University at Amherst. He passed away in 2010.
The Traditional Epistemological View
In order to understand von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism, it is crucial to under-

stand that he is arguing from the position that most people are tied to what he refers to
as the traditional western epistemology. They believe that our knowledge faithfully
reflects an ontological reality that exists independently of the observer (von Glasers-
feld, 1995). Von Glasersfeld traces the ideas that underpin radical constructivism
as far back as the Ancient Greek philosophers, right through to the present day, in
the work of a variety of philosophers and theorists, including Vico, Kant, Berkeley,
Darwin, and de Saussure. The main tradition of western philosophy is informed by
metaphysics:
24 Radical Constructivism—von Glasersfeld 361
A metaphysical realist… is one who insists that we may call something ‘true’ only if it
corresponds to an independent, ‘objective’ reality. … most scientists today still consider
themselves ‘discoverers’ who unveil nature’s secrets and slowly but steadily expand the
range of human knowledge; and countless philosophers have dedicated themselves to the
task of ascribing to that laboriously acquired knowledge the unquestionable certainty which
the rest of the world expects of genuine truth. Now as ever, there reigns the conviction that
knowledge is knowledge only if it reflects the world as it is. (von Glasersfeld, 1984, p. 20)
This is the way in which most of us live our lives. We perceive objects or events
with our senses, and we believe that what we perceive corresponds or matches to a
physical reality that actually exists.
The Constructivist Epistemological View
Von Glasersfeld describes radical constructivism as being a departure from this tra-
ditional epistemology and from traditional cognitive psychology, in that it moots a
different conception of the relation between knowledge and reality. Within the tra-
ditional notion, there is an iconic correspondence or match between knowledge and
reality, whereas within radical constructivism, the relation is that of an adaptation
or a functional fit of knowledge to reality, which can never be directly experienced.
This is the constructivist aspect of his theory: we actively construct our world, our
knowledge, from what we perceive, rather than passively receive sensory images of
a pre-existing reality. However, this is not to say that radical constructivists deny the
existence of an objective world, of reality. On the other hand neither do they say it
exists. ‘Radical Constructivism is agnostic’ (Riegler, 2001, p. 1). It is not concerned
with ontology, whether what we know actually exists, but rather how we come to
know.
While we play an active part in constructing our reality, that does not mean that
we can therefore construct any old conception of reality. It has to be viable. Similar
to the theory of evolution put forward by Darwin, the notion of viability is not a free-
for-all. Just as the environment places constraints on the living organism (biological
structures) and eliminates all “variants that in some way transgress the limits within
which they are possible or ‘viable’, so the experiential world, be it that of everyday life
or of the laboratory, constitutes the testing ground for our ideas [cognitive structures]”
(von Glasersfeld, 1984, p. 30). The analogy with knowledge von Glasersfeld makes is
that knowledge is useful or viable if it stands up to experience and enables us to make
predictions and to bring about or avoid particular events or experiences. If knowledge
does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable or useless, and is
eventually devalued as superstition. In other words, our ideas, theories, our laws of
nature are structures which either hold up or not when exposed to the experiential
world, from which they derive. These cognitive structures do not tell us how the
objective world might actually be, rather a structure gives us one means to achieve a
specific goal.
362 G. Walshe
Von Glasersfeld summaries the fundamental principles of radical constructivism

as:
1. Knowledge is not passively received but built up by the cognizing subject.
2. The function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the expe-
riential world, not the discovery of ontological reality (von Glasersfeld, 1995,
p. 35).
Radical Constructivism and Jean Piaget
The work of the educational psychologist Jean Piaget, particularly Piaget’s notion
of ‘genetic epistemology’ was very influential in von Glasersfeld’s theory of radical
constructivism. Piaget suggested that we construct our concepts and our picture of the
world we live in, developmentally (von Glasersfeld, 1995). Von Glasersfeld therefore
utilizes the word genetic in the sense ‘developmental’. In this perspective, knowledge
does not exist there to be uncovered by the cognizing subject, but is constructed by
them from their experiences (von Glasersfeld, 2001b).
The essence he takes from Piaget is that a cognizing organism has developed cer-
tain ‘keys’ or structures that allows it to achieve certain goals. The cognitive organism
evaluates its experiences, and tends to repeat certain ones and to avoid others. We
perceive certain regularities within the flow of our experiences, for example, that an
apple is smooth and sweet and round, or that to touch a hot object is painful, and we
adapt our behaviour to these experiences. It does not matter what an object might be
in reality or from an objective point of view (if that were possible to have), rather
what matters is whether or not it behaves as is expected of it; in other words does
it ‘fit’ with our cognitive structures built up from our experiences (von Glasersfeld,
2001b).
Symbols and units in science and mathematics are an example of such mental
constructions, or ways of organizing experience. The active experiencer creates the
units, but also creates the discrete entities to be counted. The mind segments and
coordinates the continuous flow of raw experiential material into such structures. We
then assimilate further experiences to them, building endlessly on previous structures
(von Glasersfeld, 2001b).
Radical Constructivism and Learning About Scientific

Practice
Von Glasersfeld sees a number of implications for the discipline of science of radical
constructivism (2001b). He argues that most philosophers would describe Piaget’s
theory as incorrect because it is based on what they call the ‘genetic fallacy’, that is,
knowledge is developed over time, rather than simply there, waiting and available to
be discovered by scientists. On the contrary, von Glasersfeld draws on the work of

the philosophers of science, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, who he says indicated in
various ways in their writings that scientific knowledge does not simply emerge over
time, as scientists happen to make more discoveries. Rather, scientific models are
scientists’ theoretical models of various mechanisms. They check the viability of their
model to explain phenomena by doing experiments. Scientists use great creativity in
their construction of scientific models. Non-scientists do the same in a less coherent
and explicit way; in both cases the point is not to obtain a true picture of reality but
rather to construct structures that allow us to manage our experiences and to explain
natural phenomena (von Glasersfeld, 2001b). From a science education perspective,
therefore, radical constructivism provides an explanation of how scientists develop
new knowledge. It can help students to learn and understand about the nature of
scientific practice, as well as providing an approach for learning science concepts.
Radical Constructivism and Science Teaching and Learning
The faculty of cognition is central in radical constructivist views of knowledge and

knowing. The basic assumption of radical constructivism is that all knowledge is
constructed by the individual learner for the purpose of making sense of their expe-
riential world (Quale, 2008). Like other forms of constructivism, the emphasis is
a move away from teacher-centred learning to a more student-centred focus (see
Chaps. 16–26). The implications of radical constructivism for science education are
that, therefore, ‘the art of teaching has little to do with the traffic of knowledge, its
fundamental purpose must be to foster the art of learning’(von Glasersfeld, 1995,
p. 192).
This is the logical outcome of the radical constructivist notion that we, as cog-
nizing subjects, develop or construct our own knowledge (von Glasersfeld, 2010).
Creating concepts requires a form of construction; by which von Glasersfeld means
reflection on mental operations: recognition of the connections made when the cog-
nizing subject co-ordinates sensory elements or mental operations. We produce cer-
tain conceptions because of our tendency to look for something familiar in what we
perceive. The significance of this for teaching is that students have to construct their
concepts on the basis of their own thoughts, that is, their own mental operations and
reflections, and that concepts cannot be directly conveyed by language, which is very
open to misinterpretation (von Glasersfeld, 2001a). Therefore, forms of pedagogy
that are centred on rote-learning or passive forms of learning are not good approaches
to supporting students in developing their understanding of a given topic.
While the focus within radical constructivism is on how students learn, von
Glasersfeld (2001a) provided some practical suggestions for how radical construc-
tivism might be translated into teaching methods. The essence of a radical construc-
tivist approach to pedagogy might be broadly encompassed by the now-familiar
notion of active learning. Von Glasersfeld (2001a) suggests using conversations and
asking students to verbalise their conceptual understanding as a way of both teachers
364 G. Walshe
understanding where the students are at, and as a learning strategy. His suggestions for
creating a radical constructivist-informed pedagogy to promote student conceptual
learning and development include:
• Creating opportunities for making students think.
• Teachers must have a range of didactic situations at their disposal to stimulate
student creation of concepts.
• Do not tell students their work is wrong; recognize and support their efforts to
learn, thereby motivating them.
• With regard to the relativity of words, teachers should pay particular attention
to students’ naïve conceptions, in order to influence a new train of ideas and to
prevent students forming incorrect conceptions.
• Encourage students to verbalize their constructions and their thought processes
in order to stimulate their thinking and creating of concepts. (von Glasersfeld,
2001a)
Initially von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism was very influential in mathe-
matics education. He worked with a number of mathematics educators in the 1970s
and 1980s on research that took a constructivist approach, in particular with Les
Steffe on developing new approaches to the learning and teaching of arithmetic
(von Glasersfeld, 1995). He also worked with and influenced science educators
(Tobin, 2007), and wrote about teaching methods for more learner-centred or active
approaches to teaching physics in the classroom. Radical constructivist methods of
teaching provide students with opportunities to engage in scientific inquiry, through
a process of reflecting and discussion on the outcomes of scientific activities. A prac-
tical example that he gives is that teachers could show students two routes by which
a ball can travel through a chute, and ask the students which will arrive first. The
counterintuitive correct outcome is that the ball arrives first by the longer route that
has a steeper downhill slope for part of the route. Through discussion and exploration
and reflection, the students can come to understand why this is so, and the physical
concepts behind it, in a way that is not possible through simply providing them with
the correct answer (von Glasersfeld, 2001a).
Supporters of radical constructivism in science education have tended to connect
didactic modes of teaching directly to a belief in traditional western epistemology.
Knowledge is viewed as:
out there, residing in books, independent of a thinking being. … As a result, teachers imple-
ment a curriculum to ensure that students cover relevant science content and have opportuni-
ties to learn truths which usually are documented in bulging textbooks. (Lorsbach & Tobin,
1992, p. 1)
Therefore adopting a radical constructivist epistemology is seen by some to lead

inevitably to more effective active and inquiry-based learning in the science class-
room (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1992; Matthews, 1998), as in the example described above
by von Glasersfeld for teaching physics concepts. Radical constructivist epistemol-
ogy has hence been the inspiration for approaches in science education which focus
on the learner and the role of language in negotiating meaning, both for students and
for the professional development of teachers (Tobin, 2007). But for others, adopting
a radical constructivist approach will have an even more dramatic effect. Andreas
Quale argues that current problems in science education, such as decline of student
enrolment in science subjects, can be addressed by taking the relativist epistemolog-
ical and ontological perspective offered by radical constructivism. The traditional
image of science projected to students is rooted in realism (there is an objective
reality independent of human observation and reflection, and that it is the task of sci-
ence to search for this true knowledge of this objective reality). In contrast, radical
constructivism posits that all knowledge is constructed by the individual learner for
the purpose of gaining understanding and control of their experiential world. Note
that unlike von Glasersfeld himself, Quale does not reject relativism. Quale sees this
as a more empowering position for learners that will therefore engage their interest
and attention in science. If reality is not the ultimate arbitrator of truth, then humans
themselves are solely responsible for their own decisions and actions. This means
that students do not have to blindly accept the knowledge that is handed down to them
by higher authorities, but can instead become active socio-political agents (Riegler
& Quale, 2010). From this perspective, students would be empowered by the radical
constructivist stance on scientific knowledge to take actions counter to traditional
wisdom and authority, such as refusing to accept the unwillingness of those in power
to tackle the causes of environmental degradation.
Indeed as Matthews (2012) and others point out, constructivism has had a very
positive influence in science education in alerting teachers to the importance of stu-
dents’ prior learning and the need to be aware of their existing concepts in relation
to learning new material. Radical constructivism stresses the importance of student
understanding, which has fed into very progressive pedagogies that focus on engag-
ing students in their learning. It also has highlighted the fallibility of science, the
culturally determined and conventional aspects of scientific knowledge-production,
the historicity of scientific concepts, and so on. While constructivism does not have
a monopoly on these insights, it has certainly promoted them to the betterment of
science education.
Radical constructivism has also had an impact beyond the development of active
and engaging classroom pedagogies. Von Glasersfeld’s collaborator Les Steffe devel-
oped the ‘teaching experiment’ approach to developing understanding of student
learning (von Glasersfeld, 1995). This methodology, and the constructivist approach
to student learning underpinning it, in turn lead to the development of mathematical
learning trajectories (Clements & Sarama, 2004), a major innovation in mathemat-
ics curriculum development. Learning trajectories describe students’ thinking and
learning in a specific mathematical domain. They lay out a conjectured route through
a set of instructional tasks ‘designed to engender those mental processes or actions
hypothesized to move children through a developmental progression of levels of
thinking, created with the intent of supporting children’s achievement of specific
goals in that mathematical domain’ (Clements & Sarama, 2004, p. 83). Other radi-
cal constructivists, such as Paul Cobb, one of Steffe’s graduate students, went on to
work with a number of eminent U.S. science educators in the further development of
the teaching/design experiment methodology for developing hypothetical learning
366 G. Walshe
pathways of student thinking (Cobb, Confrey, Disessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003).
In science, these pathways are called learning progressions, the scientific equivalent
of learning trajectories in mathematics (Duschl, Maeng, & Sezen, 2011). The NGSS
are based on learning progressions, as outlined in the Framework for K-12 Science
Education (National Research Council, 2012), showing the extent of the influence
that radical constructivist ideas continue to have in science education.
Radical constructivism therefore may once have been a departure from the dom-
inant theories of education that existed before the 1970s, but it now permeates most
aspects of science education.
Criticisms and Limitations of Radical Constructivism
Slezak (2014) notes that there have been many critics of radical constructivism, who
have argued that it has ‘serious, if not fatal, philosophical problems, and further, it
can have no benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education’ (p. 1024). Slezak
(2010) highlights von Glasersfeld’s allegiance to what he calls Berkeley’s ‘notorious’
idealism in his advocacy of the recommendation that we give up the requirement
that knowledge represents an independent world. Slezak insists that von Glasersfeld
encourages the attribution of idealism through his misleading claims that the great
physicists of the twentieth century did not consider their theories to be descriptions of
an ontological reality. Slezak points out that Piaget himself, a major referent for von
Glasersfeld’s theories, does not deny the existence of an objective reality beyond
our sense-data, arguing that von Glasersfeld misinterprets Piaget in this respect.
Rather Piaget clearly states that the subject’s thought processes depend both on an
organism’s internal mental constructions, but also on the fact that the organism is not
independent of its environment but can only live, act or think in interaction with it.
Slezak (2010) therefore states
Thus, while von Glasersfeld is at pains on every occasion to emphasize the unknowability
of reality and the need to abandon notions of objectivity and truth, Piaget by contrast, writes
in an altogether different mood. …it is evident that his version of constructivism is quite
different from Piaget’s. (p. 104)
Several critics note that this idealist turn in radical constructivism could lead to
scientific knowledge being undervalued and discredited. There is a concern that if
we construct our own knowledge, then ‘anything goes’. This is relativism, that is,
the notion that there are no grounds on which to decide that one version of reality
or knowledge is any better than or more true than another. Scientists themselves are
aware that theories can change, but they do not necessarily hold relativistic views
about the nature of scientific knowledge (Harding & Hare, 2000). They believe
scientific knowledge is true, and they use it as the basis of further investigations.
They are open-minded about scientific knowledge, but not relativist. They could not
operate otherwise (Harding & Hare, 2000). And indeed not all science educators
who are constructivist agree with von Glasersfeld’s position on the unknowability
of reality. Taber (2006) highlights that the radical constructivist view of science
knowledge is inappropriate as it ‘sets learner’s ideas to be of equal validity to currently
accepted knowledge’ (p. 199). Taber presents the debate as being a question of
whether constructivism is seen as being about (a) how science learning occurs (von
Glasersfeld called this trivial constructionism), or (b) the nature of human knowledge
(the radical constructivist perspective). Radical constructivism, Taber suggests, goes
too far in the direction of giving equal weight to learners’ misconceptions as to
accepted scientific theories and laws.
However, von Glasersfeld refutes the charge of relativism, or that radical con-
structivism rejects the idea that there is such a thing as reality; rather he says that
it sidesteps this issue. His argument is that we trust in the permanence and stability
of objects and conditions, such as, for example, that our front door will always be
where it was the night before when we wake up afresh each morning, and that we
could not live otherwise (von Glasersfeld, 2001a). In addition, he insists that radical
constructivism gives agency to the knower/learner in that it puts emphasis on the
active role we all have in constructing knowledge, thereby giving us responsibility
for our actions (von Glasersfeld, 2010).
Nonetheless for some critics his strong emphasis on the individual construction
of knowledge always risks a slide into a skeptical idealism, which must inevitably
present problems for teachers (Matthews, 2012; Olssen, 1996). If, as von Glasersfeld
suggests, there is no basis on which to be sure that any given mental construction
reflects the world as it actually is, this in turn means that the advice given by radical
constructivists to teachers to orient learners in particular ways is impossible to follow.
This is because there are no grounds or criteria by which teachers can decide what
orientations students’ constructions should take (Olssen, 1996). While it is of course
important that science teachers are interested in students’ individual constructions
of knowledge, teachers still want students to understand the basic theories of science
(Harding & Hare, 2000).
Matthews (2012) recognizes the great positives that result for students because of
the value that constructivism gives to active methods of learning. However, he sug-
gests that its over-emphasis on the isolated nature of cognition, that is, its insistence
that we all construct our own knowledge is misguided, and may simply be getting in
the way of good teaching
Why must learners construct for themselves the ideas of potential energy, mutation, linear
inertia, photosynthesis, valency, and so on? Why not explain these ideas to students, and do
it in such a way that they understand them? This process may or may not be didactic: it all
depends on the classroom circumstance. There are many ways to explain science: didacticism
is just one of them. (Matthews 2012), p. 38
Most students would find it impossible to re-construct for themselves the scien-
tific knowledge that has been developed by many scientists over many centuries,
and hence taken to its logical conclusion, radical constructivist pedagogy could do
students a great disservice.
Finally, Slezak (2014) insists that there is a question mark over the relevance
of much of the theoretical underpinnings of radical constructivism—the focus on
368 G. Walshe
epistemological issues—to education, saying that ‘there is a sharp contrast between

such esoteric philosophical matters and the practical recommendation taken to follow
from them’ (p. 1024). The kind of practical advice von Glasersfeld offers teachers,
includes for example, ‘Asking students how they arrived at their given answer is a
good way of discovering something about their thinking’ (Slezak 2014, p. 1028).
As Slezak notes, such insights will be familiar to all teachers, and while these are
sound recommendations, they are hardly revolutionary, a view reiterated by d’Agnese
(2015).
There are limitations therefore to the usefulness of radical constructivism, at least
in the extreme version that some of its adherents have advocated. If von Glasers-
feld’s ideas were taken to their logical conclusion in the classroom, it would be very
difficult for teachers to know what to teach, or for students to learn the scientific
knowledge that we would like them to know. If students were to encouraged to take
a relativist stance on all knowledge, they might reject accepted and proven scien-
tific knowledge, such as that underlying climate change and evolutionary theory.
Nonetheless, radical constructivism raises issues that science educators and students
should be concerned about, in relation to the nature of science, such as how we can
evaluate claims of scientific truth and how knowledge development comes about.
Even if we do not accept the relativism and skepticism that some say is inherent
in radical constructivism, its insistence on the importance of the learner’s role in
making sense of their world can have a very positive impact on teaching and learning
processes in the science classroom. Moreover, the impact of radical constructivist
ideas in curriculum development, for example, in the now widespread acceptance of
learning trajectories and learning progressions, is considerable.
Conclusion
Radical constructivism has been a major force for change in science education since
the 1970s. The major difference with other forms of constructivism is von Glasers-
feld’s emphasis on the epistemological aspects of the learning process. The basic
tenets of radical constructivism are that knowledge is not passively received through
the senses, but is actively constructed by the cognizing subject, the learner, and that
the function of cognition is organization of the experiential world rather than discov-
ery of an independent reality. This highlighted the need for more active methods of
teaching and learning science, as opposed to the notion that students should rote-learn
a body of scientific facts. Radical constructivism was instrumental in bringing about
the great revolution that ushered in progressive pedagogies in the late twentieth cen-
tury. However, critics of radical constructivism have argued that it places too much
emphasis on the unknowability of reality, leaving it open to the charge of relativism
and potentially undermining the basis on which teachers could know which scien-
tific ideas and theories to teach students. Nonetheless, radical constructivism opened
the door for teachers and students to free themselves from very rigid approaches to
teaching and learning, particularly in the area of science education, where absorption
of facts taught didactically was once the order of the day. Radical constructivism con-
tinues to have lasting impact through the focus on learners actively making sense of
the natural world that underpins the vast majority of scientific educational research,
curriculum development and teaching practice today.
Chapter Summary
• The two main principles of radical constructivism are that knowledge is actively
constructed by the learner, and that the function of cognition is organization of
the experiential world rather than discovery of an independent reality.
• Von Glasersfeld called for more active and engaging teaching methods to be used
to assist students to constructing their scientific knowledge.
• Radical constructivism has also been very influential in the development of
learning progressions in science curricula.
• Criticisms of radical constructivism include that it undermines the basis on which
teachers can decide what scientific knowledge is most important for students to
learn, and that it over-emphasizes the isolated nature of cognition.
Resources
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning.

London and Washington DC: The Falmer Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects, 31(2),
161−173. doi:10.1007/bf03220058
von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Key works in radical constructivism, M. Larochelle
(Ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Philosophical and pedagogical problems with construc-
tivism in science education. Tréma, 38, 40−55.
References
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
d’Agnese, V. (2015). ‘And they lived happily ever after’: The fairy tale of radical constructivism
and von Glasersfeld’s ethical disengagement. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 131–151. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17449642.2014.999425.
370 G. Walshe
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review
and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.
2011.604476.
Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-
mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225–236.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37:3%3c225:AID-TEA1%3e3.0.CO;2-G.
Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical construc-
tivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 133–150. https://doi.
org/10.2307/749597.
Lorsbach, A. W., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. In F.
Lorenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters …to the science teacher.
NARST Monograph, Number Five. Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science
Teaching.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin
(Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 981–999). Dordrecht and Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Matthews, M. R. (2012a). Philosophical and pedagogical problems with constructivism in science
education. Tréma, 38, 40–55.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: Anti-realism and individualism.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1996.
9974075.
Quale, A. (2008). Radical constructivism: A relativist epistemic approach to science education.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Riegler, A. (2001). Towards a radical constructivist understanding of science. Foundations of
Science, 6(1–3), 1–30.
Riegler, A., & Quale, A. (2010). Can radical constructivism become a mainstream endeavor?
Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 1–5.
Slezak, P. (2010). Radical constructivism: Epistemology, education and dynamite. Constructivist
Foundations, 6(1), 102–111.
Slezak, P. (2014). Appraising constructivism in science education. In International handbook of
research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1023–1055). Berlin: Springer.
Steffe, L. P. (2007). Radical constructivism and ‘school mathematics’. In M. Larochelle (Ed.), Key
works in radical constructivism (pp. 279–289). Rotterdam: Sense publishers.
Taber, K. S. (2006). Constructivism’s new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive
research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of Chemistry, 8, 189–219.
Tobin, K. (2007). The revolution that was constructivism. In M. Larochelle (Ed.), Key works in
radical constructivism (pp. 291–297). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The
invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Key works in radical constructivism, M. Larochelle (Ed.). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995a). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London and
Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001a). Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects, 31(2), 161–173.
doi:10.1007/bf03220058.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001b). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science,
6(1), 31–43. doi:10.1023/a:1011345023932.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2010). Why people dislike radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations,
6(1), 19–21.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the
sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x.
Gráinne Walshe is Director of the Science Learning Centre at the University of Limerick. She
teaches undergraduate introductory physics. Her research interests include science and mathemat-
ics integration, curriculum development for STEM education at second- and third-level, with a
focus on physics education, and supporting gender balance in science.
Chapter 25
Constructive Alternativism: George
Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory
Keith S. Taber
Introduction
George Kelly proposed a perspective that he called constructive alternativism, and

from within this developed Personnel Construct Theory (PCT). This chapter offers
an introduction to PCT and its relevance for practice and research in education.
Kelly’s background and motivation for developing his ideas are briefly considered,
and then the grounds for considering PCT as a theoretical framework in education
are discussed. The nature of PCT as a constructivist theory is discussed, highlighting
its similarities and points of difference with other constructivist theories that are
commonly adopted in education. Kelly developed practical tools to apply his theory—
the method of triads and repertory grid. The potential of these tools to those working
in education is considered.
George Kelly (1905–1967)
George Kelly was something of a polymath, a renaissance man in a time of specialists.

For his undergraduate degree he studied physics and mathematics. For his master’s
degree he chose sociology. He became interested in education, and so went back to
college to read for a first degree in that subject. He then took both a master’s and then
a doctoral degree, in psychology, before taking up work as a therapist. In a critical
review of the dominance of constructivist thinking in science education, Solomon
(1994, p. 7) described Kelly as “a psychologist who studied patients locked away in
the solitary world of the schizophrenic”.
K. S. Taber (B)
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

374 K. S. Taber
Kelly himself had been trained in the therapeutic methods of Freudian psycho-
analysis. The Freudian perspective posits a structure to the mind and mechanisms by
which early life experience could lead to various neuroses. Kelly found the system
unsatisfactory as a basis for offering practical support for his clients. Kelly was deal-
ing with people who often were deeply distressed in terms of how they understood
their lives and he judged that Freud’s theory did not offer him tools that were useful in
helping his clients. He therefore came to a new way of thinking about patients’ prob-
lems that he considered had more potential to be productive. He codified his system
as PCT, which he included in a technical book to support other therapists who might
want to adopt his methods. The account of the theory was then later republished as
‘A Theory of Personality: The psychology of personal constructs’ (Kelly, 1963).
Constructive Alternativism
Kelly came to “a philosophical position” that he labelled “constructive alternativism”

(Kelly, 1958/1969a, p. 64): “the notion that one does not have to disprove one propo-
sition before entertaining one of its alternatives” (p. 55). Kelly was arguing that given
that there is generally some uncertainty about our existing understandings, we should
be open to considering other options, alternative conceptualisations, even when they
seem inconsistent with aspects of our current thinking.
This reflected Kelly’s work with his clients, many of whom had developed ways
of making sense of their worlds—their relationships, their lives, their role in the
workplace—which were unproductive and impacting them in negative ways. Kelly
thought that “no one needs to paint themselves into a corner; no one needs to be
completely hemmed in by circumstances; no one needs to be the victim of his or her
biography” (Kelly, 1963, p. 15).1
Personal Construct Theory
Kelly set out his theory as a set of principles or tenets, described as a basic postulate
and a series of corollaries (Kelly, 1963), reproduced in Table 25.1. Kelly’s theory is
constructivist in the way that it suggests that an individual person understands the
world through developing a system of constructs that are personal to that individual,
and which are the basis for interpreting experience. A construct had broad application
as it was “an abstraction and, as such, can be picked up and laid down over many,
many different events in order to bring them into focus and clothe them with personal
meaning” (Kelly, 1958/1969b, p. 87). For Kelly such constructs encompassed the
cognitive, affective and conative (Kelly, 1963, p. 130) and were bipolar continua.
Examples might be ‘large–small’ or ‘up–down’—that is dimensions which are each
defined in terms of two poles that can be considered ‘opposites’ but which allow of
intermediates. However, whereas we can all appreciate ‘large–small’ and ‘up–down’
25 Constructive Alternativism: George Kelly’s Personal Construct … 375
Table 25.1 The key tenets of Kelly’s PCT (based on Kelly, 1963)
Principle label Principle posits
The basic postulate A person’s processes are psychologically channelised by the
ways in which he or she anticipates events
The construction corollary We conservatively construct anticipation based on past
experiences
The experience corollary When things do not happen as expected, we change our
constructs. This changes our future expectations
The dichotomy corollary We store experience as [bipolar] constructs, and then look at the
world through them
The organisational corollary Constructs are connected to one another in hierarchies and
networks of relationships. These relationships may be loose or
tight
The range corollary Constructs are useful only in limited ranges of situations. Some
ranges are broad, others narrow
The modulation corollary Some construct ranges can be ‘modulated’ to accommodate new
ideas. Others are ‘impermeable’
The choice corollary We can choose to gain new experiences to expand our constructs
or stay in the safe but limiting zone of current constructs
The individuality corollary As everyone’s experience is different, their constructs are
different
The commonality corollary Many of our experiences are similar and/or shared, leading to
similarity of constructs with others. Discussing constructs also
helps to build shared constructs
The fragmentation corollary Many of our constructs conflict with one another. These may be
dictated by different contexts and roles
The sociality corollary We interact with others through understanding of their constructs
as we all share similar meanings for the labels and all use such discriminations
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), many personal constructs would be more idiosyncratic,
and would not always have communicable labels that would be readily understood by
others. Indeed, a key feature of many personal constructs is that as well as not having
explicit labels, the very construct itself may be tacit. That is, we may be applying
discriminations without even being aware of doing so—personal constructs may be
part of our implicit cognition. This links with work in science education on the role
of implicit knowledge elements in cognition (Brock, 2015; diSessa, 1993; Taber,
2014a—see also Chap. 26), and more widely with the idea of two complementary
systems of thought (Evans, 2008) acting within human cognition: faster and intuitive
(preconscious), and slower and deliberative (conscious).
It is worth recalling that Kelly’s theory was first presented in the 1950s, as much
of it now seems mainstream given the widespread influence of constructivist think-
ing in education. As one example, Kelly’s notion of looking at the world through
one’s constructs is reflected in constructivist work using the metaphor of people
putting on different glasses to see the world (Pope & Watts, 1988). Kelly shares with
376 K. S. Taber
such constructivist thinkers as Piaget (see Chap. 10) and Vygotsky (see Chap. 19)
an assumption that frameworks for thought are developed iteratively over time such
that each individual builds up a personal apparatus for modelling the world. Kelly’s
conception of constructs suggests somewhat discrete highly focused elements, where
Piaget’s theory (1970/1972) was based around the construction of domain-general
structures of cognition that are largely under developmental control (albeit dependent
upon opportunities to engage in, and derive feedback from, action in the environ-
ment). Like Vygotsky (1934/1986), however, Kelly’s system did not posit completely
independent elements (peas in a pod, in Vygotsky’s simile), but a system of constructs
(the organisational corollary—see Table 25.1).
In terms of social conditions, Kelly’s theory makes an interesting complement
to Piaget and Vygotsky. Piaget acknowledges social influences (see, for example,
Piaget, 1959/2002, Chap. VI), but has been widely criticised for seeming to underplay
them in much of his writing, whereas for Vygotsky (1978) the social context is critical
as development of higher psychological functions relies on the modelling available
from others. Kelly seems to stand in a somewhat intermediate position. Most of his
principles (see Table 25.1) can be read as concerning how the individual interprets
experience to produce a system for making sense of the world, and so anticipating
the future. However, discussion and intersubjectivity also put in appearances (the
commonality and sociality corollaries): suggesting that for Kelly social interaction
was one aspect of a more general process by which constructs are derived. Moreover,
in Kelly’s theory there is no substantive distinction between constructs based on
interaction with the physical environment and constructs deriving from enculturation,
nor between those which are open to explicit reflection and those that channel tacit
cognition (distinctions which are important in Vygotsky’s theory).
Kelly’s theory offers a good fit with many of the results of the research into what
was called children’s science or the alternative conception movement (Taber, 2009).
This work highlighted the wide range of—sometimes idiosyncratic—alternative con-
ceptions students presented that were alternative to the target concepts presented in
the school curriculum. Piaget’s theory explained in general terms why building the
canonical (often abstract) concepts of formal science was challenging for students,
and Vygotsky’s theory explained why cultural mechanisms for reproducing knowl-
edge were compromised by spontaneous thinking, but both of these approaches could
be seen as deficit models: failures of logic or failures of cultural transmission—or
indeed in some (judged to be) less developed social contexts, a society collectively
lacking the resources for higher cognitive development (Luria, 1976).
Some researchers in science education wanted a theoretical base more in keeping
with an ethnographic frame for exploring learners’ ideas: that is, for seeking to char-
acterise and understand the nature and internal logic (i.e. derivation) of alternative
conceptions, rather than simply their failure to match up to formal scientific con-
cepts.2 Kelly’s theory, which did not posit personal constructs as essentially limited
or flawed, fitted this stance. In this regard, Kelly’s theory has much in common with
Glasersfeld’s (1993) ‘radical constructivism’ where a person’s understanding of the
world is seen as a construction of reality based on that person’s current interpre-
tation of experience—with its necessarily limited access to the external world (see
Chap. 24). Glasersfeld’s constructivism suggests that we can never have unmediated
access to an objective reality, but—to the extent that new experiences can offer oppor-
tunities to better understand the world—we can refine our constructions. From the
perspective of PCT, personal constructs are not second-class versions of canonical
ways of thinking, but rather all human conceptualisation occurs in terms of individ-
uals’ systems of personal constructs. So, the ideas of Darwin, Einstein, Freud, de
Beauvoir, Keynes, Marx—and so forth—are as much products of personal construing
as those of any science undergraduate, school pupil or toddler.
Kelly’s system also linked well with the motivations of those exploring the nature
of students’ ideas. Much of the importance attached to alternative conceptions by
science educators was in their potential to be impediments to learning of canonical
ideas. There were active debates about whether learners’ conceptions were theory-
like (coherent principles applied consistently) or not, stable or not, readily discarded
when challenged or not, commonly held or idiosyncratic (Taber, 2009). The evidence
available, or certainly the published interpretations of it, supported different views.
It seems more obvious now that such debates were over-simplistic as people’s ideas
vary along such dimensions (Taber, 2014b), and so more useful research questions
asked about the particular conditions when student ideas seemed to be theory-like or
not, and so forth.
Kelly’s theory can encompass the range of empirical findings from research into
learners’ ideas. Constructs could be more or less tightly arranged into hierarchies
(organisational corollary); could have limited or more extensive ranges of application
(range corollary), and could be more or less coherent (fragmentation corollary);
could be more or less readily modified (modulation corollary); could be more or
less like those of their peers (individuality and commonality corollaries). Of course,
such an inclusive theory has limited predictive power unless it explores when (under
what conditions) constructs have particular qualities—but this framework provides a
suitable language for discussing the phenomena of learners’ ideas in science. In terms
of Lakatos’ (1970) model of scientific research programmes, PCT (a) offers a hard
core of commitments (i.e. Table 25.1) for a research programme and (b) suggests
a positive heuristic for developing a belt of auxiliary theory to provide tools for
diagnostic assessment and to develop teaching approaches (Taber, 2009). One of the
most influential science education research groups in the 1970–1980s, the Personal
Construction of Knowledge Group based at Surrey University (UK), adopted this
perspective (Pope, 1982).
Kelly’s own professional concern was in the extent to which people could change
the way they construed their own realities, by positing, testing and adopting alterna-
tive constructions. This clearly has parallels with the key focus in science education
on conceptual change. It might be argued that a difference is that in science education
the teacher wants to shift thinking towards a canonical target, where in therapy the
aim was to help the individual see the world in a way that they themselves could
be more comfortable with; however, in both cases the outside agent is supporting
a client in making changes that the client themselves might in principle somewhat
desire (assuming they have entered therapy or class voluntarily) yet might resist
because such changes may seem threatening or nonviable. Interestingly, one of the
378 K. S. Taber
most influential general books produced by those researching student ideas, Driver’s
(1983) ‘Pupil as Scientist?’ reflects Kelly’s key metaphor for the person construing
their world.
People as (Informal) Scientists
Driver (1983, Preface) wrote that “pupils, like scientists, view the world through
the spectacles of their own preconceptions, and may have difficulty in making the
journey from their own intuitions to the ideas presented in science lessons”. Driver’s
title was posed as a question: a question Kelly had also posed. Kelly asked if it
was possible to apply more universally (to people generally) his notion of being a
scientist, one who:
observes, becomes intimate with the problem, forms hypotheses inductively and deductively,
makes test runs, relates data to predictions, controls experiments so that he or she knows
what leads to what, generalises cautiously, and revises thinking in the light of experimental
outcomes…our model of a person is that of person-the-scientist and our questions will
revolve about the issue of whether a person can be understood in this manner, both in the
floodlight of history and in the dark of his or her closet (Kelly 1958/1969a, pp. 62–63).
According to the widely discussed falsificationist model of science championed by

Popper (1989), experimental outcomes can falsify the hypothesis being tested and
then a good scientist should happily acknowledge that the hypothesis has been refuted
and seek an alternative. Huxley (1870) had famously described ‘the slaying of a
beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact’ as ‘the great tragedy of science’. However,
taking a view that fits with more recent descriptions of ‘science in action’ (Latour,
1987) or ‘science-in-the-making’ (Shapin, 1992), Kelly recognised that the scientist
had various options available. These included changing the predictions (perhaps
revisiting what should be anticipated on the basis of a current construction); or the
grounds for making predictions (perhaps switching to other constructs in the personal
system); or the operational pattern of the constructs being used (which might be
considered parallel to rejecting the instrumental theory rather than the substantive
one: as when Galileo’s contemporaries refused to admit what he saw through the
telescope and justified this by rejecting that such a device could offer a valid image
of the heavens); adopting a new construct to make sense of the findings—or even
rejecting the results: the scientist “may refuse to accept the verdicts given by the data
and ignore them, distort the perception of them, or manipulate them in such a way
that they will appear to confirm the hypothesis” (Kelly, 1961/1969, pp. 110–111).
Some of these options may seem illogical, unprofessional or counterproductive, but
(notwithstanding Huxley and Popper), in practice, scientists can adopt a wide range
of strategies to avoid letting some inconvenient datum spoil an elegant theory. Indeed,
the philosopher Lakatos argued that a naive adherence to falsificationism was not
even logically justifiable. Often, the most rational thing for a scientist to do with
an apparently uncooperative result produced in an otherwise productive research
programme is to ‘quarantine’ (Lakatos, 1970) it as a puzzle to return to later, and

then to, for the time being at least, carry on regardless.
Science as a Process of Knowledge Construction
Kelly posited two models of how science might be imagined to proceed. One he
described as ‘accumulative fragmentalism’, which saw science as analogous to a col-
lective endeavour to complete a vast jigsaw puzzle, where each piece in turn needed
to be found and carefully verified and fitted into its right place, before moving on to
the next piece. This matched a commonly held image (perhaps even caricature) of the
work of science, but Kelly preferred a different description, indeed a ‘philosophical
position’, that he called ‘constructive alternativism’. This perspective
is a constructive one. We understand our world by placing constructions on it. And that is the
way we alter it too. There is no finite end to the alternative constructions we may employ;
only our imagination sets the limits. Still, some constructions serve better than others, and
the task of science is to come up with better and better ones. Moreover, we have some handy
criteria for selecting better ones; at least we think we have, and they, too, are subject to
reconstruction. (Kelly, 1964/1969, p. 125).
In this model, there is no sense that we might soon finish the jigsaw picture of
nature, as an “ultimate correspondence” between our constructions and reality was
“an infinitely long way off” (Kelly, 1961/1969, p. 96). Kelly thought “that reality is
subject to many alternative constructions, some of which may prove more fruitful
than others” and that progress comprised of inventing new constructions that would
seem useful for a while, but would ultimately be found unsatisfactory, and so come
to be replaced.
For Kelly, science was not an inevitable march of progress to a realistically achiev-
able end, but rather a process we could have reasonable confidence was, on the whole,
shifting in “in the right direction” (Kelly, 1961/1969, p. 96). This view again seems
to reflect a contemporary perspective of the nature of science as offering ‘reliable
knowledge’ (Ziman, 1978/1991), if not absolute truth corresponding to an objective
external reality. This then was a constructivist notion of how science proceeds, and
indeed for how people should proceed more generally. A person “develops his ways
of anticipating events by construing—by scratching out his channels of thought”
(Kelly, 1958/1969b). This can therefore offer a perspective for thinking about how
individual learners may slowly modify their constructs within science classes in
response to the experiences provided for them to construe. If nothing else, Kelly’s
insights can be valuable in both warning science teachers to be prepared for students
to sometimes be slow in shifting from their alternative conceptions, but also reassur-
ing them that in time such shifts can be achieved. A student trying to make sense of
the implications of Newton’s first law of motion, or seeking to come to terms with
the immense timescale over which life on earth has evolved, needs time to ‘scratch
out’ new channels of thought.
380 K. S. Taber
The Construct System as a Framework
The importance of considering a person’s constructs as forming a system is that in

a well-integrated system a single component cannot be changed as if in isolation
from the rest of the system. Kelly described the hierarchical system as “a network
of constructs” reflecting the relational model of concepts (Gilbert & Watts, 1983)
that considers each concept to sit in a multi-dimensional net of linked concepts—the
‘content’ of a concept is “the full range of meanings due to its associations within
the wider web or net of concepts” (Taber, 2019, p. 31).3 If our understanding of
one concept changes, this has potential repercussions for all those other concepts
that are linked to it—and so through a ‘conceptual inductive effect’ (Taber, 2015) to
those linked indirectly through those other concepts. The term alternative conceptual
‘framework’ is sometimes used to label those closely related student conceptions
which have been organised into extensive structures based on some key alternative
conception. For example, the common misconception that chemical change is moti-
vated by atoms seeking full shells can be at the core of an extensive network of ideas
(some more canonical, many contrary to scientific principles) about chemical stabil-
ity, chemical reactions, chemical bonding, ionisation energies and so forth (Taber,
2013a).
Kelly used the metaphor of a person building their own ‘maze’, or ‘labyrinth’—
an ongoing building project where the structure was subject to perpetual revision,
but where “the complex interdependent relationships between constructs in the sys-
tem often makes it precarious for the person to revise one construct without tak-
ing into account the disruptive effect upon major segments of the system” (Kelly,
1958/1969b). This seems reminiscent of Khun’s (1996) notion of scientists gener-
ally working within the framework of a particular familiar, indeed encultured, dis-
ciplinary matrix with its associated paradigm channelling thought. However, in this
sense, Kelly’s views better aligned with Popper (1994) who rejected what he called
the ‘myth’ of the framework: that a person’s current commitment need act as a kind
of thought-prison. With Popper, Kelly thought that people build their own mazes
(prisons) and so could ultimately deconstruct them. Kelly did, however, realise that
this might be difficult work—which was where the therapist could hopefully help.
Similarly, in a science classroom, the teacher can support a student in breaking out
of the ‘prison’ of a tenacious conceptual framework that has come to be habitually
used to make sense of a whole class of events—such as identifying a force with the
direction of motion; or considering chemical change to occur so that atoms can fill
their shells with electrons; or assuming that biological species are fixed types. Kelly
did apply his work in education. He described how in working with teachers,
…the teacher’s complaint [about a pupil] was not necessarily something to be verified or
disproved by the facts of the case, but was, rather a construction of events in a way that,
within the limits and constructions of her or his personal construction system, made the most
sense to her or him at the moment. (Kelly, 1958/1969b, p. 76).
So, for example, Kelly found that teachers’ complaints of ‘lazy’ students usually
referred to pupils who needed more support to cope with classroom demands, and
Kelly worked at ‘reorientation’ of the teacher’s perception of the situation as “it

usually happened that there was more to be done with [the teacher] than the child…-
Complaints about motivation told us much more about the complainants than it did
about their pupils” (Kelly, 1958/1969b, p. 77).
A Methodology for PCT
The therapist would, however, need tools, and in particular would need to help the
client make explicit their current ways of construing the world as a first step to
appreciating that other alternative construals could be viable. The parallel with sci-
ence education is clear here, with the recommendations in constructivist literature
that teachers must elicit students’ alternative conceptions to understand students’
current ways of thinking, as part of the process of developing teaching to shift learn-
ers’ thinking towards the scientific models represented in the curriculum (Driver &
Oldham, 1986; Russell & Osborne, 1993).4
From the perspective of educational research, this means that Kelly’s work offers
a system that includes both a theory offering metaphysical commitments and asso-
ciated methodology. Kelly tells us constructs are like this (ontology)—in particular,
that they often act through implicit thought without being open to immediate con-
scious inspection—and this means there are certain challenges in identifying them
(epistemology); and he then proposes an approach to proceed accordingly (method-
ology). Kelly offered two related tools that have since found widespread use: the
construct repertory test (CRT) and the repertory grid (Fransella & Bannister, 1977).
The Construct Repertory Test: The Method of Triads
The basis of Kelly’s CRT, also known as the method of triads, is to provide an activity
where the person is asked to make discriminations (i.e. to construe the world) without
necessarily having to explicitly apply criteria. This means that implicit constructs
may be used, whereas a task that relies on a reflective activity (such as giving a
verbal description) cannot directly tap intuitive thought. Kelly considered that, as
his system concerns bipolar constructs, the simplest approach was to present three
elements to be discriminated and to ask the client “to think of some important way
in which you regard two of them as similar to each other but in contrast to the third”
(Kelly, 1961/1969, p. 106)—in effect, which two fit together best; and which is the
odd one out?
Kelly would prepare a deck of cards for this activity, from which various triads
could be selected for presentation. He would first ask his clients to tell him about
significant people in his life so the cards would have the names or roles of par-
ents, siblings, spouse, boss, colleagues, neighbours or whoever. This version of the
approach is known as the Role CRT. The method of triads therefore elicited some
382 K. S. Taber
of the ways a person made discriminations, and therefore drew upon the constructs
the person used (whether aware of them of not) to interpret the world. A verbal label
could be put at one pole of the elicited construct (‘kind’, ‘hurtful’, ‘loving’, ‘bossy’,
‘cold’, etc.). The implicit pole might be given a label if the person readily offered
one, or might just be an unnamed contrast.
Kelly’s method can be applied widely. The ‘elements’ (as Kelly called what was
presented, such as names of people or roles) need not be about people: indeed, in
published research, objects or images of various kinds have been presented—for
example, the names of museums and art galleries, or planets, or pictures of different
designs of writing pens. An example from science education asked students to make
discriminations among triads of cards showing representations of submicroscopic
structures such as atoms, ions and molecules (Taber, 1994). Of course, in Kelly’s
original work, the elements were selected to be of significance for the client so the
act of making discriminations had ecological validity—it linked to a client’s own
concerns.
In such therapeutic work the practice is ideographic, concerned with the nature
of the individual (Taber, 2013b). Kelly’s method can be used in more nomothetic
research looking to test a population in their response to a common set of elements.
If those being tested have no strong interest in the elements presented then the method
loses some of its essential nature. One precaution to avoid asking for meaningless
discriminations is to precede the presentation of triads by a screening stage. So, for
example, if people were to be presented with triads of the names or images of famous
scientists, the researcher could first go through the pack and ask the study participant
to sort the elements into those they did or did not recognise as scientists. The test
would then proceed with only the scientists recognised by that participant included
in the bespoke deck.
For many purposes, the CRT can suffice as a method for exploring student con-
ceptions. The researcher can gain insights into student thinking by exploring the
choices a person makes and how they describe their constructions. The results of
applying the method can be a grid of the form shown in Fig. 25.1. Such a grid may
have diagnostic value in science teaching if discriminations are made which seem
contrary to conventional science, and it can offer insights into the imaginative and
idiosyncratic thinking of an individual.
The Repertory Grid
The repertory grid moves beyond the CRT. Having elicited labels for personal con-
structs, the participant is asked to then rate each element on each construct on a
numerical (e.g. 5 or 7 point) scale. The outcome of this would be a grid with an entry
in each cell (such as in the hypothetical case shown in Fig. 25.2). The strength of this
Element Vygotsky Piaget Kelly Ausubel Glasersfeld Kuhn Popper …

presented:
Elicited
constructs:
focus on
social
natural
scientist
psychologist
focus on
stability
admits
relativism
Fig. 25.1 The form of the outcome of the construct repertory test
Element Vygotsky Piaget Kelly Ausubel Glasersfeld Kuhn Popper …

presented:
Elicited
constructs:
focus on 7 2 5 4 2 7 2 … focus on
social individual
natural 3 6 6 4 4 7 7 … [no label

scientist given]
psychologist 7 7 7 7 5 1 1 … not
psychologist
focus on 2 4 2 4 5 6 3 … focus on
stability change
admits 2 4 6 4 6 5 1 … denies
relativism relativism
… … … … … … … … … …
Fig. 25.2 The form of the repertory grid
type of data is that it allows a systematic analysis, to reflect aspects of the structure
of a person’s constructs (cf. the organisational corollary, Table 25.1).
The quantitative data generated allows tree diagrams to be constructed similar
to those used in cladistics to show the relationships among different species: these
can both reflect the degrees of perceived similarity among the elements and also the
degrees of similarity among the elicited constructs applied. It is important (given the
apparent precision of numbers) to recognise that any representation of the construct
system produced is a model subject to the limitations of the methodology (Taber,
2013c). Any particular administration of the CRT is sampling from a vast repertoire
of potential triads that could be presented. Moreover, the discriminations made in
relation to a particular triad need not exhaust possible discriminations based upon
384 K. S. Taber
available constructs. Just as the same interview questions could potentially access
different responses from the same person, construct elicitations and ratings of ele-
ments should not be considered definitive. However, the analysis can offer a basis for
identifying significant shifts between administrations potentially due to conceptual
change.
Classroom Application
Whilst the repertory grid is mainly a technique for research or detailed work with
individual clients, the CRT has much potential to be used both in science education
research and teaching. The elicitation can take the form of a research interview
mediated by the use of triads as a focus for discussion—avoiding the formality
of a psychometric test (Taber & Student, 2003). The process of selecting triads
can be used for real-time hypothesis-testing as the researcher seeks to interpret the
participant’s thinking, and PCT offers a complement to approaches such as interview-
about-instances (White & Gunstone, 1992).
There is also potential for the method of triads to be used as a teaching activity
to initiate group discussion among students. Even quite young students can engage
in choosing the ‘odd one out’. Despite the strong links between Kelly’s ideas and
thinking about both the nature of science and students’ science learning, there has
been limited application of CRT to science teaching. Teachers could have multi-
ple packs of ‘elements’ (which might be names/images/symbols for different organ-
isms/habitats/organs/cell types/compounds/circuit components, etc.) which could be
used in classroom starter or review activities. The approach can also be used in con-
junction with other techniques. For example, students producing a revision concept
map of a topic could be given a set of relevant cards and told that at any point where
they feel they have exhausted their ideas they should pause and spend a few min-
utes playing the odd-one-out game (i.e. the method of triads) in pairs. This ‘oblique
strategy’ is likely to help bring other features to mind.
The technique can also be used to encourage creative thinking in science. Despite
imagination being an essential complement to logic in scientific work (Taber, 2011),
this is often not sufficiently emphasised in school science. All scientific discoveries
begin as imagined possibilities that are then empirically tested, and some of the most
significant discoveries have involved imagining possibilities not entertained by sci-
entific peers at that time. It has been suggested that later science learning is supported
by early rich conceptualisation—that is, the ability to think up many possibilities is
more valuable than coming up with canonical ideas (Adbo & Taber, 2014). Kelly’s
triads are intended to explore the manifold nature of a person’s conceptual system,
and so multiple responses are encouraged.
For example, students could be given a pack of elements showing the
names/images of a range of types of animals. How many ways, for example, can the
triad elephant/ant/dolphin, or the triad bat/snail/seahorse, be construed? There are
clearly a great many possibilities. The activity would likely not only engage diverse
biological knowledge (habitat, diet, geographical range, reproduction…), making

it a suitable occasional activity for reviewing prior learning, but would, as well as
revealing alternative conceptions, likely elicit conjectures that were uncertain that
could motivate new learning. Similarly, if students were asked to construe a triad of
elements [sic, elements as the triad elements!]—say, sulphur/magnesium/uranium—
there are a great many potential responses. Too often science is taught as a very
close-ended activity—where there is a right answer, a right way of thinking—which
does not fully reflect the practice of science itself, yet when students are asked to
be imaginative in a context where idiosyncratic responses are not subject to censor,
they can respond with creativity and enthusiasm (Taber, 2016). The method of triads
offers an accessible, flexible and engaging classroom activity, yet underpinned by a
substantive psychological theory.
Notes
1. Because of the norms of the time he was writing, Kelly tended to use the male
pronoun, referring to man, his, him, etc. This seems anachronistic, if not sexist,
to a contemporary reader, and quotations are here updated to be gender neutral.
2. It is sometimes useful to distinguish the conceptualisations of individuals (as
conceptions) with the canonical conceptual structures of academic science (con-
cepts)—then personal constructs relate to conceptions rather than concepts. How-
ever, a concept is empty unless it is applied by someone (and so is their concep-
tion), suggesting that this distinction uses ‘concept’ as a referent for an ideal with
which real conceptions could (in principle) be contrasted (see Taber, 2013c).
3. Although this is certainly not the only way in which concepts may be under-
stood, this conceptualisation seems to underpin (deliberately or inadvertently)
the common use of tools such as concept maps to elicit and represent conceptual
structures.
4. ‘Represented’ in the curriculum, because it is assumed that the target knowl-
edge in school science is a curriculum model which often simplifies the actual
scientific model to provide a realistic target for teaching/learning that offers the
essence of the scientific model—that is, an ‘intellectually honest’ (Bruner, 1960)
simplification.
Further Reading
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1986). Inquiring man: The psychology of personal constructs (3rd
ed.). London: Routledge.
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
386 K. S. Taber
References
Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2014). Developing an understanding of chemistry: A case study of one
Swedish student’s rich conceptualisation for making sense of upper secondary school chem-
istry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1107–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2013.844869.
Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: Two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 127–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2015.1049843.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3),
105–225.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist?. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.
093629.
Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London: Academic
Press.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions:
Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),
The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hilsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Huxley, T. H. (1870). Biogenesis and abiogenesis. In Collected essays (Vol. VIII, Critiques and
Addresses, pp. 229–271).
Kelly, G. (1958/1969a). Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly.
In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly
(pp. 46–65). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, G. (1958/1969b). Man’s construction of his alternatives. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical
psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (pp. 66–93). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, G. (1961/1969). A mathematical approach to psychology. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical
psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (pp. 94–113). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
Kelly, G. (1964/1969). The strategy of psychological research. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical psy-
chology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (pp. 114–132). New York:
Wiley.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I.
Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge:
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system.
Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1959/2002). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Pope, M. L. (1982). Personal construction of formal knowledge. Interchange, 13(4), 3–14.
Pope, M., & Watts, M. (1988). Constructivist goggles: Implications for process in teaching and
learning physics. European Journal of Physics, 9, 101–109.
Popper, K. R. (1989). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (5th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1994). The myth of the framework. In M. A. Notturno (Ed.), The Myth of the
framework: In defence of science and rationality (pp. 33–64). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Russell, T., & Osborne, J. (1993). Constructivist research, curriculum development and practice
in primary classrooms: Reflections on five years of activity in the science processes and con-
cept exploration (SPACE) project. In Paper Presented at the Third International Seminar on
Misconceptions in the Learning of Science and Mathematics. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Shapin, S. (1992). Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making. Public Understand-
ing of Science, 1(1), 27–30.
Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.
Taber, K. S. (1994). Can Kelly’s triads be used to elicit aspects of chemistry students’ concep-
tual frameworks? In Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, Oxford. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001482.htm.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme
into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2011). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the
development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of
science research—Concepts and methodologies (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2013a). A common core to chemical conceptions: learners’ conceptions of chemical
stability, change and bonding. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science
education (pp. 391–418). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2013b). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: An introduction (2nd
ed.). London: Sage.
Taber, K. S. (2013c). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing represen-
tations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research.
Taber, K. S. (2014a). The significance of implicit knowledge in teaching and learning chem-
istry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C4RP00124A.
Taber, K. S. (2014b). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and
development of learners’ ideas. New York: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2015). The role of conceptual integration in understanding and learning chemistry. In
Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 375–394): Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Taber, K. S. (2016). ‘Chemical reactions are like hell because…’: Asking gifted science learners to be
creative in a curriculum context that encourages convergent thinking. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos
& J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 321–349). Rotterdam:
Sense.
Taber, K. S. (2019). The nature of the chemical concept: Constructing chemical knowledge in
teaching and learning. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S., & Student, T. A. (2003). How was it for you?: The dialogue between researcher and
colearner. Westminster Studies in Education, 26(1), 33–44.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. London: MIT Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Ziman, J. (1978/1991). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science.
388 K. S. Taber
ondary schools and a further education college in England. He joined the Faculty of Education at
Cambridge in 1999 to work in initial teacher education. Since 2010 he has mostly worked with
research students, teaching educational research methods and supervising student projects. Keith
was until recently the lead Editor of the Royal Society of Chemistry journal ‘Chemistry Education
Research and Practice’, and is Editor-in-Chief of the book series ‘RSC Advances in Chemistry
Education’. Keith’s main research interests relate to conceptual learning in the sciences, includ-
ing conceptual development and integration. He is interested in how students understand both
scientific concepts and scientific values and processes.
Chapter 26
Knowledge-in-Pieces—Andrea A.
diSessa, David Hammer
Danielle B. Harlow and Julie A. Bianchini
Introduction
In this chapter, we present a perspective on learning that views a conception or

understanding (novice, intermediate, or expert) not as a fully formed whole, but as
a set of small, integrated ideas that are activated in coordination. This conception
of learning was introduced by Andrea diSessa in 1993 as an alternative to one of
the prevailing learning theories in science education at that time, one largely derived
from the philosophy of science, conceptual change (see Posner, Strike, Hewson, &
Gertzog, 1982).
What Is Knowledge-in-Pieces?
To understand what is meant by multiple, small ideas activated in coordination,

imagine a high school marching band changing formations on a football field, a
school of fish swimming together to look like a large fish, a flock of geese flying in
a v-shape, or a marquee or road sign that uses small lights to spell out words. Each
of these items can be thought of as a single object (e.g., the school of fish) or as
individual pieces of the collective whole (e.g., one fish). To make the whole object,
each individual piece must act appropriately. As one example, in the marching band,
each musician must walk to a specific place for the formation to look correct from the
audience’s perspective. As a second example, consider a sign along the road made
up of small lights that read “Slow Down: Construction Ahead.” The word SLOW is
D. B. Harlow (B) · J. A. Bianchini

Department of Education, UC-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490, USA
J. A. Bianchini

390 D. B. Harlow and J. A. Bianchini
made up of independent lights. For this word to appear, all the correct lights must
be activated at the same time and all others must remain off or unactivated (see
Fig. 26.1).
However, if some of the lights are not activated or if some of the lights are on that
should not be, the sign might look like it says something else. For example, just two
extra lights (shown in gray) turn the S into an 8 (see Fig. 26.2).
As we describe in this chapter, the difference between thinking about an idea as
a fully formed concept (analogous to the word SLOW in Fig. 26.1) and thinking
about the smaller pieces that make up the word (the individual lights) has important
implications for how we understand students’ thinking and, thus, how we teach.
Davis, Horn, and Sherin (2013) explained the advantage of adopting a knowledge-
in-pieces theory of learning to inform education:
The crux of the problem is this: A basic tenet of all constructivist theories of learning
maintains that new knowledge is built from existing knowledge (Piaget 1978; Vygotsky
1978), and so learning only takes place at the edges of what is already known. Thus, any
account of learning which has the form delete the old knowledge, replace it with the right
knowledge is no account of learning at all. A useful account of learning must chart a path
from novice to expert that builds on useful aspects of a novice’s knowledge, and gradually
reshapes that knowledge into the expert form. (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994, p. 35)
Fig. 26.1 Sign made up of many small lights reading “SLOW”
Fig. 26.2 Sign made up of many small lights reading “8LOW”

26 Knowledge-in-Pieces—Andrea A. diSessa, David Hammer 391
In sum, the knowledge-in-pieces perspective (KiP, for short) provides a framework for
building accounts of scientific learning that is consistent with the larger, overarching
theory of constructivism.
Chapter Map
This chapter begins by describing the development of a knowledge-in-pieces per-

spective on learning and how it differs from other theories of learning. We follow
with implications of this theory for teaching. We then conclude with a summary of
the main points of the chapter and recommended readings.
The Development of the Knowledge-in-Pieces Perspective
Andrea diSessa: Phenomenological Primitives
In 1993, Andrea diSessa wrote a paper titled “Toward an Epistemology of Physics” in

which he described physics students’ intuitive ideas about how things work, termed
mechanisms, and about which sort of events cause other sorts of events. Prior to
this paper, other researchers of students’ physics ideas (e.g., McCloskey, 1983) had
noticed that students develop ideas about the world that are consistent with their
everyday interactions, but inconsistent with the ideas that physicists have. For exam-
ple, students who observe a box pushed across a floor likely notice that once pushed,
it almost immediately begins to slow down and eventually comes to a stop. Stu-
dents may explain this as a result of the force running out of the box. This idea is
in contrast to that held by physicists, who would explain that the surface (floor) is
pushing against the box in the opposite direction of motion and that this opposing
force is slowing the box down. McCloskey and others of his time viewed students’
understandings as robust and coherent, even if inconsistent with science ideas. These
types of ideas are commonly referred to as misconceptions.
In his paper, diSessa (1993) presented a different idea. He described a cognitive
structure made up of small units he called phenomenological primitives, or p-prims
for short. The two words in the name indicate that the p-prims both are tied to inter-
pretations of experiences in the real world (phenomena) and are minimal elements
of memory. These p-prims are cued by contexts and, often, cued along with other p-
prims. In this paper, diSessa identified several initial p-prims. One is Ohm’s p-prim:
the idea that “more effort implies more result; more resistance implies less result; and
so on” (p. 126). This p-prim can be generalized from the experience of pushing a box
across a rug and many other experiences of moving items across surfaces. Another
p-prim identified in this early paper is force as a mover, or the idea that “pushing
an object from rest causes it to move in the direction of the push” (p. 129). What is
important is that these ideas are neither correct nor incorrect in and of themselves.
Rather, in some contexts, they are appropriate, while in others they are not. This
paper was met with challenges from other scholars (e.g., Chi & Slotta, 1993) who
agreed with many of the ideas presented, but disagreed with the assertion that there
was little underlying structure in intuitive physics ideas.
A second paper by diSessa (diSessa & Sherin, 1998) was published five years
later. In this paper, “What Changes in Conceptual Change?”, diSessa and Bruce
Sherin built on the idea of p-prims to provide a mechanism for learning that chal-
lenged a prevailing theory of that time, conceptual change. To understand diSessa and
Sherin’s contribution, it is first important to understand the conceptual change model
of learning (e.g., Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). The key premise of the
conceptual change model is that misconceptions held by novices can be replaced
by more expert views. This replacement occurs either by understanding new rela-
tionships between concepts, such as that between mass and force (weak conceptual
change); or by changing the understanding of the concepts themselves, such as what
constitutes a force (strong conceptual change). In conceptual change theory, concepts
are described using single words, such as mass, force, and friction.
In a more recent paper, diSessa and Sherin (1998) introduced the idea of coordi-
nation classes, which they described as a knowledge system—as an alternative to the
idea of concepts. In other words, their interpretation of a concept was much fuzzier
than in conceptual change and could not be described in terms of a single word.
Instead, coordination classes consist of different types of cognitive elements and
create a system of strategies for gaining information from the world. Some of these
strategies include narrowing attention and selecting and combining information to
determine what is observed. These were called readout strategies. Other cognitive
elements relate to reasoning, connecting new observations with other information.
This second type of cognitive element makes up the causal net. According to diSessa
and Sherin, readout strategies and the causal net evolve together as a student learns.
David Hammer: Resources
David Hammer (2004) continued this thread of thinking about ideas as knowledge-
in-pieces, which he referred to as a manifold ontology. Manifold means “many parts”
and ontology, in this case, means “understandings of what sorts of entities that ‘exist’
in minds” (p. 1). Like diSessa (1993), Hammer described this view as an alternative
to the prevailing ideas of the time—that students have conceptions that must be
replaced and that cognitive dissonance and accommodation, derived from Piaget,
must take place for learning to occur. In conceptual change, the assumption is that
students must become dissatisfied with existing (incorrect) conceptions, experience
conflict (cognitive dissonance), and then find a new conception that resolves that
conflict. Hammer argued that this last step could not occur if concepts were assumed
to be cognitive structures because the students, using existing conceptual structures to
process the new information, would not necessarily see their way to a new conception.
Like diSessa, Hammer also proposed the existence of small cognitive units. However,
unlike diSessa, he did not hypothesize about their specific nature and used the term
resources rather than p-prims for these small constituent cognitive units.
As did diSessa (1993), Hammer (2004) first emphasized that resources are neither
correct nor incorrect in and of themselves. Rather, the usefulness of the resources
depends on the situation. Secondly, he noted that they are context-dependent, mean-
ing that resources that are activated in one context may not be activated in another.
Hammer also expanded the idea of resources to include a class of resources he called
epistemological resources. These resources help explain how students approach
learning—and likely how teachers approach teaching. These resources include ideas
such as knowledge as propagated stuff, knowledge as fabricated stuff, and so on. Like
the physics resources that students draw on to make causal inferences about how the
world works, students may activate different epistemological resources in different
contexts. This accounts for the observation that the same student may think that
knowledge is invented in some contexts but that knowledge comes from authority in
other instances.
Hammer and colleagues (Hammer, Elby, Scherr, & Redish, 2005) emphasized
the context-dependent nature of resources in a paper on knowledge transfer; the
researchers examined a student they called Sherry. During a class discussion, when
asked how big a mirror needed to be to see her whole body, Sherry stated that
the mirror must be as tall as she was, defending this idea against classmates who
claimed that a mirror needed to only be half as tall as the individual. The following
week, Sherry revealed to the class that she had a mirror at home that was half her
height and in which she could see her whole body. Clearly, Sherry had the (daily)
experience with mirrors that would have allowed her to correctly state that a mirror
half her height would allow her to see her entire body. And, at home, she did know
this. But in the class discussion, she drew on some other resources to reason a full-
length mirror was needed. The example of Sherry highlights how knowing what
students know is insufficient for predicting whether they will be able to activate and
apply the appropriate ideas in any given context, explaining the contextual nature
of knowledge. Sherry’s experience clearly exemplifies that students may have ideas
that they activate and use in one context and not in others. The knowledge-in-pieces
perspective on learning suggests that this is likely to happen in science classrooms
all the time, even when it is not as obvious as Sherry’s example.
David Hammer and Tiffany-Rose Sikorski: Using

Knowledge-in-Pieces to Inform Learning Progressions
Whether one calls these small cognitive elements p-prims, resources, or something
else, these knowledge-in-pieces perspectives highlight the complexity and context-
dependent nature of students’ science ideas. In 2015, David Hammer and Tiffany-
Rose Sikorski encouraged researchers to embrace this complexity and context-
dependency in their efforts to construct learning progression frameworks. A learning
progression is a description of student thinking about an important, disciplinary-
specific idea that increases in coherence and sophistication over time (National
Research Council, 2007); it is considered an integral learning construct in the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Collectively, the
different levels of a learning progression describe the conceptual pathways students
are likely to follow in their progression toward mastery of a topic. It is anchored at
the lower end by what we know about the concepts and reasoning of young chil-
dren entering school, and at the upper end, by what disciplinary experts identify as
appropriate scientific knowledge and practices. A learning progression framework
is grounded in both the disciplinary knowledge of the field and research on student
learning.
Hammer and Sikorski (2015) argued that existing learning progression frame-
works are too simplistic: Rather than embrace the multiplicity of students’ ideas and
identify numerous possible pathways, most describe a single, levels-based sequence
or present a small number of alternative sequences. More specifically, they noted that
students’ efforts to achieve coherence in their ideas can differ dramatically from each
other and from scientifically accepted understandings; the myriad ideas that students
can decide to pursue, assess, and refine are not adequately captured in most learning
progression frameworks. Hammer and Sikorski also noted that, when researchers
aggregate student data to construct a learning progression, they tend to dismiss vari-
ations in students’ ideas as conceptually insignificant noise rather than to incorporate
the idiosyncratic particularities of each classroom into their frameworks. In short,
they recommended researchers construct learning progressions that more closely
attend to students’ prior ideas and experiences, how each student chooses to engage
(or not) with the learning experience and, thus, the idiosyncrasies of classroom con-
texts. In the following section, we further explore how the knowledge-in-pieces
perspective on student learning intersects with the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013),
in particular, how it helps to inform reform-based science teaching.
Connections Between the Knowledge-in-Pieces Perspective

and Reform-Based Science Teaching
As introduced above, understanding learning through a knowledge-in-pieces lens

leads to particular ideas about students and how best to teach them. A key difference
between viewing students’ ideas as full conceptions and viewing their ideas as small
cognitive pieces that are activated in particular contexts is how teachers work with
students’ ideas that differ from accepted scientific knowledge. Viewing ideas as
fully formed conceptions leads to the assumption that students have fully formed
incorrect ideas, often called misconceptions, that must be ferreted out and replaced.
Viewing ideas as p-prims or resources, in contrast, encourages teachers to value rather
than dismiss students’ ideas, working with students to build from their existing ideas
toward accepted scientific understanding. It also encourages teachers to help students
learn to apply their ideas in appropriate contexts—to learn the difference between
appropriate and inappropriate contexts for a given p-prim or resource.
Current policy documents, including the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013), expect
that all students will develop deep understandings of a few key ideas, called Disci-
plinary Core Ideas, in four domains: Physical Science, Life Science, Earth and Space
Sciences, and Engineering. Further, students are expected to do so by engaging in
questions and phenomena that relate to concepts that cross disciplinary boundaries
using the practices of science and engineering.
Below, we begin with a vignette of what using a knowledge-in-pieces perspec-
tive to inform reform-based teaching looks like. We then provide four specific
recommendations for teachers.
Ms. Carter and the Teaching of Magnetism
Ms. Carter, a fourth-grade teacher, serves as an example of how a knowledge-in-

pieces perspective on student learning can be used to inform instruction. Ms. Carter
began her unit on magnetism by asking her students to check to see if a nail was
attracted to a paperclip (it was not). Students then rubbed the nail with a magnet and
tested whether it was able to pick up other paperclips (it was). Next, she had students
draw their ideas about what was going on inside the nail in order for it to behave like
a magnet. Her students shared their ideas with a partner. Finally, Ms. Carter shared
some specific student ideas with the whole class.
Ms. Carter: … I want to tell you about what Julia said. She said, “When you’re
rubbing it, then magnetic dust is on the outside of the nail and that’s
giving it that temporary magnetism and then that rubs off and that’s
why it goes away.” Sean, however, has a different idea—this is pretty
interesting. I wanted to share it with the class.
[Pause]
Ms. Carter: All right, [Sean], tell us about your drawing.
Sean: I think there’s like little pieces of steel inside the nail and when you rub
the magnet against it, the steel pieces get really active and they start
to bounce around and then they get like a magnet and when you stick
them together they stick and then sooner or later they like run around,
so they, so they slow down and they’ll stop and drop.
Ms. Carter was surprised by Julia and Sean’s responses. She had expected her stu-
dents to express a common, scientifically incorrect idea that she herself and her fellow
teachers had expressed when conducting this same set of activities during a profes-
sional development program. More specifically, she had expected her students to
think that two different types of charges separated into the two poles of a magnetized
nail and that these two different types of charges mixed together in a non-magnetized
nail. She knew, from her professional development, how to respond to the idea that
charges mixed and separated: She had planned to implement an activity that would
result in evidence that challenged this particular idea. However, as stated above, her
students’ ideas were different from what she had expected.
Nevertheless, as suggested by looking at learning through a knowledge-in-pieces
lens, Ms. Carter recognized that there were pieces of the children’s ideas that were
valuable to act on. She recognized that one of her students, Julia, had proposed that
something on the surface of the nail was changing and that another student, Sean,
had proposed that something inside the nail was changing. Rather than dismiss these
ideas as incorrect and attempt to replace them with canonical science knowledge,
she developed an activity that tested just these small parts of a larger idea. She had
students rub the “dust” off the surface of the nail and test whether that changed the
magnetic properties. The students discovered that even after rubbing the dust off
the nail, it still behaved as a magnet and concluded that something inside the nail
changed when it was rubbed with a magnet. Her efforts to build on her students’
ideas resulted in a powerful learning opportunity (for a more complete description
see Harlow, 2010).
Instructional Idea 1
Teachers must recognize that students may use ideas to construct responses
that are scientifically inaccurate, but useful in their everyday life (e.g., closer is
more, earth is flat). As illustrated in the above vignette, teachers should recognize
that pieces of knowledge (we refer to them as resources for the remainder of this
section) are neither correct nor incorrect in and of themselves, but are either accessed
appropriately or inappropriately depending on the context. A classic example is the
idea that ‘closer is more’: the idea that the closer one is to a source, the stronger its
influence is. For example, the closer one is to a heat source, such as a candle or fire,
the stronger the heat. This is a reasonable idea to draw on when a child decides to stay
away from a fireplace to avoid being too hot. However, many students incorrectly
draw on this idea to explain why it is warmer in the summer than in the winter: They
think that the distance between the sun, a source of heat, and the earth varies between
seasons and, thus, explains the difference in temperature between summer and winter.
In this case, rather than attempt to replace students’ concept of seasons caused by
distance, science teachers can help students understand that they are applying a useful
resource in an inappropriate context.
Teachers must recognize students’ initial ideas as useful and productive for
building understanding that is consistent with canonical knowledge. Again, as
illustrated by the vignette, perhaps the most important implication of a knowledge-
in-pieces perspective for science teaching is that students’ ideas are useful and pro-
ductive—not only for interacting in everyday life, but for developing ideas that are
consistent with canonical science knowledge. That is, eliciting and embracing stu-
dents’ ideas do not mean sacrificing the development of scientific knowledge, even
when students’ initial ideas do not match with scientists’ ideas. Starting with stu-
dents’ existing ideas, helping them to value their ideas, and then building on them
through engaging in the practices of science and engineering can lead to sophisticated
ideas that are consistent with canonical science ideas. Below we describe two related
strategies teachers must use to help their students build on their existing knowledge:
learning what their students’ ideas actually are and (re)designing their instruction to
build on these ideas.
Teachers must elicit students’ existing ideas through a variety of means, includ-
ing formative assessments, predictions, and modeling. To effectively build on
students’ ideas requires teachers to know what resources they bring to bear in a
given context. The stage of eliciting students’ ideas is critical to the learning process,
not only so that teachers know which ideas or resources their students activate, but
so that the students themselves articulate and own these ideas. One method of elic-
iting students’ ideas is to have them make a prediction about a phenomenon and to
explain their reasoning. For example, a question that asks if a container full of ice
weighs more, less, or the same after melting (adapted from Keeley, Eberle, & Farrin,
2005) elicits students’ initial ideas about mass, heat, and changes of state. Another
effective method of eliciting students’ ideas is to have them propose an initial model
of the unseen mechanisms that drive a phenomenon. For example, students might be
asked to draw all the forces on a kicked soccer ball after the ball has left the foot
(from Goldberg, Robinson, & Otero, 2007). This modeling activity elicits students’
existing ideas about forces, energy, gravity, and motion.
The recommendation that teachers elicit students’ ideas each time they introduce a
new unit or topic implies another challenge—that instruction must be individualized
for each and every student. In classrooms of 30 or more students, such individu-
alized instruction may seem beyond teachers’ reach. However, individual student
differences do not mean that teaching groups of students is impossible. Research on
students’ ideas in science demonstrates that there is often a handful of common ways
that students interpret a given phenomenon. Further, teachers can use the various ideas
articulated by students during instruction. Students can be prompted to examine and
critique each other’s ideas—to collectively determine which ideas are supported by
evidence and which ones are not. Such an activity aligns with the practices of con-
structing explanations and engaging in argument from evidence articulated by the
NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
Teachers must design their instruction, often in the moment, around their stu-
dents’ ideas. Once teachers are aware of students’ ideas, they must design instruction
that values these ideas as productive and moves students toward more sophisticated
understandings. Teaching science in this way is difficult because teachers cannot
assume passive transmission of knowledge. The knowledge-in-pieces perspective
helps teachers to understand why treating students’ ideas as large concepts that can
be simply replaced through lectures or explanations is likely to be problematic. The
complexity of knowledge means that, even if students are able to correctly repeat
the expected canonical response, they may not actually understand the idea; they are
instead repeating memorized responses. As the knowledge-in-pieces perspective on
learning helps us understand, students do not passively learn ideas that teachers tell
them. Rather, it is vital that students grapple with the ideas they hold and test these
ideas against real phenomena to build toward accepted scientific understanding.
Campbell, Schwarz, and Windschitl (2016) offered suggestions for strategies to
help teachers engage their students in learning science in ways that allow them to
grapple with their prior ideas and to develop science knowledge consistent with the
new standards. These suggestions included the following:
• Include some level of uncertainty in students’ science activities rather than using
them to confirm authoritative science ideas.
• Engage students in using their own ideas and experiences to construct and revise
explanations of phenomena or to solve problems.
• Model out loud how a scientist reasons about ideas (comparing ideas, chang-
ing them in response to evidence). Invite students in small groups to rehearse
conversations about evidence and explanations.
• Emphasize collective sense-making as an important goal (Carlone & Smithenry

2014). Ask students or student groups who have contrary explanations to share
their thinking in whole-class settings (p. 70).
All of the above strategies ask teachers to use the varied and complex ideas that
students bring to a classroom while engaging them in the practices of science and
engineering described in the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013) in order to develop
understandings of disciplinary core ideas.
Summary
In brief, teachers should view the ideas discussed here as a model of student learning
that can be used to understand students’ developing ideas. The knowledge-in-pieces
perspective was originally proposed to explain concept development in physics and
has been extended for use in understanding concept development in other science
disciplines, science practices, students’ understanding of what counts as knowledge
(epistemological resources), and teaching (pedagogical resources). This perspective
also resonates with other constructivist theories of learning (see the other chapters
in Sect. IV of this volume).
In this chapter, we described the development of a knowledge-in-pieces perspec-
tive on learning and its application to reform-based science instruction.
• A knowledge-in-pieces perspective views ideas as composed of small cognitive
units, for example, p-prims or resources, that students activate in concert in par-
ticular contexts. These cognitive units are neither correct nor incorrect in and of
themselves.
• A knowledge-in-pieces perspective can be understood as a response to conceptual
change theory and other theories of learning that conceptualize ideas as large
pieces or concepts that must be replaced.
• Although a knowledge-in-pieces perspective was first developed in the 1990 s, it
resonates with ideas put forth in the recent NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013), in
particular, the ideas of learning progressions and effective science instruction.
• A knowledge-in-pieces perspective has clear implications for reform-based sci-
ence instruction. It suggests that teachers value rather than dismiss students’
ideas—that they build from students’ existing ideas toward accepted scientific
understandings.
For those interested in learning more about a knowledge-in-pieces perspective of learning, we

recommend reading volume 10, number 2/3 of Cognition and Instruction. This issue is where
the original paper by diSessa was published as well as challenges to his ideas and diSessa’s
responses to these challenges. We also recommend a more recent article written by Campbell
et al. (2016), which clearly describes the connection between a knowledge-in-pieces perspective
on learning and its implications for reform-based science instruction.
References
Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary
stepping-stones toward making sense of the world. Science and Children, 53(7), 28–33.
Carlone, H., & Smithenry, D. (2014). Creating a “We” culture: Strategies to ensure all students
connect with science. Science and Children, 52(3), 66–71.
Chi, M. T., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and
Instruction, 10(2–3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649011.
Davis, P. R., Horn, M. S., & Sherin, B. L. (2013). The right kind of wrong: A “knowledge in pieces”
approach to science learning in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 31–46. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/cura.12005.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3),
105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal
of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201002.
Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & Otero, V. (2007). Physics and everyday thinking. Armonk, NY: It’s
About Time.
Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 3: Manifold cognitive resources.
In The Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, Course CLVI. Italian Physical
Society.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J.
P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hammer, D., & Sikorski, T. R. (2015). Implications of complexity for research on learning
progressions. Science Education, 99(3), 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21165.
Harlow, D. B. (2010). Structures and improvisation in inquiry-based instruction: A teacher’s adap-
tation of a model of magnetism activity. Science Education, 94(1), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sce.20348.
Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Probing students’ ideas in science (Vol. 1). Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental
models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Piaget, J. (1978). Behavior and evolution. New York, NY: Random House.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207.
Smith, J. P., III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist
analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Danielle B. Harlow is a professor of science education at the University of California, Santa Bar-
bara (UCSB). Her research investigates elementary school students’ understanding of science and
engineering and elementary school teachers’ ideas about how to teach science and engineering in
ways that engage students in authentic practices of these disciplines. Prior to moving to UCSB,
she earned a doctorate in science education from the University of Colorado at Boulder and served
in the Peace Corps as a physics teacher.
Julie A. Bianchini is a professor of science education at the University of California, Santa Bar-
bara (UCSB). Her research investigates prospective, beginning, and experienced teachers’ efforts
to learn to teach science in equitable ways. Her recent Noyce Teacher Scholarship Programs focus
on ways to support preservice mathematics and science teachers in learning to teach the Common
Core in Mathematics and the Next Generation Science Standards to English learners. She serves
as Faculty Director of UCSB’s CalTeach/Science and Mathematics Initiative and as chair of her
department.
Part V
Intellectually-Oriented and Skill-Based
Theories
Chapter 27
Multiple Intelligences Theory—Howard
Gardner
Bulent Cavas and Pinar Cavas
An intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create

products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings.
Howard Gardner—Frames of Mind (1983).
Introduction
Approaches to education are closely related to how the learning is perceived by

people who are in charge of educational programs. Yet, educational researchers
have not yet fully explored the dynamics that result in learning in individuals. The
concept of learning has dynamic and unique characteristics, which is in keeping with
its complexity and can change according to the nature of each individual. Multiple
intelligences (MI) theory emerges in this perspective as one of the best theories in
solving problems that human beings encounter in the learning process.
In this chapter, MI theory is introduced along with its recent modifications. The
educational implications of the MI theory are presented next and supported by the
science education research on the theory. The uses of MI theory in science education
are provided with examples, and suggestions for implementation of MI theory are
given. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion on the critique of the theory and
the modifications to the theory in response to the critique.
B. Cavas (B)
Buca Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey
P. Cavas
Faculty of Education, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

406 B. Cavas and P. Cavas
Multiple Intelligences Theory
Multiple intelligences theory was put forward by Professor Howard Earl Gardner in
the late 1970s. Professor Gardner is a psychologist in the department of Cognition
and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is recognized for his
studies on the conception of learning from the perspective of Multiple Intelligences
theory.
Howard Earl Gardner is an American developmental psychologist born on July
11, 1943 in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He defined himself as “a studious child” who
loved to read and play the piano, and later he became a gifted pianist. Gardner took
his bachelor’s degree in social relations in 1965 and a doctoral degree in develop-
mental psychology in 1971 from Harvard University. Howard Gardner is the John
H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard
Graduate School of Education and also an adjunct professor of psychology at Har-
vard University. Gardner currently serves as the Chairman of Steering Committee
for Harvard Project Zero since 1995 and senior director of this project since 2000.
He was inspired by the works of Piaget, Erikson, Riesman, and Bruner to investigate
human nature and human cognition. In 1983, he developed the theory of multiple
intelligences which has influenced many fields including education.
The concept of intelligence has continued to change throughout the years. Until
1980s, cognitive psychologists defined intelligence as the ability to solve problems
or answer items on standard IQ tests. The works of well-known psychologists in
the early 1900s such as Binet and Spearman in the area of intelligence served as a
basis for developing more than 70 IQ tests. These IQ tests were generally designed
to reveal the students’ levels of knowledge in specific areas like mathematics or
language and assumed that a score of 100 would indicate an average intelligence.
Yet, in the late 1970s, Howard Gardner proposed the theory of multiple intelligences
(hereafter referred to as MI), and this theory has impacted many important fields
especially psychology and education.
In 1983, Gardner wrote a book entitled Frames of Mind where he put forth a
new understanding of the construct of intelligence. The book has been translated
into more than 20 languages, and the tenet of MI has been spreading around the
world. In his book, Gardner rejected and changed the accepted idea that there is a
single intelligence measured objectively and reported by a single score. The theory
gained importance due to its emphasis on diverse intelligences, which had not been
measured by standardized tests like IQ tests or tests applied in schools. This approach
was revolutionary considering that the cognitive scientists heavily studied the mind
from the perspective of traditional conceptions of intelligence formulated in the early
twentieth century, and based on the studies of cognitively oriented psychologists like
Jean Piaget (Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, & Gardner, 2011).
Gardner examined some research conducted in biology, psychology, anthropol-
ogy, and neurology to identify the nature of intelligence. Then, he claimed that each
person has a number of different intellectual capacities and tendencies in different
areas and as such each individual has several types of intelligences. Based on his
27 Multiple Intelligences Theory—Howard Gardner 407
examination, he formulated key criteria including eight factors that had to be met to
be classified as a full-fledged intelligence. These factors are given below:
1. Potential isolation by brain damage;
2. The existence of savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals;
3. A distinctive developmental history and a definable set of experts’ “end-state”
performances;
4. An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility;
5. Support from psychometric findings;
6. Support from experimental psychological tasks;
7. An identifiable core operation or set of operations;
8. Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system (Hoerr, 2000).
Based on these factors, Gardner (1999a) defined intelligence as “a biopsychologi-
cal potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
problems or create products that add value in a culture” (p. 34). This definition is
very important in understanding students’ abilities and potentials. In accordance with
this definition, intelligence cannot be seen or counted since environmental factors,
cultural values, education, and personal efforts can affect intelligence. The intelli-
gences individuals possess define the ways for people in creating products or solving
problems in relation to all the factors they experience (Gardner, 1993).
Howard Gardner identified seven intelligences in his studies in psychology,
human cognition, and human potential. These intelligences were named by Gard-
ner as linguistic intelligence, logical–mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence,
bodily−kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and
intrapersonal intelligence. Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use words effec-
tively, whether orally or in writing. It involves the mastery of spoken and written lan-
guage to express oneself or remember things. Logical–mathematical intelligence
is the capacity to use numbers effectively, detect patterns, think logically, reason
deductively, and carry out mathematical operations. These two kinds of intelligences
are typically the abilities that are expected by the traditional school environments to
support and assess most IQ measures or tests of achievement. Spatial intelligence is
the ability to perceive the visual–spatial world accurately and involves sensitivity to
color, line, shape, form, space, and the potential for recognizing and manipulating the
patterns of spaces. Bodily−Kinesthetic intelligence includes an expertise in using
one’s whole body or parts of the body to express ideas and feelings; and solve prob-
lems or create products. Musical intelligence is the capacity to perceive, discriminate,
transform, and express musical forms, and use them for performance or composition.
Interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to perceive and make distinctions in the
moods, intentions, motivations, and feelings of other people. The last intelligence is
the intrapersonal intelligence, and this intelligence is about self-knowledge and the
ability to act adaptively on the basis of that knowledge.
According to Gardner (1991):
we are all able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial
representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an
understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves. Where individuals
differ is in the strength of these intelligences - the so-called profile of intelligences -and in
the ways in which such intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks,
solve diverse problems, and progress in various domains (p. 12).
In the mid-1990s, Gardner proposed that one more intelligence, naturalistic intel-
ligence, met the criteria for identification as an intelligence as well. Naturalistic
intelligence involves high expertise in recognition and classification of the numer-
ous species—the flora and fauna—of the environment. More recently, Gardner has
added an additional intelligence, the existential intelligence. He defines this intel-
ligence as “the capacity to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches of the
cosmos—the infinite and the infinitesimal—and the related capacity to locate oneself
with respect to such existential features of the human condition as the significance
of life, the meaning of death, the ultimate fate of the physical and the psychological
worlds, and such profound experiences as love of another person or total immersion
in a work of art” (Gardner, 1999a, p. 60).
The intelligences, according to Gardner (2006), are demonstrated at different
aptitudes in different individuals. For example, a person might possess high spatial
intelligence but may not necessarily be good at naturalistic intelligence. This does not
necessarily mean that the person has only spatial intelligence, but we all demonstrate
some intelligence better than others due to our experiences with the world around
us or genetic factors. The acceptance of this theory also conflicts with the deeply
rooted assumptions in education. Gardner (2011) explains that multiple intelligences
theory “challenges an educational system that assumes that everyone can learn the
same materials in the same way and that a uniform, universal measure suffices to test
student learning” (p. 26).
Educational Implications
The book, Frames of Mind, has a deeper impact on educational communities than
it has on psychology (Gardner, 2011). The change in the conception of intelligence
challenged the way education scholars conceive learning. However, Gardner is a
psychologist and does not provide an educational model. This led to many educators
misinterpreting the intelligences as learning styles. The MI theory assumed that the
intelligences operate independently of one another, and a teaching method might
support much intelligence at different levels. The misunderstanding was realized
when educators often thought that if students do not understand a concept using a
particular teaching method, the teacher is expected to change it to address a different
intelligence. In fact, this is mainly changing the learning style and not the intelligence.
Therefore, Gardner clarified later that intelligence is not the same as learning style.
While learning style is the different ways through which a student approaches a
learning task, intelligence is defined as a capacity people have with different strengths.
The MI theory found its way through educational policies in a variety of ways. For
example, The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
and its “teaching the whole child” initiative shed a light on the multiple intelli-
gences theory and interdisciplinary teaching support. ASCD clearly indicates that
students having this support can be fully engaged and challenged academically (Mar-
tin, Bishop, Ciotto, & Gagnon, 2014). Based on this view, the multiple intelligences
theory has been implemented in many different countries’ curricula in teaching and
learning of science as key initiatives. Curricula were renewed in many countries to
adapt to the new ways of thinking (e.g., Science education curriculum for elemen-
tary grades in 2003; Schools such as EXPO Elementary School in Minnesota and
Key Learning Community in Indiana; Schwert, 2004). The reason for including MI
theory in curricula is the belief that such an approach would enhance the individual
strengths of every child (Campbell & Campbell, 1999). Educational research also
supported this position. It has been reported that academic achievement, motivation,
and meaningful learning have increased significantly in the classrooms where most
of the researches apply MI theory.
Science Education Researches on the Effectiveness

of Multiple Intelligences Theory
In MI theory, it is stated that each student’s undiscovered hidden powers and potentials
can be revealed, and MI teaching strategies and these latent powers can be revealed in
appropriate forms. It is understood from the quality and quantity of the work done in
this field that MI theory can be used very effectively especially in science education.
Multiple intelligences theory has thus been used effectively in science teaching
and learning environments in addition to the other disciplines such as physical edu-
cation and music education. The literature review shows how multiple intelligences
theory has been used to improve the students’ cognitive skills, in terms of understand-
ing, remembering, applying and expanding knowledge; to explore the relationships
among multiple intelligences, between music intelligence and mathematical intelli-
gence; to see effects on the teaching–learning process within the technology lessons;
to develop students’ academic achievement in science courses; and finally to assist
the memory as an aid in remembering.
Before implementing MI theory in science education, it is better to understand its
impact on other fields such as physical and music education. Both fields are directly
connected with science education. For example, the studies conducted by Martin
and McKenzie (2013) and Blumenfield-Jones (2009) have shown that the MI theory-
based activities can be effective in teaching sports, dance, and tennis units which
can be adapted and applied in teaching science. In addition to physical education
mentioned above, music provides new opportunities in the science concepts and
discourses (Gardner, 1999a). The use of effective music as an addition to the course
implementation supports students’ memory (Crowther, Williamson, Buckland, &
Cunningham, 2013) and makes recall easy (Schulkind, 2009).
Cognitive skills connected with recognizing, remembering, applying, and building

new knowledge from previous knowledges can be easily improved by the implemen-
tation of multiple intelligences theory. For example, Lai and Yap (2016) worked
on the assessment of cognitive skills when multiple intelligences theory was imple-
mented in the teaching and learning of chemistry at university level. The researchers
implemented longitudinal research method in order to examine differences in stu-
dents’ cognitive skills. The findings of their study were really useful in understanding
the effect of multiple intelligences theory on students’ cognitive skills. They found
out that the students’ multiple intelligences profile showed a shift from intraper-
sonal dominance in the previous years, 2011–2013 to interpersonal, kinaesthetic,
and naturalistic intelligences in subsequent years, 2014–2015.
Administrators, teachers, and families are crucial stakeholders at all educational
levels. If they are properly integrated and coordinated in the educational system, the
teaching and learning would be enhanced. A study (Richards, 2016) which explored
the position of administrators, teachers, and parents on applying the multiple intel-
ligences theory (MI) in the early childhood curriculum showed that administrators
would not play important roles in this process even when they indicated that they were
aware of the effectiveness of the multiple intelligences theory. The teachers, in addi-
tion, mentioned that the teaching was better, and it was exciting and fun. The teachers
also suggested that more time is needed for effective planning and implementation
of multiple intelligences theory. The families also held multiple intelligences theory-
based teaching and learning as a “great concept”. The study endorses MI integration,
and differentiated instruction posits that MI integration allows the diverse learners
to display how they are using their “smarts”. It enhances and builds on children’s
strengths and love for learning.
Nowadays, science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education is
very popular all over the world. STEM educators argue that rather than trying to
teach these different but interrelated four disciplines as separate subjects, STEM
educators try to integrate them into a cohesive learning paradigm based on real-world
applications (Hom, 2014). In this framework, a study was conducted to explore how
Gardner’s MI theory would be in the teaching–learning process within the technology
lessons. The study mainly focussed on the MI theory as an explanation variable of the
emotional response within the different educational parts in the Spanish technology
curriculum. The study postulated that a different intelligence style (IS) will orient
the student to a vision of the engineering and technology. The participants of this
study consisted of 135 students from Compulsory Secondary Education level and
reported their predominant IS and on the emotions that aroused them. The findings
of this study revealed that only those with a logic–arithmetic or environmental IS
were not affected by the syllabus units. The researchers added that best teaching and
learning practices are required for encouraging further engineering studies (Martín,
Gragera, Dávila-Acedo, & Mellado, 2017).
Another STEM-based study, conducted to understand the relationship of people’s
music and math ability, explored relationships among multiple intelligences, between
music intelligence and mathematical intelligence, between musical intelligence and
temporal–spatial reasoning, and among the scores of music theory, mathematical
intelligence, and temporal–spatial reasoning. The study consisted of 83 elementary

school students from 3rd and 5th grades. The results of the study revealed that there
is a significant moderate positive correlation among the eight intelligences; musical
intelligence has a moderate correlation with mathematical intelligence, but that may
be due to temporal–spatial reasoning ability; among music theory, mathematical
intelligence, and temporal–spatial reasoning, there are significantly low correlations,
and the relationship between the scores of music theory and mathematical intelligence
may be due to temporal–spatial reasoning abilities. Belonging to the music class at
school can best predict achievement in music theory (Junchun, 2015).
Abdi, Laei, and Ahmadyan (2013) investigated the effects of MI theory as teaching
strategy on the students’ academic achievement in science courses. The researchers
worked with 40 students from 5th-grade elementary schools. In the study, data from
an experimental group where MI teaching strategy used is compared with data from a
control group that was traditionally instructed. At the end of eight weeks, the results
showed that students who were instructed through a teaching strategy based on MI
achieved higher scores than the ones which were instructed through the traditional
approach. This situation provides important outcomes in support of the claim that
MI-based teaching strategy is an effective way to increase students’ achievements in
science courses.
Goodnough (2001) presents a case study’s results based on the data collected
from a teacher using action research. In the study, the MI theory was used to make
decisions on the learning outcomes that are focused on the space and astronomy unit.
The results showed that by using the MI theory in teaching and learning environment,
the teacher could provide better student-centered opportunities to students according
to their learning needs. The author also highlighted that MI theory can provide
unique science activities to make science accessible to students and to assist them in
achieving high levels of scientific literacy.
In the study conducted by Ozdermir, Güneysu, and Tekkaya (2006), MI-based
teaching and traditional teaching method were compared. In the study, 4th-grade
students were selected as the target group and “diversity of living things” was used
as a science topic. The experimental group was instructed through multiple intel-
ligence strategies, while the control group employed traditional methods. As data
collection tools, they used Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test (DLTCT) and
the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences (TIMI). The results showed that MI-
based instruction produced significantly greater achievement in the understanding of
diversity of living things concepts and on students’ retention of knowledge.
Suprapto, Liu and Ku (2017) analyzed some empirical studies in multiple intel-
ligence, the interpretive perspective, MI in critical view, and the own-personal view
about MI theory. The authors depict the lesson from implementation of the theory in
school (Taiwan) in terms of compliance with the criteria of intelligence by Howard
Gardner and how MI theory in science classrooms could be implemented. The study
stated that the implementation of multiple intelligence in the science classroom inte-
grates the existence of science, technology and/or engineering, mathematics (STEM),
and arts.
The studies mentioned above show that MI theory provides very important benefits
in science education. However, in order to use MI theory effectively and efficiently in
science learning and teaching environments, the recommendations given at the end
of this chapter require careful consideration. The important aspects that a science
teacher should apply in the classroom environment for a better implementation of
MI theory are given below.
The Classroom Implementation of Multiple Intelligences

Theory
Although MI theory is a psychology-based theory, it makes greatest contribution to

education by proposing that educational environments need to rearrange taking into
consideration students’ needs and capabilities. The MI theory does not provide any
strong or the best teaching methods, but it expects that teachers should expand their
repertoire of teaching techniques, tools, and strategies, and develop their teaching
skills. One of the most important goals in educational research is to identify factors
that provide long-lasting and meaningful learning for students. Once these factors
are identified, it is expected that higher levels of learning will be achieved by making
necessary changes in classroom settings. In many researches, it has been reported
that implementing MI theory in the classrooms have significantly increased students’
motivation, academic achievement, attitudes, and support meaningful learning.
Although MI theory is very crucial to improve students’ knowledge and skills,
there are some challenges implementing MI theory effectively in the classroom.
One of the biggest challenges for teachers having great number of students in the
classroom is knowing and implementing the correct educational strategy to provide
effective instruction to all students with diverse intelligences. Enhancing students
learning in an equally effective manner to reach the desired learning outcome is
great challenge for teachers all over the world. The teaching and learning environ-
ments and related activities for the students with diverse intelligence may be easily
organized if the teachers have enough knowledge and experiences on the MI theory.
The teachers should take a step to this kind of teaching and learning environments
knowing their students’ MI characteristics and their preferred learning styles. With
this important information about their students, the teachers can decide how to use
effective instruction to reach defined goals in the curriculum. Using the advantages
of the MI theory, the teachers can get improved learning outcome by their students.
Additional advantages of MI theory for the classroom implementation are as follows:
– MI theory provides different potential opportunities for teachers to use it in their
classroom environments.
– The teachers can use students’ preferred learning style to increase their motivation
for science courses.
– More fun and exciting teaching and learning environments can be created using
effective educational strategies based on MI theory.
– Students’ negative attitudes toward science courses can be changed to positive

using their preferred learning styles connected with their preferred intelligence
characteristics.
– Students’ hidden powers can be discovered when they are asked to perform tasks
in the classroom based on multiple intelligences theory.
– The theory and its implementations can be used in all educational sectors from
kindergarten to graduate school.
MI theory does allow teachers to use and implement the most suitable intelligence
way to plan and organize the classroom settings. It does not mean that teachers need
to teach or learn in all nine intelligence ways. It is just a decision-making process in
which the most effective teaching strategy with connected learning tools according
to the learning environment should be used.
Table 27.1 shows how MI theory can be used for the teaching of specific science
concepts.
Suggestions for Science Teaching
The success of MI theory depends on some important factors. One of these is the
readiness of teachers. It should not be expected that teachers will be able to do all
above-mentioned teaching methods for intelligence within the scope of MI theory.
They need to have knowledge and skills of MI theory and classroom applications. It is
not anticipated that teachers who do not have enough experience can do effective MI
teaching practice. For this reason, it should be emphasized that in their undergraduate
and in-service training, teachers should develop knowledge and skills for the design
of effective teaching and learning environments where MI theory is in use. Depending
on the adjustment process of the students in the class, it is expected that the teacher
will apply different teaching methods for the appropriate intelligence type in the
class.
The main purpose of MI theory is to provide opportunities for students to learn
in environments in which they prefer to learn. For this reason, provision of learning
environments that support different intelligences is recommended depending on the
predefined type of students’ intelligence. Particular attention should be given to rec-
ognizing opportunities for students to discover their own potentials and weaknesses.
The students, who feel comfortable, take care to reveal the hidden power that exists
in them. This situation allows the students to feel valued and develop greater freedom
in their learning choices. They fulfill their duties and responsibilities more willingly.
Therefore, it is very important to carry out activities to uncover the intellectual capac-
ities that the students have during the learning process and to observe them in the
process.
In the implementation of MI theory, learning and teaching environments where
activities are to be carried out should be carefully selected. This could be a regular
classroom environment, a nature walk, augmented reality presentations to class, or
Table 27.1 Using multiple intelligences theory in science teaching

The type of intelligence What How (example)
Verbal–linguistic Words, sentences Students are asked to read
related texts from important
sources and present the topic
using language effectively and
persuasively
Logical–mathematical Mathematical equations and Students are asked to work with
formula the numbers and formulae to
come up with the solutions
Visual–spatial Pictures, 3D structures Students are asked to work with
3D structures, models using
augmented reality environments
Musical–rhythmic Music, poems Students are asked to write a
musical demonstration for a
science concept and then
perform it with a musical
instrument in the classroom
Intrapersonal Self-reflection Students are asked to perform an
activity of thinking about their
own feelings and behavior
connected with science
phenomena
Bodily–kinesthetic Physical activities or games A physical activity/game is
designed for students to learn a
science concept
Interpersonal Social interactions Students are asked to work with
others to identify, define, and
solve problems, which includes
making decisions together
Naturalistic Activities in the natural Students are asked to observe a
environment (forest, zoo, etc.) science concept in the natural
environment and give real
examples
Existential Inquiring Students are asked to inquire
about the beginning of the
universe, purpose of life, etc.
collaborative work environments where they can learn through social interaction. In
these learning environments, students feel comfortable and are able to show their
individual intellectual strengths.
Criticisms of MI Theory and Responses
The multiple intelligences theory has been criticized in several respects:

– Some criticized Gardner arguing that the intelligences work independently from
one another, but not giving a clear explanation when asked about an activity
that uses several intelligences at once. In response to this criticism, Gardner
and Walters (1993) suggested that there might be a communication mechanism
that connects the intelligences. However, this was in conflict with Gardner’s first
assumption of independent intelligences.
– There is a view that MI theory may not be easily implemented in practice. For
instance, if the intelligences are independent of each other, teachers would need
extra effort to address the multiple intelligences in various lessons throughout
the day. Similarly, a class full of different intelligences might not benefit a single
method of teaching. Thus, some teachers may be discouraged from implementing
the theory in their classrooms, especially with large class sizes and little time. Klein
(1997) asserted that the pedagogy based on MI theory is problematic. The problem
is mainly related to the assessment of individual intelligences. The MI theory
recommends that the teachers focus on strengthening students’ weak intelligences
while providing support for the strong intelligences. However, since there is no
reliable way to identify the existence of individual intelligences, teachers would
not be able to determine the progress of students.
– Morgan (1996) criticized the concept of multiple intelligences as being the old
cognitive styles. Many psychologists are opposed to the use of the term intelli-
gences with similar arguments. According to these psychologists, the right term is
talent since it is shown through the tasks that people use talents to solve problems.
However, Gardner (1993) refuted this conception claiming that not all intellectual
capacities are talents. He asserted that it is just another form of old belief about
being smarted measured through the proficiency in language and logic. Gardner
argued that using kinesthetic or naturalistic intelligences is not just talents. The
brain scan images in neuroscience research support Gardner’s argument. It was
shown that subjects performing physical or art activities show that these activities
impact on neural systems in different ways as language and mathematical skills
do (Viadero, 2003).
The MI theory is still a popular approach in education despite the above criticisms.
Researchers still find support in favor of educational settings that use MI.
It is clear from all pedagogical studies that we still have limited knowledge of
how humans learn. We have not fully explored yet the process of learning in different
individuals. The concept of learning has dynamic and unique characteristic that is
in keeping with its complexity and can be changed according to each individual. MI
theory emerges as one of the best theories in solving problems that human beings
encounter in the learning process. It is clear that MI theory, thanks to the ability
to renew and update itself, will be able to shed light on the understanding of the
complex learning and mental processes of humans in the contemporary world.
Summary
• This chapter introduces Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory and its
implementation in science teaching.
• Multiple intelligences theory was put forward by Howard Gardner based on the
postulate that humans have various intelligences. Gardner identified nine differ-
ent intelligence areas in his theory: “musical–rhythmic”, “visual–spatial”, “ver-
bal–linguistic”, “logical–mathematical”, “bodily–kinesthetic”, “interpersonal”,
“intrapersonal”, “naturalistic”, and “existential intelligence.
• The theory has shown how relevant activities can reveal hidden potentials of
learners.
• The chapter also presents how MI theory may be implemented in science teaching
and learning
• Advantages and criticisms of MI theory discussed have been highlighted.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999b). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Gardner, H. (2004). Frequently asked questions—Multiple intelligences and related educational
topics. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org/wp-content/uploads/
2013/06/faq.pdf.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New Horizon. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. UK:
Hachette.
References
Abdi, A., Laei, S., & Ahmadyan, H. (2013). The effect of teaching strategy based on multiple intel-
ligences on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 1(4), 281–284.
Blumenfield-Jones, D. (2009). Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and dance education: Critique,
revision, and potentials for the democratic idea. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(1), 59–76.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and student achievement: Success sto-
ries from six schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/Y7Cz3w.
Crowther, G. J., Williamson, J. L., Buckland, H. T., & Cunningham, S. L. (2013). Making material
more memorable with music. American Biology Teacher, 75, 713–714. https://doi.org/10.1525/
abt.2013.75.9.16.
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J. A., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2011). The theory of multiple intel-
ligences. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence
(pp. 485–503). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999b). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizon. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. United
Kingdom: Hachette.
Gardner, H., & Walters, J. (1993). Questions and answers about multiple intelligences theory.
Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice (pp. 35–48). New York: Basic Books.
Goodnough, K. (2001). Multiple intelligences theory: A framework for personalizing science
curricula. School Science and Mathematics., 101(4), 180–193.
Hoerr, R. T. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.
org/publications/books/100006.aspx.
Hom, E. (2014). What is STEM education? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/43296-
what-is-stem-education.html.
Junchun, W. (2015). To explore the relationship of temporal spatial reasoning between music
and mathematics by an inventory based on the multiple intelligence theory. Education and
Psychological Research, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.3966/102498852015093803002.
Klein, P. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner’s theory.
Canadian Journal of Education, 22, 377–394.
Lai, H. Y., & Yap, S. L. (2016). Application of multiple intelligence theory in the assessment for
learning. In S. Tang & L. Logonnathan (Eds.), Assessment for learning within and beyond the
classroom (pp. 427–436). Singapore: Springer.
Martin, M. R., Bishop, J., Ciotto, C., & Gagnon, A. (2014). Teaching the whole child: Using the
multiple intelligence theory and interdisciplinary teaching in physical education. In The chronicle
of kinesiology in higher education (Special Edition, pp. 25–29).
Martín, J. S., Gragera, G. J. A., Dávila-Acedo, M., & Mellado, V. (2017). What do K-12 students
feel when dealing with technology and engineering issues? Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory
implications in technology lessons for motivating engineering vocations at Spanish secondary
school. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 1330–1343.
Martin, M., & McKenzie, M. (2013). Sport education and multiple intelligences: A path to student
success. Strategies, 26(4), 31–34.
Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review, 18,
263–269.
Ozdermir, P., Güneysu, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing learning through multiple intelligences.
Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 74–78.
Richards, D. (2016). The integration of the multiple intelligence theory into the early childhood
curriculum. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(15), 1096–1099. Retrieved from http://
pubs.sciepub.com/education/4/15/7.
Schulkind, M. D. (2009). Is memory for music special? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1169, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04546.x.
Schwert, A. (2004). Using the theory of multiple intelligences to enhance science education. Unpub-
lished Master’s Thesis. The University of Toledo, USA. Retrieved from http://utdr.utoledo.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=graduate-projects.
Suprapto, N., Liu, W. Y., & Ku, C. K. (2017). The implementation of multiple intelligence in
(science) classroom: From empirical into critical. Pedagogika, 126(2), 214–227.
Viadero, D. (2003). Staying power. Education Week, 22(39), 24.
Dr. Bulent Cavas completed graduate studies in the field of science education at Dokuz Eylul
University, Faculty of Education, and Science Teacher Training Programme in 1998. He made his
Post-Doc in Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. He has attended many inter-
national, European, and National Projects as a researcher or principal investigator. He has over
150 national and international publications and written 10 books on science and science edu-
cation. He has attended and organized many international symposia, congresses, and workshops
in different countries. Currently, his research interests are Responsible Research and Innovation,
Open Schooling, Inquiry-Based Science Education, and Virtual Reality in Science Education. He
is the current President of International Council of Associations for Science Education (ICASE—
www.icaseonline.net). Currently, he is working as Director of Distance Education Application and
Research Center and Professor of Science Education at Dokuz Eylul University (www.deu.edu.tr)
in Izmir, Turkey.
Dr. Pinar Cavas was born in Izmir, Turkey, in 1976. She received the B.S. degree in Physics in
1998, and B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in primary education in 2005 and 2009, respectively. She is
working as an Associate Professor at Faculty of Education, Ege University (www.ege.edu.tr), in
Izmir, Turkey. She joined many national and international projects related to science, math, and
technology. She is also qualified in elementary teacher training. She has many national and inter-
national publications related to science education and elementary teacher training. Her research
fields are Scientific Literacy, Competences of Elementary Teachers, Inquiry-Based Science Edu-
cation, and Motivation to Learn Science. She is married and has two children.
Chapter 28
Systems Thinking—Ludwig Von
Bertalanffy, Peter Senge, and Donella
Meadows
Bao Hui Zhang and Salah A. M. Ahmed
Introduction
This chapter was created for current and future science teachers who intend to imple-
ment systems thinking in science education. We spent tremendous efforts to present
the theoretical and historical background of systems thinking, a new paradigm in
science education. Hope this helps readers to understand well the practical aspects
of using systems thinking in science teaching and learning contexts.
Background
It is merely an axiom that the world’s systems have various sorts because of their
degree of complexity. One purpose of science is to provide clear descriptions, expla-
nations, and/or predictions of behaviors of such complex phenomena in both natural
sciences and social sciences. Unfortunately, for science, only some world’s sys-
tems are static and simple ones that have foreseeable, reproducible, and reversible
behaviors. The rest are with dynamic and ordered complexity. The classical scien-
tific approach known as the analytic approach is based on reductionism for studying
any science phenomenon. Reductionism sees systems as static, closed, mechanical,
linear, and deterministic. However, that reflects only a small picture of the world
because most of the systems include ordered complexity. Real world’s systems have
a fluid and flow equilibrium, and they are open systems that have unforeseeable,
irreproducible, and irreversible behaviors. Reductionism cannot describe how such
B. H. Zhang · S. A. M. Ahmed (B)

School of Education, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062, China
B. H. Zhang

420 B. H. Zhang and S. A. M. Ahmed
complex systems work. Thus, an alternative view of the world uses a holistic approach
that views a system as a whole and is more than the sum of its parts. This approach
focuses more on the interactions and relations between the system’s components.
We refer to it as systems thinking that is a universal mode of thinking; this form of
thinking is based on a holistic view. Systems thinking is not limited to any domain
of knowledge; it integrates both analytic and synthetic approaches. To understand
systems thinking, we first define “system”. This term “system” has been used for
multi-purposes in different areas. For instance, people frequently mention commu-
nication system, education system, solar system, social system, economic system,
transport system, or ecological system, and the like. The term “system” came from
a Greek word σστημα
´ meaning “(a) whole compounded of several parts or mem-
bers” (Rose, 2012, p. 9). The first use of this term was in the eighteenth century by
German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the book Critique of Pure Reason (Reynolds
& Holwell, 2010). According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, a system is “a
regularly interacting or interdependent group of items [elements] forming a unified
whole (n.d.)”. Bertalanffy defined a system “as a complex of interacting elements”
(Von Bertalanffy, 1969, pp. 55–56). That means the elements are standing in interre-
lations. Jackson (2003) defined a system as “a complex whole where the functioning
of which depends on its parts and the interactions between those parts” (Jackson,
2003, p. 3). A system can exist in any format. For example, hard systems include
physical systems like river systems; soft systems include more malleable systems
like biological, sociological, and economic systems.
A system usually includes three essential components: elements, interconnections,
and functions or system goals (Meadows & Wright, 2009). Nonetheless, systems are
perceivable objects. In some cases, we can only recognize some particular compo-
nents; other components are hard to define. A system’s boundary is such an example.
Different system boundary conditions may significantly change the system behav-
iors. A system’s boundaries can be defined according to our view of the system itself.
For example, devices (e.g., iPad, Laptop, and the like) that you are using to read an
e-book (assuming you detached it from other systems, the Internet, and power) can
be considered as a system. We can outline its elements, interconnections, and sys-
tem functions that enable this machine to process and present the data. Where are
the boundaries of your device? Using the mechanistic system, we can sufficiently
define its boundary as the device itself; the body represents the physical boundaries.
In contrast, if you connect it to an electricity source, now ask yourself where is the
boundary of this machine? What about these data? Where do these data come from?
Consider these data as virtual elements that come from an external source; there are
also other systems like the Internet through the input terminals. If someone used this
device, we should also consider the human–computer interaction (HCI). The system
then includes more than one system. The boundaries are essential components in
order to draw important interactions. However, deciding a system’s boundary is a
significant challenge. It is difficult to imagine these innumerable series boundaries,
because most of these boundaries would be worthless for many reasons. Therefore,
we only try to define the best boundaries by making a decision such as extending
our investigation to the individual parts. A system is usually presented in the form
28 Systems Thinking—Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Peter Senge, … 421
of models which represents a real thing or science phenomenon. A model might

have different parts/variables that are interrelated; one variable can affect other vari-
ables and might also be affected. A model as a whole highlights certain aspects
of a system. Modeling is the process of designing, testing, and revising/abandoning
models (Zhang, Liu, & Krajcik, 2006). Meadows and Wright (2009) emphasized that
one of the most troubling functions of modeling is defining the systems boundaries,
especially in behavioral and social systems, as they stated:
…Systems rarely have real boundaries. Everything, as they say, is connected to everything
else, and not neatly. There is no clearly determinable boundary between the sea and the
land, between sociology and anthropology, between an automobile’s exhaust and your nose.
There are only boundaries of words, thought, perception, and social agreement-artificial,
mental-model boundaries (p. 95).
If systems are not perceptible or sensible objects, how can we know the most impor-
tant parts of a system? Meadows explained that by illustrating the effects of changing
system components, the largest impacts come from changing systems’ functions. For
instance, as Meadows illuminated, if we consider a football team as a system with
parts such as players, ball, field, coach, and the like, one of its interconnections is
the rules of the football game. The system’s goal is to win football games. If change
occurred in the low level of system elements, such as changing some or even all the
players, we obtain less effect on the system; we still call it a football team. Sim-
ilar things happen if we look at an automobile as a system. Replacing some parts
does not change the whole; it is still a car. When we move up, a change occurs at
the interconnections level, and we can recognize some effects. For example, if we
used the same elements like team players in this case, but used rules of basketball
instead of those of football, we have a new game. However, the big impacts occur in
changing a system’s functions or goals. For example, if we changed the purpose of
the football team from winning games to losing the games, other components, such
as the elements and the interconnections, remain the same, and the results might be
reversed. Therefore, it is obvious that system functions are the important component
of a system; a small change in system function can cause a significant change in the
whole system (Meadows & Wright, 2009).
Systems Thinking Theories
Historical Background
The beginning of the last century witnessed scientific revolutions that were not limited
to modern theories in physics, such as the theory of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Revolutions also extended to the science of biology. As a result of these scientific
revolutions, scientists have changed their views of the world. The new contribution to
biology came from Ludwig von Bertalanffy. In his General System Theory (GST),
he was seeking the unity of science. He looked at the world as whole. However,
the wholeness views were not new. These views have historical roots from spiritual
traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, sufi-Islam, ancient Greek philosophy
(Reynolds & Holwell, 2010) to the modern systems thinkers, such as Nicholas of
Cusa, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Drack, Apfalter,
& Pouvreau, 2007). These individuals, along with others who came later, influenced
GST.
We start this section by repeating one famous quotation that describes systems
thinking. Churchman said “A systems approach begins when first you see the world
through the eyes of another” (Churchman 1968, p. 231, as cited in Reynolds &
Holwell, 2010). The term of systems thinking is still new. It was coined by Barry
Richmond in 1986. After much thought, Richmond came up with the term “systems
thinking” that is nested in the old term “structural thinking”, when he was preparing
his first user’s guide for his software STELLA (Structural Thinking, Experiential
Learning Laboratory with Animation) (Richmond, 1994). In this instance, “systems”
in plural seems to indicate the nested nature of thinking. Systems thinking is a holistic
paradigm that assists in understanding complex phenomena. Complex problems tend
to be linked to different problems and seldom exist individually out of the same
context. Peter Senge defined systems thinking as “a discipline for seeing wholes,
as a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns
of change rather than static” (Senge, 2006, p. 68). Systems thinking can help link
pieces together in order to see the big picture that might lead to understanding the
situation, despite its complexity. Barry Richmond considered systems thinking “as
the art and science of making reliable inferences about behaviors by developing an
increasingly deep understanding of underlying structure” (Richmond, 1994).
Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the System Theory
Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy was born on September 19, 1901 to a Catholic family.
The roots of his family date back to the nobility of Hungary during the sixteenth
century. General Systems Theory (GST) was formulated in the 1920s when Berta-
lanffy attempted to explain the functioning of biological living systems. Bertalanffy
grounded GST based on the wholeness or Gestalt. The wholeness in GST referred
not only to the sum of its parts, but also extended to the parts’ relations (Drack et al.,
2007).
Bertalanffy (1969) first recognized living organisms as open systems. He called
a system “closed” if no materials entered or left. The system is “open” if there were
“import and export of material” (p. 121). Having empirical knowledge in related
disciplines like biology, or physics, Bertalanffy built his theoretical model of open
systems with “steady states”, “dynamic equilibrium”, “equifinality”, and the like. He
outlined the set of mathematical equations that articulated the relationships. A system
can maintain itself and constantly exchanging matter and [energy] with a surrounded
environment (Von Bertalanffy, 1969). This new thought was a revolution because
it sought the unification of science. This interdisciplinary perspective produced a
new kind of scientific knowledge. It shifted the classical view from steady systems
to dynamic systems, from isolation to openness, from traditional linear thinking
that focused on the parts, to see the whole. In his book (Von Bertalanffy, 1969),
Bertalanffy described the aims for his GST:
(1) There is a general tendency toward integration in the various sciences, natural
and social.
(2) Such integration seems to be centered in a general theory of systems.
(3) Such theory may be an important means for aiming at exact theory in the
nonphysical fields of science.
(4) Developing unifying principles running “vertically” through the universe of the
individual sciences, this theory brings us nearer the goal of the unity of science.
(5) This can lead to a much-needed integration in scientific education (von
Bertalanffy, 1969, p. 38).
We can summarize the core ideas of system theory as follows:
• System theory seeks the laws of unity among diverse phenomena; it aims to find
the common aspects instead of focusing on a single system. A system’s entities
represent the whole of natural, behavioral, or social phenomena, but the whole is
more than the sum of the entities; it included the interrelations among them.
• According to Bertalanffy, the biological, behavioral, and social systems are essen-
tially open systems that can be divided into small closed/open systems with respect
to the connection with the surrounding environment.
• Any open system with its environment constantly exchange substance, energy,
or even information as the input and output through a living communication
channel; the channel can decrease noise to a higher degree than another lifeless
communication channel (Von Bertalanffy, 1969, p. 98).
• In the open systems model, the system is dynamic over time. Along with system’s
life cycle, it is constantly involved in building up and breaking down as self-
renewing processes (Von Bertalanffy, 1969, p. 39); such self-maintenance process
drives the system toward higher heterogeneity and organization (Von Bertalanffy,
1969, p. 143).
• The boundary’s function is to outline the system from its surrounding environment
and any other subsystems of the entire system as a whole.
• The feedback plays an essential role in leading the system actions, and behaviors
toward its goals.
Peter Senge and the Theory of Systems Thinking
Senge was born in 1947. At Stanford University, he studied both engineering and phi-
losophy. In 1970, he received his first degree from Stanford University in Aerospace
engineering. Two years later at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Senge
finished his master’s degree in social systems modeling. Then he continued work-
ing with Jay Forrester as a researcher at MIT until he earned his Ph.D. degree in
management in 1978. His dissertation focused on “a comparison between aspects of
economic modeling through the System Dynamics National Model”. After gradua-
tion, he started his career as a lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management (Ramage
& Shipp, 2009).
In the 1950s, a massive movement in systems theory occurred when Peter Michael
Senge, one of the systems thinking leaders, illustrated systems thinking language
using system dynamics that was founded by Jay W. Forrester.
Senge named systems thinking as “The Fifth Discipline” in his book. He clearly
described how organizations could learn, and how systems thinking could accelerate
this learning. Of course, systems thinking in this learning process was not alone; there
were four other aspects: “personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team
learning” (Ramage & Shipp, 2009, p. 121). Systems thinking was integrated into
each of them. They synergistically worked together. For example, systems thinking
and mental models both were necessary for each other; one helps us to discover and
test covert assumptions and the other one guides us to reorganize those assumptions
to unearth causes that shaped complex problems (Senge, 2006). Systems thinking is
necessary not only to recognize the salient variables but also to discover time delays
and critical feedback relations. Without systems thinking, “most of our mental models
are systematically flawed” (Senge, 2006, p. 203).
In this subsection, we have tried to enumerate rather than illuminate some Senge
contributions. One contribution was elucidating the language of systems thinking
as particular rules that control systems diagrams, such as systems archetype and
feedback structures. Senge’s systems archetypes are used to observe, explain, and
predict the complex events. All systems archetypes in the Fifth Discipline or in other
literature “Systems Archetypes as Structural Pattern Templates” seek to shift one’s
mental model (mindset) to systematic thinking. Another important contribution by
Senge is explaining systems thinking laws (refer to his book The Fifth Discipline,
Chap. 4, or Chap. 12-Part 2 in Ramage & Shipp, 2009).
Donella Meadows and the Theory of Systems Thinking
Donella H. Meadows was born on March 13, 1941 in Illinois, USA. Dr. Donella H.
Meadows is well known as a systems analyst, an organic gardener, an eco-village
developer, and a syndicated journalist. She was a professor of Environmental Studies
at Dartmouth College until her death in 2001. She started her career as a scientist. She
received her B.A. in chemistry from Carleton College in 1963, and she received her
Ph.D. in Biophysics in 1968 from Harvard University (Ramage & Shipp, 2009). She
then joined an international system dynamic team with Jay Forrester at MIT. Donella
employed the tools of system dynamics, like computer modeling, to deliberate global
problems such as the relationship between population, economic growth, and the
earth resources. She used the concepts of stocks/flows and feedback loops to construct
a detailed analysis of leverage points.
Donella recognized herself as a systems thinker, working with dynamic systems
tools. Both Donella and Senge agreed with Jay Forrester that systems thinking did
not necessarily give you the best viewpoint. It could just give you a unique view
of the phenomena like other thinking paradigms. It shows some events and patterns
that reflect the behaviors and complex relationships behind this order. Donella said
“like any viewpoint, like the top of any hill you climb, it lets you see some things
you would never have noticed from any other place, and it blocks the view of other
things” (Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972, p. 2).
Systems Thinking and Its Relation to Science Teaching
In this section, we are going to diagnose the current situation of science education, and
then provide a simple guide for science teachers and practitioners for implementing
systems thinking in science education. We will provide some real examples supported
by scientific research. Finally, we discuss the advantages and challenges of using this
approach in science education.
Why Is Systems Thinking Important in Science Education?
One of the goals of science education is preparing our students for future challenges
by enhancing their capacity for solving problems. In the late twentieth century, sci-
ence education experts realized that one of the most important issues facing educa-
tional systems was using reductionism and mechanistic thinking. The world is made
of systems with nonlinearity; decentered control is chronic in world complex sys-
tems. Traditional science curricula deliberately simplify and reduce complexity of
nature that is strongly interconnected (Forrester, 1993).
Current science curricula deal with many topics superficially, using linear and
analytic methods to simplify complex systems. Students study fragments of knowl-
edge about any natural problem in different science subjects at different grades. They
may not help students form broad pictures of any phenomena. Most science curric-
ula are not able to develop a systems foundation for problem-solving. Traditional
science curricula tend to simplify such a complex phenomenon. Peter Senge clearly
supported this dilemma in science education. He states:
From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This
apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enor-
mous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic
sense of connection to a larger whole (Senge, 2006, p. 3).
Natural phenomena and global issues may relate to different subjects (physics, chem-
istry, biology, and the like) at the same time. The conventional approach usually
separates science into separate domains (e.g., physics, biology, chemistry). Berta-
lanffy had also criticized traditional education. He commented that the demand for
science education was training science learners to become “scientific generalists”
in the field (Von Bertalanffy, 1969). Jay Forrester addressed this issue in many sit-
uations. Although the behaviors and events of various natural phenomena are con-
trolled by the same natural laws, current science curricula ignore this fact and offer
science in a fragmented form like physics, biology, and chemistry, which appear to be
innately separated from one another (Forrester, 1993). According to Senge (2006),
research has shown that many young children acquired thinking skills very quickly.
This indicates that students have innate systems thinking skills. However, instead of
developing these skills, traditional education suppresses them by using mechanical
or linear thinking.
Therefore, science educators already made some efforts to shift from mechanis-
tic to holistic or systems thinking. Systems thinking embedded in the new science
standards such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In this new learn-
ing approach, science instructors should shift their roles to be knowledge facilitators
rather than being knowledge transmitters. Students should be involved in cooperative
and competitive group work, and use non-routine problem-solving and non-linear
thinking. More fortunately, the new reform of science education that made under
an umbrella of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) educa-
tion has made move to bring systems thinking into K-16 curricula in the U.S. and
elsewhere (e.g., Duschl & Bismack, 2016). Integrating systems thinking in STEM
education can help students to develop a meaningful scientific literacy. To reach
that goal, learners should collaboratively inquire and try to solve complex problems.
They might be able to apply systems thinking skills to recognize the interdependence
of natural and social phenomena, uncover patterns, and build concepts of systems
that help them to obtain better understandings of complex world problems (National
Research Council, 2012). Providentially, with the rapid growth in the capabilities of
computers and mobile devices, integrating simulation and modeling to study complex
systems has become more available. Over the decade, there have been many efforts
to integrate systems thinking tools in science learning (Jacobson, Kim, Pathak, &
Zhang, 2013; Zhang, Liu, & Krajcik, 2006). Still, there are challenges to teaching
science in this new way and requires paradigm change and likely overhaul of the
current school and university curricula.
Systems Thinking in Science Curricular Standards
Systems thinking is essential to any learning organization. Pioneer science educators

realized the importance of integrating systems thinking concepts, skills, and tools
in science standards. The first attempt began in the 1960s. The Science Curriculum
Improvement Study (SCIS) developed some science curriculum units in elementary
school level that included some of the systems thinking concepts such as system, sub-
systems, interactions, and variables (Chen & Stroup, 1993). There are also current
attempts to incorporate systems thinking into the science and STEM curricula which
developed based on the new standards. We will limit ourselves to examples of some
initiatives that include systems thinking concepts from the NGSS for K-12 science
education in U.S. We make such a decision because such a move in the U.S. has been
influential. The three-dimensional framework of the NGSS made a major revision
by integrating systems thinking practice to include “Science and Engineering Prac-
tices (SEPs)”, “Crosscutting Concepts” (Ccs), and “Disciplinary Core Ideas” (DCI).
These recommendations aim to achieve systems thinking practice of science. The
domain of Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) emphasizes the practice that
includes creating and testing models. SEP also highlighted the key sets of engineer-
ing practice that are designing systems (National Research Council, 2012, p. 30).
More explicitly, the framework of crosscutting concepts (CCCs) includes “patterns;
cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system models; energy
and matter; structure and function; stability and change” (NGSS Lead States, 2013,
p. 79). Furthermore, systems thinking practices distributed across the third dimension
that described the “Disciplinary Core Ideas” (DCI) that include four major domains:
engineering, technology, and applications of science; the life sciences; the physical
sciences; the earth; and space sciences (National Research Council, 2012, p. 31).
The framework begins in kindergarten. NGSS emphasized that students must
know how to better identify issues, recognize patterns, and develop understand-
ing of the natural phenomena around them. For example, in (K-ESS2-1) about the
Earth’s systems, students should think systematically and conduct some quantitative
and qualitative observations of the local weather to “describe patterns over time”.
In crosscutting concepts, the world’s systems are combined from parts that work
together, patterns are observable, and they can be used as evidences to explain natu-
ral phenomena (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Similarly, in (K-ESS3-1) about Earth and
human activity, students should use their prior knowledge to develop a model “to
represent the relationship between the needs of different plants or animals (including
humans) and the places they live” (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 8). They should also
“use a model to represent relationships in the natural world” (p. 8).
Another example of life science is from middle school disciplinary core ideas (MS-
LS1-3: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes); students should
develop “basic understanding of the interaction of subsystems within a system and
the normal functioning of those systems” (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 67). For
example, they may recognize the basic roles of cells in body systems and understand
how those systems work together to support the life functions of the organism (NGSS
Lead States, 2013). In the same way, system thinking concepts clearly appeared in
(MS-LS2-3.) as science learners are expected to understand the interdependences
in ecosystems, matter’s cycles, and energy exchange among living and non-living
parts of an ecosystem. Students are also expected to be able to define the system’s
boundaries (NGSS Lead States, 2013, pp. 65, 70).
Similarly, high school students in Earth and human activity (HS-ESS3-3) should
be able to use computational simulation to demonstrate the relations among factors
that influence the controlling of natural factors that impact on the sustainability of
human populations, and biodiversity. In (HS-ESS3-6), students should use a com-
puter model to illuminate the relationships among earth systems like (hydrosphere,
atmosphere, cryosphere, geosphere, and/or biosphere) and how the human activities
impact those relationships (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 125). We applaud this effort
as it will influence science education internationally. Similar efforts have also been
demonstrated in some international comparative studies such as PISA (Program for
International Student Assessment). The PISA framework “uses the term ‘systems’
instead of ‘sciences’ in the descriptors of content knowledge. The intention is to
convey the idea that citizens have to understand concepts from the physical and life
sciences, and earth and space sciences, and how they apply in contexts where the
elements of knowledge are interdependent or interdisciplinary. Things viewed as
subsystems at one scale may be viewed as whole systems at a smaller scale” (OECD,
2016, p. 27, https://www.academia.edu/12015821/PISA).
Developing and Assessing Systems Thinking Skills
In order to implement science standards and facilitate the systems thinking in science
education, science instructors should use well-suited methods to assist science learn-
ers to obtain and develop the essential systems thinking skills. There are different
concepts in systems thinking, for example, the ability to identify patterns, actions,
and recognize circular cause–effect relations (Sweeney & Sterman, 2000). Based on
their literature review, Assaraf, Dodick, & Tripto (2013, p. 36) classified systems
thinking skills into eight hierarchical characteristics or abilities at three sequential
levels as follows:
1. Identifying the components and processes of a system (level A).
2. Identifying simple relationships among a system’s components (level B).
3. Identifying dynamic relationships within a system (level B).
4. Organizing systems’ components, their processes, and their interactions, within
a framework of relationships (level B).
5. Identifying matter and energy cycles within a system (level B).
6. Recognizing hidden dimensions of a system (i.e., understanding phenomena
through patterns and interrelationships not readily seen) (level C).
7. Making generalizations about a system (level C).
8. Thinking temporally (i.e., employing retrospection and prediction) (level C).
The three levels are
Level A (analyzing, ability: 1),
Level B (synthesizing, abilities: 2, 3, 4, and 5), and
Level C (implementation, abilities: 6, 7, and 8).
The new trend in science and STEM education supports systems thinking skills. For
instance, in the common investigation, learners start by identifying the system’s parts
and describing the parts’ interactions. Then learners use their available data to develop
a model of undertaken complex systems. Later, after testing and optimizing the
model, they may apply systems thinking approach to evaluate and provide possible
solutions for the related global challenges. This hierarchical order of the previous
systems thinking skills facilitates the teaching and assessment of systems thinking
skills. The degree of difficulty of systems thinking skills is ranked on a continuum
from easiest to the most difficult. Lower level skills must be acquired first in order
to master the highest level skills (Assaraf, Dodick, & Tripto, 2013; Rose, 2012,
p. 19). Another effort that should not be ignored is a comprehensive set of systems
thinking skills by Arnold & Wade (2017) that can be used either to guide the design of
systems thinking materials/rigorous assessment rubric or to assess system thinking
competencies. This contribution should increase the reliability and the accuracy of
assessing systems thinking skills for different disciplines.
Tools for Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is considered an advanced complex cognitive skill in which sci-

ence learners have to be involved in higher order cognitive processes (Hung, 2008).
Systems thinking advocates suggest some tools that might help learners to develop
systems thinking skills. Among the suggested tools are systems modeling and sim-
ulations that help science learners “to simulate the behavior of systems that are too
complex for conventional mathematics, verbal descriptions, or graphical methods”
(Forrester, 1993, p. 185). Monat, & Gannon (2015) listed some of these tools as
follows:
1. Systems Archetype.
2. Behavior Over Time Graphs (BOT),
3. Causal Loops Diagrams with Feedback and Delays,
4. Systemigrams,
5. Stock and Flow Diagrams (including Main Chain Infrastructures),
6. System Dynamics/Computer Modeling,
7. Systemic Root Cause Analysis (RCA), and
8. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) (pp. 21–24).
These tools support different tasks. For example, “behavior over time graphs (BOT)
were used at the beginning to understand system behaviors” (Monat & Gannon,
2015, p. 21). Causal loops diagrams were used after BOT to outline the interrela-
tionships among system’s parts. Systemic diagrams were used “to translate a system
problem (expressed as structured text) into a storyboard-type diagram describing the
system’s principal concepts, actors, events, patterns, and processes”. Systemic Root
Cause Analysis (RCA) “is a set of problem-solving methods that help to find a fault’s
first or root cause” (Monat & Gannon, 2015, pp. 21–24). Regarding modeling and
simulation, as stated above, sophisticated computers are able to run and solve many
complex simulations. In the past, science educators used different systems tools like
STELLA, Model-It, ThinkerTools, and some agent-based models (ABMs) environ-

ments programmed by NetLogo, StarLogo. Presently, more user-friendly interfaces
including web-based simulations such as the PhET Interactive simulation (website:
https://phet.colorado.edu/), or modeling visualized interfaces, e.g., ViMAP (http://
www.vimapk12.net), and Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/) provides a wide range
of tools for science learners, without any prerequisites. Using these types support
the development of systems thinking. That said, students still need additional basic
scientific skills, such as basic mathematics to design and test their models. Students
should be able to collect and interpret data, as well as draw and explain data graphs
(Sweeney & Sterman, 2000). More advance technique is to conduct real-time model-
ing using some new data collectors (sensors) linked to Arduino or any other hardware,
then analysis and visualize the data with the modeling software, e.g., NetLogo. Some
examples are presented in the following section.
Interestingly, some findings assert that after practicing systems thinking skills
learners could develop some systems thinking habits that encompass multiple think-
ing strategies. Sweeney and Waters Foundation labeled systems thinking habits. For
more examples, refer to the suggested Resources/websites section.
Examples of Linking Theory and Practice
Many studies have emphasized the significance of importing systems thinking

approach into education. Using systems thinking in science learning could help
science learners connect their acquired knowledge. It could also increase student
understanding of interdependence between systems. Systems thinking could enhance
learners’ awareness toward unifying science disciplines. Good implementation is to
use some sensors to collect real-time data, produce a model, and deliver good expla-
nations and predictions. The following photos (Fig. 28.1) present an example of
integrating modeling in real-lab experiments. Through “bifocal modeling”, students
are able to study both physical real-lab and simulated virtual experiments (Blikstein,
Fuhrmann, & Salehi, 2016, p. 513). In such advanced modeling, learners conduct
an experiment and collect the data via terminal devices or sensors. Then they apply
their scientific and mathematical skills and knowledge to design a virtual model to
Fig. 28.1 Examples of bifocal modeling: gas laws (left) & Newton’s cradle (right) (replicated from
Blikstein, Fuhrmann, & Salehi, 2016, p. 515)
compare and reconcile between the experiment data and the simulation outcomes of
the same phenomenon (Blikstein, Fuhrmann, & Salehi, 2016).
Before ending this section, it is necessary to present some of the other efforts
inspired by the work of Forrester and Meadows on system dynamics (Rose, 2012).
For example, to implement NGSS in the real setting, NASA established The GLOBE
Program, an international science and education program. GLOBE aims to provide
students and the public worldwide with the opportunities to participate in data collec-
tion and the scientific process. The significance of this project is in linking worldwide
science educators, researchers, students, scientists, workers, and citizens to partic-
ipate in data collection and the scientific process, and develop student’s scientific
understanding of the Earth system and global environment. See the GLOBE website.
Similarly, the Waters Foundation project “Systems Thinking in Schools” facili-
tated schools in Arizona to integrate systems thinking into their education programs.
For example, Borton Primary Magnet School implemented systems thinking as a
teaching method. Pima County Schools achieved content standards and skills by
utilizing systems thinking (Graefe, 2010). Orange Grove Middle School integrated
system thinking in their science curriculum “since the fall of 1988 in a program
called Directed Learning” (Rose 2012, p. 25).
Some European schools implemented systems thinking in elementary schools.
For example, in Switzerland, the Pedagogical University of St. Gallen (PHSG) was
involved in developing student systems thinking. Systemdenken is a German word
meaning “systems thinking”. A handbook was developed for elementary and mid-
dle school teachers to develop systems thinking competencies using action-oriented
activities (see http://www.iue.ch/publikationen/systemdenken-foerdern). We have
certainly seen some of the advantages of integrating systems thinking in science
education. However, serious challenges remain.
Challenges of Integrating Systems Thinking in Science

Education
The implementation of systems thinking in science education presents challenges

to systems practitioners. These challenges are faced by both teachers and students.
One of the biggest barriers is to find well-designed and tested instructional materials
that foster students’ systems thinking (Booth Sweeney & Sterman, 2000). Science
teachers’ lack of understanding of systems thinking is another barrier. Implementing
systems thinking requires a high intellectual level and requires some technical skills.
Unlikely, most science instructors need more training programs to be familiar with
the systems thinking tools, especially the advance ones, e.g., Netlogo. Moreover,
they should know “how to effectively facilitate students’ systems thinking” (Hogan
& Weathers, 2003). Science teachers need to shift their role from being the source
of knowledge to learning facilitators. Yet, there is a need for empirical research
concerning teacher professional development programs for systems thinking. Due
to its inherent complexity and nonlinearity, systems thinking requires some higher
order cognition abilities (Assaraf, Dodick, & Tripto, 2013). Students have difficulties
in imperceptible causal relationships. Learners at the elementary levels seem to be
lacking of understanding a system’s hidden variables and their hidden relations. Even
some new modeling environments like ViMAP, CTSiM, and Scratch are based on
drag and drop add more coding scaffolds. Other systems structure scaffolding is also
strongly needed in order to facilitate learning complex systems.
Summary
Systems thinking is a universal mode of thinking. From a holistic viewpoint, systems

thinking has its significance in different disciplines. Systems thinking has also been
incorporated into scientists’ and engineers’ work. Systems thinking has been the
underpinning of various scientific breakthroughs and offers many powerful, interac-
tive tools to aid students to systematize, analyze, synthesize, and visualize the data
to understand complex systems. Thus, people can use it differently in their daily life
to solve the problems and to understand how the world works.
To think systematically requires knowing about (a) system (e.g., the conceptual
knowledge means understanding of the essential elements, cause-and-effect rela-
tionships among systems parts, discovering patterns, and interdependences between
systems); (b) modeling systems behaviors in different ways (e.g., using systems
thinking tools) (Meadows & Wright, 2009; Senge, 2006); (c) systems laws; and (d)
learning disabilities (Senge, 2006). In addition, implementing systems thinking has
some benefits in the K–12 education context, such as (1) helping science instruc-
tor to drive the learning process toward learner-centered approach; (2) increasing
students’ engagement; (3) providing learners more relevant experiences that lead to
more effective learning; (4) improving problem-solving skills (Graefe, 2010); (5)
changing teachers’ and students’ perspectives about the world; (6) facilitating learn-
ing by following basic system’s rules; (7) increasing learners’ collaboration and team
working; sharing thoughts and solutions of the complex problem; and (8) facilitating
and designing solutions, creating strategies, solving problems, while keeping the out-
come/vision in mind at all times (Haines, 1998). We call for more attention, research,
and exploration in implementing systems thinking in K-12 and higher education in
order to develop students for the twenty-first century.
Books
1. Haines, S. G. (1998). The manager’s pocket guide to systems thinking & learning.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
2. Flood, R. L. (2002). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the
unknowable. London: Routledge.
3. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers.
Chichester: Wiley.
4. Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A
report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York:
Universe Books.
5. Kim, D. H., & Lannon, C. (1997). Applying systems archetypes. Pegasus
Communications Waltham.
6. Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2009). Thinking in systems: A primer. London:
Earthscan.
7. Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers. London: Springer.
8. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Journals
1. System Dynamics Review: Edited By: Yaman Barlas; Impact Factor:

1.448 (2018); Online ISSN: 1099-1727 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/
10991727).
2. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: Edited By: M. C. Jackson OBE;
Impact Factor: 1.052 (2018); Online ISSN: 1099-1743 (https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/journal/10991743a).
3. Systemic Practice and Action Research, Impact Factor: 0.754 (2018); Available
1988–2018; ISSN: 1094-429X (Print) 1573–9295 (Online) (https://link.springer.
com/journal/11213).
Websites
1. A repository of 800+ articles on various dimensions of Systems Thinking over

the past 20+ years https://thesystemsthinker.com/.
2. The Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS) is an
internationally Austrian independent research institute http://www.bcsss.org/.
3. The International Society for the Systems Sciences http://isss.org.

4. Donella Meadows Project http://donellameadows.org.
5. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)
https://www.globe.gov/about/overview; GLOBE on Twitter https://twitter.com/
globeprogram.
6. Linda Sweeney websites, which mixing complex systems theory, systems map-
ping, storytelling. http://www.lindaboothsweeney.net; Systems thinker habits:
http://www.lindaboothsweeney.net/thinking/habits.
7. The Creative Learning Exchange (CLE): http://www.clexchange.org.
8. The Waters Foundation’s Systems Thinking in education aims to enhance sys-
tems thinking practices for educators, students, and administrators as well.
http://watersfoundation.org; Habits of a Systems Thinker https://waterscenterst.
org/systems-thinking-tools-and-strategies/habits-of-a-systems-thinker/.
9. The Way of Systems is a good website for introducing systems thinking
concepts, tools…etc. http://www.systems-thinking.org.
10. Collected videos for various dimensions of Systems Thinking https://www.
youtube.com/user/systemswiki/videos.
11. Society for Organizational Learning (SoL) http://www.solonline.org/.
12. NetLogo is one of the best agent-based modeling environment (http://
ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/). For more research articles see (http://
ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/resources.shtml). For web-NetLogo: http://
netlogoweb.org.
13. ViMAP is a new visual-programming language and modeling platform based on
NetLogo (http://www.vimapk12.net/). For More research articles using ViMAP
see the Publications section.
References
Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2017). A complete set of systems thinking skills. Insight, 20(3), 9–17.
https://doi.org/10.1002/inst.12159.
Assaraf, O. B.-Z., Dodick, J., & Tripto, J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human
body system. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-
9245-2.
Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., & Salehi, S. (2016). Using the bifocal modeling framework to resolve
“Discrepant Events” between physical experiments and virtual models in biology. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9623-7.
Chen, D., & Stroup, W. (1993). General system theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science
and technology education for all. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 447–459.
Drack, M., Apfalter, W., & Pouvreau, D. (2007). On the making of a system theory of life: Paul A
Weiss and Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s conceptual connection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4),
349–373. https://doi.org/10.1086/522810.
Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM education: The central role of
practices. New York: Routledge.
Forrester, J. W. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. A systems-based approach to
policymaking (pp. 199–240). Springer.
Graefe, A. N. (2010). Assessing the potential benefits of learning about environmental issues
through a systems thinking pedagogy. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://commons.lib.jmu.
edu/master201019/421.
Haines, S. G. (1998). The manager’s pocket guide to systems thinking & learning. Amherst, MA:
HRD Press.
Hogan, K., & Weathers, K. C. (2003). Psychological and ecological perspectives on the development
of systems thinking. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon, & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.), Understanding
urban ecosystems: A new frontier for science and education (pp. 233–260). New York: Springer.
Hung, W. (2008). Enhancing systems-thinking skills with modelling. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(6), 1099–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00791.x.
Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. Chichester: Wiley.
Jacobson, M. J., Kim, B., Pathak, S., & Zhang, B. H. (2013). To guide or not to guide: Issues
in the sequencing of pedagogical structure in computational model-based learning. Interactive
Learning Environments, 23(6), 715–730.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club
of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2009). Thinking in systems: A primer. London: Earthscan.
Monat, J. P., & Gannon, T. F. (2015). What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature plus
recommendations. American Journal of Systems Science, 4(1), 11–26.
PhET Interactive Simulations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and ana-
lytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en.
Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers. London: Springer.
Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S. (2010). Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide.
London: Springer.
Richmond, B. (1994). System dynamics/systems thinking: Let’s just get on with it. In Paper
Delivered at the 1994 International Systems Dynamics Conference in Sterling, Scotland.
Rose, J. (2012). Application of system thinking skills by 11th grade students in relation to age, gen-
der, type of gymnasium, fluent spoken languages and international peer contact. Master’s thesis,
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://ubdata.univie.ac.at/AC10497456.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking
inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.198.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory: Foundations, development, application (revised
ed.). New York: George Braziller.
Zhang, B. H., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated
with a computer modeling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579–604.
Dr. BaoHui Zhang is Qujiang Scholar Professor, former dean of School of Education, Shaanxi
Normal University, Xi’an, China. He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Michigan,
USA. He has work experiences in China, USA, and Singapore. He is president-elect of the Asso-
ciations for Science Education (ICASE). His teaching and research has been at the intersection
of science education, educational technology, and the learning sciences. He and his collabora-
tors care the most about how to develop, implement, and sustain efforts in using ICT to facilitate
student learning in science. More information can be found here: http://zhangbaohui.snnu.edu.cn/
index.asp.
Salah A. M. Ahmed is a Yemeni student. He obtained his master’s degree in Science from
Shaanxi Normal University (SNNU), China, and received his bachelor’s degree in Physics from
education school at Ibb University, Yemen in 2006. Upon his graduation, he worked as physics
and science teacher in different schools for 9 years. His research interests are learning sciences and
educational technology that include the application of ICT in science, and other STEM disciplines.
Chapter 29
Gender/Sexuality Theory—Chris Beasley
Steven S. Sexton
Introduction
In 2005, Chris Beasley published Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical
Thinkers. In this one text, Beasley brought together both the history and theorists con-
cerning gender and/or sexuality. Beasley begins by stating gender theory is focussed
on sex and power. More specifically, gender theory is about the ways in which cur-
rent social arrangements position the dynamics of power in regards to sex. Beasley
highlighted the changing and evolving definition of sex and noted it has become
more commonly associated with physical activity. As a result, her critical analysis
of the sociopolitical theories and thinkers of gender and/or sexuality notes gender
theory is composed of two categories: gender (the sexed categories, e.g. men and
women) and sexuality (the sexual categories, e.g. hetero and homosexual). Like
Beasley rather than the term gender theory, I believe it is more appropriate to use the
term gender/sexuality theory and this will be used throughout this chapter.
Within gender/sexuality theory’s two categories there are three subfields: Fem-
inists studies and Masculinity studies (under gender) and Sexuality studies (under
sexuality). This chapter is in support of Beasley’s (2005) claim that, ‘this interdis-
ciplinary field of gender/sexuality theory assumes that sex is ineluctably a matter
of human organisation—that is, it is political, associated with social dominance and
subordination, as well as capable of change’ (p. 9). As a New Zealand teacher edu-
cator with a strong social justice stance, I am concerned with how both students and
teachers are positioned within the educational system.
This chapter will begin with a brief summary of Beasley’s (2005), Gender &
Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. Then how the three subfields of gen-
der/sexuality theory have been evidenced in my New Zealand science education
programme in an undergraduate primary education programme. Most importantly,
S. S. Sexton (B)
College of Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

438 S. S. Sexton
this chapter will report on research with student teachers challenging normative
attitudes, values, and beliefs of schools.
Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers
Beasley’s (2005) Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers is an

extremely well-written account of the field of gender/sexuality theory. She provides
an informative, systematic, and balanced perspective of Feminist, Masculinity, and
Sexuality studies. Beasley highlighted how gender is a social process. As such, people
and social practices are typically divided along with a binary division based upon
sexed identities. This has resulted in many western societies of one gender placed
in opposition or in a subordinate power position to the other. Feminist studies is
a critique of these mainstream taken for granted normative attitudes, values, and
beliefs of gender identities and power. It is a critical stance against the assumption of
male superiority and centrality with a focus on the marginal. Masculinity studies is
also a critical stance on the mainstream. While Masculinity studies has become more
diverse in its focus it is still primarily focussed on the mainstream white middle-class
heterosexual male. Sexuality studies is a critical stance concerned with theorising
and/or political action in order to promote social change.
Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers is not an attempt to
reach a final answer. It is an analytical overview of critical frameworks in this field.
Beasley notes her overview is an examination of the debates between the three sub-
fields rather than a description of perspectives. For example, in Beasley’s overview
chapter of gender and masculinity studies, she notes Masculinity studies differs from
Feminist and Sexuality studies in the attitude expressed towards the subject matter.
She highlights how Masculinity studies theorists often keep a critical distance from
masculinity which is the subject of their field while Feminist and Sexuality studies
theorists champion the marginalised subjects of their fields. Beasley works through-
out her book to draw attention to the usefulness of developing and maintaining a
critical unease rather than an acceptance of all views.
New Zealand Primary Educational Context
In New Zealand, it is illegal to discriminate based on a person’s gender, religion,

ethnicity, disability, age, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation as well as a person’s
employment, family, and marital status. Issues arise because like many western soci-
eties, New Zealand is a multicultural society (Manning, 2013). While the numeric
majority are Pākehā/European (Pākehā is a term referring to non-Indigenous New
Zealanders) there is a significant Māori (Indigenous New Zealanders) population
with legally recognised customs and traditions. However, nearly 80% of all teachers
29 Gender/Sexuality Theory—Chris Beasley 439
are Pākehā/European of which in primary education 82% are female with an average
age of 50 (Ministry of Education, 2005).
I am a vocal advocate of social justice in education. I position social justice as the
‘respect for differences between groups and between individuals and the dialectical
overcoming of conditions of oppression and inequality’ (Pereira, 2013, p. 163).
Specifically, this chapter uses gender/sexuality theory as a social justice challenge
to the forms of oppression that derive from harmful social, political, and/or cultural
beliefs about a student teacher’s gender, age, and physical appearance (Connell,
2011). It should be noted, this chapter positions gender as a social phenomenon
derived from sociological relationships (Bradley, 2013).
Most importantly for this chapter, Bradley (2013) noted the school setting was
just one of an individual’s social institutions in which the gendering of individuals
and relationships takes place. Gendered practices in school are a complex mixture
of formal and informal educational, cultural, social, and political discourses about
male and female identifications. This chapter is not focussed on the masculinity
and femininity dichotomy of sex-role socialisation theories (Driessen, 2007). This
chapter is focussed on gender/sexuality theory in primary science education as a
means to promote, support, and facilitate the social justice of initial teacher education
(ITE) student teachers.
Promoting, supporting, and facilitating social justice of student teachers requires
initial teacher education to challenge a school’s, teacher’s, or educational commu-
nity’s normative attitudes, values, and beliefs regarding gender, age, and physical
appearance (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009). Primary students want good teachers and
are able to tell you what makes a good teacher for them. Both international and
domestic research studies have noted that students assess their teachers according
to the quality of their teaching, not by their biological classification (Connell, 2011;
Haig & Sexton, 2014; Watson, Kehler, & Martino, 2010). Therefore, ITE should
promote, facilitate, and scaffold student teachers as they learn and practice how to
be ‘effective’ teachers; not ‘male’ or ‘female’ teachers.
Background
The student teachers reported on in this chapter were from two consecutive years
(2015 and 2016) of an undergraduate primary education programme at the University
of Otago. These six student teachers were all over the age of 18 at the time of their
participation and all voluntarily agreed to be included in this study. As part of their
final year of ITE, these student teachers were assigned to a primary classroom for
the year. These student teachers began with the start of the New Zealand school year
in late January with a two-week block in their assigned classroom to see how their
mentor teacher established routines, their programme, and behaviour management.
Then these student teachers continued in this classroom one-day per week before
440 S. S. Sexton
undergoing a three-week sustained teaching experience. They returned to this class-

room in their second semester of university for three weeks of one-day per week
before completing a five-week sustained teaching experience.
This chapter highlights the multidimensionality of identity. Specifically, it presents
six student teachers as examples of how they challenged the normative attitudes,
values, and beliefs of the classroom, school culture, and science. Amy (all names are
pseudonyms) and John self-identified as a lesbian woman and gay male, respectively.
While their sexuality was a part of their identity, it was not the only aspect and both
wanted to be seen as a teacher, not the lesbian or gay teacher. Jenny came to this
ITE programme as a mature 51-year-old adult after having raised her own family
and was working towards a new career. Emma was a 20-year-old from a small rural
community that was not supportive of her applying for either university study or an
ITE programme. Brad was a white, middle-class, heterosexual young man of average
build; while Luke had a commanding physical presence. He stood just under 190 cm
and weighed approximately 90 kg. While rugby was a personal passion, he wanted
to be a primary teacher who brought his skills in rugby to the school as an asset.
Gender/Sexuality Theory Challenging Normative Attitudes,

Values, and Beliefs
As their science education facilitator, I physically present to the student teachers as

a white, middle-aged male, my identity politics do not arise. I introduced myself as
a primary teacher who works for a university’s College of Education. Similarly, my
student teachers’ identity politics are not an issue until a classroom, school, or educa-
tional community attempts to limit, marginalise, or place any of them on the periph-
ery. Amy, John, Jenny, Emma, Brad, and Luke presented a gender/sexuality the-
ory challenge to their classroom’s, school’s, or educational community’s normative
perceptions of how student teachers are identified.
Amy and John
Amy walks into a room expecting most people to form opinions about who she is
based solely on her physical appearance. She has short, cropped hair, almost never
wears make-up, and has piercings in her eyebrow, nose, and upper-lip. John walks
into a room and expects almost no one to notice him. He is of average height and
weight. He dresses and grooms himself conservatively. Nothing about him would
stand out in a crowd, that is until he starts talking. He acknowledges the tone, pitch,
and volume of his voice combined with the overactive use of hand gestures while
talking does support some of the commonly held stereotypes about gay men. Both
of these student teachers, however, felt compelled to challenge the formal and infor-
mal educational, cultural, social, and political discourses about normative male and
female identifications. In discussions with how and why they saw the need to chal-
lenge their schools’ taken for granted normative perceptions, both would align with
Beasley’s (2005) Race/Ethnicity/Imperialism. Amy from the Feminist studies and
John the Sexuality studies perspective.
Amy knows gender has been a barrier to learning as some subjects like sci-
ence have unconscious acceptance of gender-role stereotypes (Bailey, Scantlebury,
& Letts, 1997). Amy grew up experiencing a school system that located masculinity
and femininity separately in boys and girls. Her schooling experiences had paired
boys with boys and girls with girls. Amy firmly believed it was one of her roles
as a teacher to challenge not only her own attitudes, values, and beliefs but also
those of her mentor teacher, school, and students. She introduced herself to her 29
Year 6 (students aged 11) class through activities around how everyone was unique
highlighting what each student had about themselves that made them special. When
planning her science unit, she wanted to combine these activities with change of
state. For Amy a unit on the changes of state of water offered her the opportunity
to build on her introduction activities, ‘What makes you special?’ while not only
challenging what students think they know about water as a solid, liquid, and gas
but also with whom they can work. For example, her students used closed systems
(water in sealed containers) to demonstrate evaporation, condensation, and precip-
itation to their Year 2 (students aged 7) reading buddies. The Year 6 students then
lead discussions with their Year 2 buddies about how solid water was different from
liquid water and gaseous water as well as what made each state of water special.
As a teacher, John was a firm believer in using Learning without Limits (Hart,
Drummond, & McIntyre, 2006) as a means to actively include and involve all stu-
dents. John ensured that every one of his 26 Year 2 students in his class was aware
of what they were doing and the reasons behind school rules. John used agar jelly
activities as the focus of his unit. In the student teachers’ ITE course, this activity
was used as a way to show why there are school rules about health and hygiene. John
wanted his students to come to the realisation that they themselves needed to rewrite
the school rules from their perspective so that these rules were not power structures
imposed on them. Therefore, John’s students investigated tabletops, food dropped
on the ground, shoes in the classroom, and covering their mouths while coughing or
nose while sneezing. To ensure his students understood it was the ground, desktop,
or shoe that was being investigated, the week before this unit began John’s students
washed their hands with soap and water and wiped fingers across agar dishes that
were then labelled, sealed, and set aside over the weekend. Then the following week
when this unit was introduced, these dishes were used to show how clean their hands
were. John ensured his students understood no one was being singled out as ‘dirty’
or ‘unclean’ it was what they were investigating. John’s students washed their hands
after these activities to re-enforce this point. Over the next several days, the students
checked the agar dishes to see what was happening from each surface investigated.
To enhance their capacity for learning, John referred back to a previous unit on pets
where students investigated what pets needed to be healthy and happy: food, water,
442 S. S. Sexton
shelter, warmth, and care. This allowed his students to make connections between
previous activities and they were able to explain how the agar dishes provided them
shelter, food, and water necessary for the mould and bacteria to grow. John’s explic-
itly designed activities based on the Learning without Limits pedagogical principles
of everybody, co-agency, and trust (Hart et al., 2006). These activities allowed his
students to understand for themselves the health and hygiene explanations behind
why the school had certain rules. As a result, the class co-created a new class charter
to include we: sit on chairs or the mat, put dropped food in the compost bin, take
shoes off at the door, and cover our mouth or nose when coughing or sneezing.
Amy deliberately planned for the disruption of normative attitudes, values, and
beliefs in her school’s buddy system. She reorganised the buddy system for gender
equity: Year 6 boys with Year 2 girls and boys, Year 6 girls with Year 2 boys and
girls rather than the established boy–boy and girl–girl arrangement. Amy agrees with
Connell (2011) that it is through men and women who have grown up as boys and
girls working together for gender equity change to happen. John led his students
through a series of learning opportunities that facilitated them realising why they sit
on chairs not the tabletops, put dropped food in the compost bin not eating it, and
cover their mouths/nose. John knows men and boys are not isolated individuals and
that they live in social relationships with women and girls. He supports Connell’s
(2011) idea that relational interests in which both boys and girls should grow up with
opportunities to fulfil their talents. Both Amy and John challenged how their schools
perceived them as identified lesbian (Amy) and gay (John) rather than the capable
and confident student teachers putting into practice effective teaching pedagogies.
Jenny and Emma
Jenny knows she looks like a grandmother because she is one. She brought to her ITE
programme a much more diverse and extensive set of life experiences than the typical
student teacher did. It was not a surprise for her to discover that her own children
were older than most of her student–teacher colleagues. After raising her family and
helping her own children with their children, her family was now supporting her in
gaining teacher qualification. In almost every demographic, Emma was the opposite
of Jenny. Emma had just turned 20 at the start of her third and final year of study.
She grew up in a small rural town with a population at the last census of 542. I was
fortunate enough to be on her interviewing panel for admission to the College of
Education. This interview almost did not happen as her confidential school report
noted that they did not believe she had the capabilities to cope with either university-
level study or being a teacher. Thankfully, we interviewed her anyway. She presented
herself well and quite capably explained why she wanted the opportunity to be a
teacher. She has held down a full-time job since being accepted for this University
as she is supporting herself. While Jenny was a firm advocate of Beasley’s (2005)
Feminist Social Constructionism, Emma saw herself aligning more comfortably with
the relational power position of postmodern Sexuality studies.
For Jenny, the essential needs that shape motivation, development, and learning
are the fundamental needs of emotional and physical safety, being in close and
supportive relationships, and being connected and belonging to a community. Jenny
sees her role as the teacher to build students’ cognitive development in an intentional
and systematic manner by engaging them in challenging and meaningful activities.
Jenny used Explosions: How and why you can set students on fire as the perfect
opportunity to blend how to meet the fundamental needs of her 18 Year 5/6 (students
aged 10–11) children in meaningful activities. Through a science unit titled, ‘How
amazing is water!’ Jenny challenged her students to develop their self-esteem and
willingness to step outside their comfort zone. To facilitate this, Jenny’s students
investigated the heat absorption capabilities of water. Throughout this unit, Jenny’s
students not only built up their scientific knowledge about water and its properties
through collaborative discussions but also their willingness to take risks. The unit
began with low-risk activities to build trust and culminated in all students willingly
soaking one arm (from the tips of their fingers up to their elbow) in water before
taking a handful of LPG-filled bubbles and having the bubbles set alight so they could
toss fire (the flaming bubbles) into the air. This may have been a hands-on activity
but also educational as her students were also able to explain how and why water’s
absorption of heat prevented them from being burnt.
Emma’s unit title ‘Forces and Motion: Our choices have consequences’ was her
opportunity to show her 31 Year 4 (students aged 9-10) class that they do have the
ability to influence what happens. She is a firm believer that schools and teachers
need to promote students’ self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is the
belief in one’s own ability to accomplish something successfully. From personal
experience, she knows that many students will not attempt things they believe they
will fail. Teaching for her is not putting obstacles in her students’ path preventing
them from being successful. Likewise, her classroom will not be a place of the stress,
anxiety, worry, and fear that she experienced.
Emma wanted her students to experience that through science students learn to
ask questions that will often lead to further investigations. While these investigations
may challenge what they think they know, science allows students the opportunity
to change their answers as they learn more. Emma began with students using the
school’s playground equipment to discuss in small groups: what makes it move, how
we can stop it from moving, what do we have to do to keep in moving. Through
this introduction activity that uses familiar equipment that is outside the classroom,
Emma was able to gauge students’ understandings of forces and motions. Then a
return activity back outside with the slide set the stage for using groups to use ramps
and marbles in the classroom to explore the effect of changing angle of ramp, weight
of object, or friction (rolling on carpet, linoleum, towels, etc.). The students’ self-
selected groups and chose which activity to explore. In their groups they used markers
to record their data. Each group then reported back to the rest of the class what they
had done and what they had observed. It was through these whole class discussions
that students realised while other groups were exploring similar activities, each group
reported back different observations. The students questioned each activity as a whole
class to explore how and why similar activities resulted in different observations.
444 S. S. Sexton
Jenny refused to accept any barrier from teaching in a way that resonates socially
(classrooms that are safe and supportive of each other) and emotionally (classrooms
that build self-esteem through scaffold risk-taking) with her students. She was confi-
dent enough in her own abilities that her school’s and educational community’s initial
concerns regarding her combined age and gender were not going to prevent her from
teaching. Jenny saw herself as a modernist feminist (Bradley, 2013) who refused to be
marginalised from what she knew she was capable of doing. Emma had real trouble
seeing herself as a feminist and while she agreed with Jenny in many ways, she felt
more comfortable within Sexuality studies rather than Feminist studies. Emma who
rejects the essentialist position on identity categories still could not see herself as a
postmodern feminist (Bradley, 2013) as central to her teaching philosophy was her
student’s agency and self-efficacy. When asked how her position differed from the
postmodern feminist position that seeks a, ‘deeper and more detailed understanding
of the different shades of relationships, not only between men and women, but also
women and themselves’ (Bradley, 2013, p. 76) responded that as she not a minority
in ethnicity or sexuality and sees social change as important; she therefore felt more
comfortable in Sexuality studies rather than Feminist studies.
Brad and Luke
Brad was a single, white, heterosexual, middle-class young man of average size aged
22. In many ways, it could be argued that the education system of New Zealand was
designed to support him. Unlike Brad, Luke took up space when he was in a room.
He was 24 years old and is physically large. He looks like a rugby player because he
is one. Like Brad, he was also a single, white, middle-class, heterosexual young man.
When Brad interviewed for admission into this ITE programme he was told he would
have no trouble getting a job as a primary teacher as schools are looking for strong
male teachers. For his placement in his first year of the programme, he was assigned
a Year 6 class. He admitted this was not what he wanted and this almost resulted in
him pulling out of the programme. He reported that his mentor teacher treated him
like a big child who could not teach the real subjects like Literacy and Numeracy. He
was given the Physical Education classes as then he could take the boys for rugby. He
did not want to be a rugby coach; he wanted to be a teacher. In his second year, he was
assigned a Year 1 (students aged 6) primary class and knew that teaching the lower
primary classes was what he wanted. He requested another Year 1 placement for his
final year. Year 1 was where he felt he was best at building supportive interpersonal
relationships with students and creating the classroom environment that promoted
positive academic attitude, values, and beliefs.
When I went through teacher education, 3% of my cohort were male and all of
us had to address issues raised by schools and colleagues with being male primary
teachers. We were always labelled as the ‘male’ primary teachers, never just primary
teachers. In Brad and Luke’s year group, 21% of the cohort were male of which almost
none have reported any issue with them being a primary teacher. Brad and Luke were
two of those who did raise concerns as both have self-selected to be lower primary
teachers (teachers of New Entrant—Year 2, students aged 5–7). Bard wants to be
a New Entrant teacher (students aged 5). New Entrant classes are bridging classes
in primary schools between early childhood centres and the start of compulsory
education (Year 1, students aged 6). As stated, Luke sees himself in Year 1.
Brad is not on any political campaign to champion men’s rights nor does he have
any social agenda to promote male teachers of young children. His biggest issue was
having to explain repeatedly to schools and parents he has no politics, no agenda, no
campaign. He just wants to be a teacher, so what is the big deal. Thankfully, he has no
personal experience with the politics, agendas, and campaigns both for and against
male teachers, especially male teachers of young learners (see Martino, 2008; Mills,
Martino, & Lingard, 2004; Skelton, 2003 for an international perspective and Haig &
Sexton, 2014; Hood, 2001 for a domestic perspective). What Brad has experienced
is having to demonstrate his ability to be a teacher and work in an educational system
that until he entered ITE, had only supported him.
Brad believes he has been observed more times and more closely than most stu-
dent teachers. He feels he has had to justify his intentions and reasons in more detail
than most of his colleagues. As a result, he believes he is far better prepared than
he might have been without this closer and more constant observation of his prac-
tice. His planning is grounded firmly in The New Zealand Curriculum’s (Ministry
of Education, 2007) effective pedagogies. He plans all his teaching opportunities
around students being in a safe learning environment that facilitates shared learning
as students make connections to their prior learning and experiences. Brad did this
in his science unit of Day and Night for his New Entrant class. Brad began by taking
his class outside and in pairs tracing a shadow of a tree, bush, or building on the edge
of the Netball courts, outside the play area so as not to interfere with other classes
who might come out to play on them. Once the students began, he waited until most
were about halfway through their tracing and called them together to talk about how
it was going and what parts were easier to trace. After his discussion, the students
returned to their traces and tried to continue. Most students noticed the shadows had
moved and were no longer the same. This lead into discussion on how and why the
shadows moved. The next day the students went back outside to trace an object but
this time they were given time to complete the shadow in one colour at the start of
the day (8:50) and then just before playtime (10:30) they traced the shadow again
in a different colour and then again after playtime (11:00). These activities lead into
discussions about how the shadows were formed and why they changed as the day
went from start of school to playtime to after playtime. Further sessions explored
how the students understood Day and Night.
Luke used the topic of gardens to show his students that what they do has conse-
quences. Specifically, he used an activity of growing ‘wheat grass heads’ (students
put a photo of an animal on a cup, and as the wheat grass grew, it became the hair
of the animal) to show his students how care, attention, and thinking about one’s
actions lead to better results. Over the week, Luke and his students tended to their
wheat grass heads talking about and discussing sunlight, when/how much to water,
temperature, and handling. Central to how Luke sees his role as the teacher is through
446 S. S. Sexton
reciprocal imitation (Zhou, 2012). In this Year 1 class, Luke knew it was his actions
and behaviour as a caring, responsible, and effective teacher that his students imi-
tated. This imitation offered Luke the opportunity to express his concept of ‘self’
as a teacher through his actions, experiences, and emotions (Zhou, 2012) instead of
what ‘others’ may expect from a rugby player.
Both Brad and Luke like the concept of Liberal Human Rights from Sexuality
studies (Beasley, 2005) as they would see themselves holding an anti-discrimination
position. They stated they would also not only support gays and lesbians as members
of the universal ‘Human’, but also women, ethnic minorities, and anyone else for
that matter. Both had some difficulty with Masculinity studies and outright refused
the idea of them being feminised men. They agreed that masculinity is a socially,
historically, and culturally derived concept but were very uncomfortable with the
concept of hegemonic masculinity. In further discussions, I drew their attention to
Hearn’s (2004) ‘hegemony of men’ and how I had used it in exploring friendship
circles (Sexton, 2017). They agreed with Hearn’s idea that hegemonic masculinity is
too restrictive as the focus on masculinity is too limited. Hearn’s hegemony of men,
‘seeks to address the double complexity that men are both a social category formed by
the gender system and dominate collective and individual agents of social practice’
(Hearn 2004, 59, italics in original). Hegemony of men necessitates a critical look
at the social category of men. These investigations require addressing the formation
of the social categories and how these become the ‘taken-for-grantedness’ (Hearn
2004). Brad and Luke out of unexpected necessity have been required to examine
their social position as gatekeepers for gender equality (Connell, 2011). As white,
middle-class, heterosexual men they understand how their views on masculinity are
‘socially constructed patterns of gender practice’ (Connell, 2011, p. 10). While they
have not had to struggle publicly or privately with Sexuality studies debate concerning
their heterosexual desires, they have gained a better understanding of Feminism’s
need to critique the mainstream’s presumption of what counts as normative.
Final Thoughts
Gender/sexuality theory concerns a complex issue that is often extremely personal

to those involved. As a result, Beasley (2005) notes how it, ‘may be passionately
interpreted in sharply different ways’ (p. 8). The six student teachers reported here
support this claim. Amy and John are both members of the queer community but
would argue being queer is only one part of who they are. They do not see a need to be
politically radical but will challenge issues of identity politics that they do not agree
with. Jenny and Emma came from two different generations. Jenny came of age in
the late 70s while Emma has just now reached this milestone. Jenny was expected to
marry and become a mother to her children, which she did. Emma was expected to
stay in her local community and accept whatever future she was offered, which she
did not. Both are trying to be the person they want to be; however, Jenny sees herself
as a Feminist while Emma does not. It would not be hard to argue Brad and Luke
are members of the mainstream as both are white, middle-class, heterosexual men.
Like many in gender/sexuality theory, they do not see their gender or sexuality as an
issue to them being the teacher they want to be. Also, like many in gender/sexuality
theory, they are tired and frustrated with having to justify who they are and what they
want to be just because of their gender and sexuality. Both know the importance of
other men but more importantly their students seeing a range of possibilities for their
own lives (Connell, 2011).
Our world is full of diverse individuals and therefore it is crucial that our class-
rooms provide an environment where everyone is safe, supported, and welcomed.
This is for both students and their teachers. New Zealand teachers and schools are
directed by the Ministry of Education policy to embrace diversity and inclusion
(Ministry of Education, 2007). Those educational communities that do not see the
variations within gender and sexuality as a hindrance are able to build responsive,
reciprocal, and corroborative relationships needed to enrich each individual’s edu-
cation. Teachers should be encouraging differences as a means to learn from one
another.
The purpose of initial teacher education is to prepare student teachers with the
skills, knowledge, and behaviours needed to be effective teachers for all their students.
The six student teachers in this chapter show how they challenged their school’s,
classroom’s, or educational community’s normative attitudes, values, and beliefs
regarding gender, age, and physical appearance. These six student teachers explicitly
sought to trouble the taken-for-grantedness of the primary education system in New
Zealand. Amy disrupted her school’s gendered buddy system. John eliminated the
power structure behind school rules allowing his class to co-create a new class charter
based on equality. Jenny and Emma disrupted the perceptions of age and gender while
Brad and Luke disrupted the perception of gender, sexuality, and physical appearance.
These student teachers have highlighted how we are all unique individuals and should
focus on the normalisation of difference. As such, schools need a more sophisticated
notion of normality, knowledge, and learning. We, as teachers, should question the
taken-for-grantedness assumptions about what teachers and students should do. We
have the ability to go against these messages.
Summary
• Initial teacher education should prepare all student teachers to be effective teachers
no matter what their gender, age, or sexuality.
• The classroom must be an environment where both students and teachers feel
safe, supported, and welcome.
• Diversity and Inclusion should be embraced as normative.
448 S. S. Sexton
References
Bailey, B., Scantlebury, K., & Letts, W. (1997). It’s not my style: Using disclaimers to ignore gender
issues in science. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 29–36.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Beasley, C. (2005). Gender and sexuality: Critical theories, critical thinkers. London: SAGE
Publications.
Bradley, H. (2013). Gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009).
Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of
Education, 115, 347–377.
Connell, R. (2011). Confronting equality: Gender, knowledge and global change. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effects of teachers’ sex on pupil
achievement, attitudes and behaviour. Review of Education, 53(2), 183–203.
Haig, B., & Sexton, S. S. (2014). Primary students’ perceptions of good teachers. Set, 3, 22–28.
Hart, S., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning without limits: Constructing a peda-
gogy from determinist beliefs about ability. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special
education (pp. 499–514). London: SAGE.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5(1),
49–72.
Hood, L. (2001). A city possessed: The Christchurch civic centre creche. Dunedin, NZ: Longacre
Press.
Manning, B. (2013, 11 December). Census 2013: More ethnicities than the world’s countries. New
Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=
11170288.
Martino, W. J. (2008). Male teachers as role models: Addressing issues of masculinity, pedagogy
and the re-masculinization of schooling. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(2), 189–223.
Mills, M., Martino, W., & Lingard, B. (2004). Attracting, recruiting and retaining male teachers:
Policy issues in the male teacher debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(3), 355–
369.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Education counts—teacher census. Retrieved from http://www.
educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/teacher_census.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning
Media Ltd.
Pereira, F. (2013). Initial teacher education for social justice and teaching work in urban schools:
An (im)pertinent reflection. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 162–180. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=95635307&site=ehost-
live&scope=site.
Sexton, S. S. (2017). The intersection of self and school: How friendship circles influence hetero-
sexual and self-identified queer teenage New Zealand boys’ views on acceptable language and
behaviour. Gender and Education, 29(3), 299–312.
Skelton, C. (2003). Male primary teachers and perceptions of masculinity. Educational Review,
55(2), 195–209.
Watson, A., Kehler, M., & Martino, W. (2010). The problem of boys’ literacy underachievement:
Raising some questions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 356–361. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614569.
Zhou, J. (2012). The effects of reciprocal imitation on teacher-student realtionships and student
learning outcomes. Minds, Brain, and Education, 6(2), 66–73.
Steven S. Sexton is a senior lecturer at the University of Otago, College of Education. He obtained
his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney in 2007. He has been a classroom teacher in Japan, Thai-
land, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, he delivers science education papers
in both the undergraduate initial teacher education primary programme and the Master of Teach-
ing and Learning programme. His research interest areas are in relevant, useful, and meaningful
learning in science education, teacher cognition, and heteronormativity in schools.
Chapter 30
Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Constance Khupe
Introduction
Colonisation created an unplanned interface of knowledge systems, and an assump-

tion that the knowledge of the conqueror was more beneficial for the conquered
than the knowledge on which their lives were actually grounded. Subsequent to
political conquest, colonial powers introduced to Indigenous populations a form of
education that was for purposes of assimilation, and research that was unrepresenta-
tive of Indigenous perspectives. The recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems
emanated from persistent calls for democracy, human rights, social justice, and inclu-
sivity and for the decolonisation of institutions of knowledge production. Indigenous
knowledge systems theory calls for the recognition of Indigenous knowledges and
ways of living as valid resources for education and development, and as a valid
framework for research among and with Indigenous peoples. In this chapter, I add
my voice to the already established conversation for Indigenous people-centred edu-
cation and research. Firstly, I use the genre of story to provide a historical context
for the development of IKS theory. In presenting the theory, I outline factors that
the theory addresses, and then present the nature of Indigenous knowledge systems.
Lastly, I discuss with examples, application and related challenges for IKS theory in
curriculum design, teaching and learning, and in research.
Historical Background
Once upon a time, different groups of humans found themselves inhabiting different
parts of planet Earth, living off the land. Each locale had different environmental
C. Khupe (B)
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

452 C. Khupe
conditions, which the humans began to adapt to for their survival. Although resultant
ways of living varied according to setting, the human-nature relationship was largely
guided by a view of nature as supplying human needs. Value systems emerged which
governed this relationship, and for the greater part it was one of respect for nature,
even to the point of reverence. Continual exploration deepened human understanding
of intimacy with and reverence for the environment, and a striving to strike a balance
between human survival and conservation.
Values and knowledge were passed on for the survival of posterity. The home
language was the language of teaching and learning, and teachers used familiar
points of reference within lived experience. Education was structured in ways that
we would today describe as formal, informal and non-formal. The curriculum enabled
continuing education, ensured relevance for prevailing needs and the roles that the
learners played in the community, and was deeply embedded in culture. The teachers
were native to the learning contexts: parents, siblings, grandparents, extended family
and local experts in various fields. Knowledge was socially constructed, and was a
reflection of the social context of origin. The same applied to inquiry. Inquirers did
not (inappropriately) distance themselves or feign a neutral relationship with what
they studied. This order persisted for centuries.
The different communities did not necessarily view their knowledge systems as
closed, and they were not unreceptive of other knowledges. Knowledge was shared
and exchanged on respectful terms across groups. This advanced the knowledge
systems over time.
At some point, some of the people (mostly those who resided in Europe) began
to build cities. Perhaps it was for convenience and for protection. Their connection
to the land weakened as they began to invent ever quicker ways of getting things
done. Soon enough they even thought of themselves as better than their relations
who still lived off the land, and depended on labour-intensive processes to make a
living. Many decades later, the machine people began to ‘tour’ other lands. They
had apparently become so engrossed with themselves as to think they were the only
legitimate inhabitants of Earth. Wherever they ‘toured’, they encountered the ‘other’
relations. They chose not to recognise them. Maybe it was not their fault. None of
these ‘relations’ were like them. They were dark-skinned and spoke gibberish. Were
they really human? The machine people could not resist the impulse to get these
primitive people and their systems out of the way.
Migration had been common practice in human history, but the inter-continental
movements and invasive tendencies of the machine people were way beyond normal.
Their encounters with the dwellers of the distant lands resulted in varying degrees
of physical and epistemic violence. They disrupted ways of living and enslaved
their hosts. They expropriated both knowledge and natural resources. They oblit-
erated languages and cultures, and separated children from parents. They intro-
duced an education that elevated the settler perspective and demeaned the local,
and conducted research in ways that objectified locals. In places, they even deci-
mated local populations. The conquerors perceived themselves as superior to their
hosts—politically, ideologically and epistemologically. They expropriated as theirs
all the knowledge that they viewed as useful, and rejected and suppressed that
30 Indigenous Knowledge Systems 453
which they thought was not. Knowledges, languages and cultures were debased
and lost through the hegemony which prevailed through centuries of colonialism.
Political freedom (where this has been achieved) failed to undo the deep-seated
epistemological disenfranchisement among these formerly colonised peoples.
Science education and research—as brought into the conquered lands—were at
best inconsistent with local systems of knowing and forms of inquiry. At worst,
they were a representation and a vehicle of mental colonisation through which truth
and reality were only defined in the terms of the powerful. Science education and
research served colonial interests of power and domination, and thus silenced local
knowledge systems. The cognitive distance of science learning from the realities of
students created dissonance and cognitive conflict which has partly explained the poor
academic outcomes among students from non-European backgrounds. The situation
has not been different for research. Mainstream literature did not address issues
faced by Indigenous researchers and Indigenous participants, neither were prescribed
methods consistent with the ways of living among the researched. Colonial (and
post-colonial) research and education did not achieve a happy ending for conquered
peoples.
The construct of ‘Indigenous’ as a descriptor of peoples and knowledges emerged
in the 1970s as a result of the struggles of Indians in North America (Smith, 2012). The
term is now generally used with reference to many of the world’s colonised peoples.
The collective knowledge and values, ways of living in nature and cultural practices is
referred to as Indigenous knowledge systems. In the following sections, I present IKS
as a more culturally fitting perspective for science education and research. I will draw
on literature to argue for applications of IKS theory with a view to promote discussion
that contributes to sustained applications of IKS theory in science education and
research.
Development of IKS Theory
Although resistance to colonisation and its related consequences has been ongoing
for centuries, voices have been louder in the last few decades. Scholars have increas-
ingly voiced against discordant education and research experiences that result from
the hegemony of Eurocentric perspectives over Indigenous knowledge systems and
cultural identities. Scholars, such as Bagele Chilisa, Catherine Odora Hoppers, Linda
Tuhiwai Smith, Marie Battiste, Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Shawn Wilson, advocate
for the transformation of curriculum, pedagogy and research for the decolonisation
and emancipation of oppressed peoples. Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s book Decolonizing
Methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples is among those that have become
seminal in IKS education and research. I will draw from Smith’s work as represen-
tative of the voices of Indigenous scholars who contributed to the development of
IKS theory. A Maori by birth, Smith drew her reflections from her indigenous iden-
tity and experience, as well as her research experience. Her reflections and dissent
developed within ‘resistance’ movements surrounding land dispossession as well as
454 C. Khupe
through activism by urban Maori. Among the demands of the latter was teaching of
Maori language in schools. Smith is among the founders of Maori elementary school
(Smith, 2012). Writing from critical and feminist perspectives, Smith counters the
dominant Western assumption that research and research methods are culture-free.
She calls on Indigenous peoples to re-imagine the role of knowledge, knowledge
production and knowledge hierarchies. While for many societies, colonisation at a
political level has ended, there is still a need for decolonisation at the intellectual
and social structural levels. The world over, Indigenous people suffer dehumanis-
ing experiences especially in educational institutions. It is only through intellectual
decolonisation that the colonising and dehumanising research practices and related
education systems could be questioned, and more appropriate methods developed.
IKS theory foregrounds culture, language and worldview in education, research
and development work among Indigenous peoples. The theory acknowledges the
validity of identities and worldviews that inform the ways of being and ways of
living from the vantage point of Indigenous peoples. IKS theory provides space for
epistemic justice and the transformation of education and research to become aligned
with Indigenous culture and ethics.
Why Indigenous Knowledge Systems Theory?
Addressing Socio-Political Injustice
Colonisation, dispossession and related knowledge subjugation were at the heart of

the ‘Othering’ by colonial settlers in all the Indigenous communities where they
landed. Post political freedom, Indigenous peoples are still battling for social justice,
human rights, recognition and inclusivity of their cultures and knowledge systems.
Education and research have been too intimately linked to the colonial project and
its assumptions of superiority over Indigenous peoples and have directly contributed
to their continued subjugation rather than emancipation—hence the legacy of ‘scien-
tific racism’ (Langer-Osuna & Nasir, 2016). What was published as research findings
on Indigenous peoples were sometimes broad generalisations drawn from superficial
encounters, with little effort for in-depth understanding of the peoples (Smith, 2012).
Colonialism thrived on expropriation of knowledge and knowledge products, para-
doxically rejecting the people who developed them. The colonial era brought with it a
system of intellectual property rights that is based on individualism and commercial-
isation—often not compatible with collectively held ownership of knowledge and
resources that is characteristic of the way of being among Indigenous people. Indige-
nous languages, cultures and knowledge frameworks were denied survival (Smith,
2012). It is these and other social justice matters that prompted Indigenous scholars
to call for the decolonisation of research methodologies, the acknowledgement of
Indigenous languages as valid, and the decolonisation of curricula (as in the case of
South African higher education). Democracy and political freedom achieved justice
only at a superficial level. There is still need in many contexts to disrupt colonising
education and research practices through recognition of local perspectives.
Countering Knowledge Monopoly
Through mainstream education, the Western knowledge system dominated, and con-
tinues to dominate other knowledge systems. Mainstream education dominates cur-
riculum design, development and implementation through an erroneous assumption
of culture-free curriculum and assessment. Resultant forms of education, and partic-
ularly science education, hardly have any representation of local perspectives. For
ages, schools have presented as symbols for the exotic and the powerful—islands
of knowledge that are all-knowing and whose sole purpose is to impart knowledge
to those who are presumed not to have any. School science (as already mentioned)
is founded on Western values. As a result, students from non-Western backgrounds
often feel alienated from the subject because of teaching and learning processes that
do not adequately engage their lived realities and ways of being. Instead of inter-
rogating the appropriateness of the education offered to Indigenous children, the
simplistic way out is often to label the students as incompetent and even incapable of
learning. The questions that Smith (2012) asks about research are relevant for deter-
mining the perspective a particular education system serves. Such questions probe
issues of ownership and interests being served, who the designers and beneficiaries
are, and who will implement. The assimilatory nature of colonial and post-colonial
education has been found to give rise to negative curriculum experiences for students,
manifesting through lack of interest, lack of meaningful learning, discomfort with
content and method, poor academic performance and outright rejection.
Although developments in teaching and learning increasingly place emphasis
on student-centred teaching, Indigenous students’ knowledges and experiences are
often viewed as barriers to learning rather than as potentially valuable resources.
Science education estranges Indigenous students from their own cultures and not
much is done to assist students negotiate cultural borders between their Indigenous
and Western science knowledge (Veintie, 2013). Curricula that are responsive to local
knowledges and worldviews have been slow in coming. IKS theory comes with the
need to disrupt the monopoly of Western knowledge for the purpose of cognitive
justice, and to contribute to the development of inclusive education (Shava, 2016).
Research and Ethics
Colonially framed research has been characterised by dismissal of the cultural

rights and languages of Indigenous populations, and an unwillingness to consider
what is ethical from the perspectives of Indigenous participants. At present, even
though research proposals go through ethics committees for approval, there is not
456 C. Khupe
always adequate representation of indigenous perspectives to provide guidance on

the appropriateness of proposed methods of engaging communities.
The Nature of Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Assumptions
The following assertions (and assumptions) guide Indigenous knowledge systems

theory:
• Indigenous people are legitimate, and so are their languages, cultures and
knowledge.
• Knowledge is socially constructed and therefore cannot be understood apart from
the knower.
• Knowledge is embedded in culture and language.
• Knowledge is characteristically diverse.
Research and education as knowledge production and transmission are not culture-
free.
An outside perspective may easily view Indigenous knowledges systems as sin-
gular because of similarities in the worldviews from which the knowledge develops.
However, Indigenous knowledges are place and culture-specific, and hence should
not be construed as homogenous (Mbiti, 1969; Smith, 2012). The histories and cul-
tures of different peoples are profoundly diverse; hence they produce different knowl-
edges (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). Firstly, the variation in knowledge systems
corresponds with spatial variation in environmental conditions, and secondly it is
a product of the culture. I need to quickly emphasise that understanding IK only
as environmental response would be misleading. Reality in Indigenous worldview
is made up of physical, social and spiritual dimensions. In different communities,
there is sacred significance attached to mountains, rivers, caves and trees, for exam-
ple. People live in respectful co-existence and interdependence with living, once-
living and non-living elements (Khupe, 2014). The way of living and being—which
informs Indigenous knowledge—is therefore a three-way relationship of the social,
the physical and the spiritual.
Indigenous knowledge systems are open systems. They are evolving historical
and social constructions that can safely be referred to in the present tense. They are
knowledge-in-process. It is only because of the assimilationist nature of knowledge
associated with Western worldviews that Indigenous knowledges were denigrated
and replaced, and hence viewed as only belonging to an uncivilised past. IKS theory
recognises the role of the following:
People
Knowledge is a social construction and cannot be separated from the knower. Elders
(both the elderly and experts in different fields) are the centre of the development,
storage and transmission of Indigenous knowledge. Elders are the repositories of

both information and experience in Indigenous communities.
Place
Indigenous knowledge is established in connection to the land. Indigenous cultures
are subsistence. People live off the land and have an intimate relationship with their
physical environment. Place is a main differentiating factor of the knowledge of dif-
ferent Indigenous groups, providing the necessary cultural experience that contributes
to developing a people’s sense of identity.
Relationships
Indigenous knowledges are relationship-oriented. These relationships manifest
within the social dimension, between social and natural and between social and spir-
itual dimensions. The individual is almost always viewed in relationship. As a result,
relationships are characterised by collective co-existence, ownership and responsi-
bility. In some African contexts, this collective relationship has been described as
ubuntu (Letseka, 2013). Hamminga (2005) uses the metaphor of a tree to describe
this collective co-existence, asserting that no part of a tree can choose an individual
existence. All individual effort is meant to point towards the communal project of the
generation, preservation and transmission of knowledge and accompanying beliefs.
Language
Just like any other form of knowledge, IK is transmitted across time and space.
Language is the medium of both IK representation and transmission across gener-
ations. Understanding Indigenous people’s knowledge systems cannot be complete
if the language in which the knowledge is coded is not understood (Khupe, 2017).
Language represents culture and the collective memory of the people who speak it.
Holistic and Experiential
Indigenous knowledges are not limited to sensory perceptions. They include intuition,
dreams and supernatural revelations and experiences. By their nature, Indigenous
knowledges are not amenable to categorisation into the subject disciplines that char-
acterise Western knowledge. They cut across disciplines covering (among others),
agriculture, medicine, botany, art, craft, music, governance. Indigenous knowledge
is experiential, not theoretical. It is a living process that has to be learned, understood
and lived (Battiste, 2002).
Application of IKS Theory
As explained in previous sections, calls for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges

in science education come from a range of rationales. From the advent of colonialism,
education has been a vehicle of the transmission of validated western information
from teacher to student. There has been little willingness to push knowledge bound-
aries and to think beyond the prescriptions of Western epistemology. IKS theory
458 C. Khupe
calls on teachers to engage students in interpretive exploration of different knowl-

edge systems and ways of coming to know. This assists students to not only appre-
ciate the existence of multiple realities, but to also critically engage with their own
assumptions.
Research and education as knowledge construction and transmission occur within
broader historical, political and cultural contexts. We have already established that
when research and education disregard the local context, whether intended or not—
the process is alienating and dehumanising for Indigenous community stakeholders.
It erodes trust. IKS theory calls for research and education that are centred around
the priorities of Indigenous people, where space is opened for collective decision-
making, power and knowledge sharing with local communities. A deficit perspective
is not consistent with IKS theory. Rather, boundaries of education and research are
opened up for the nurturing of Indigenous cultural identities. When appropriately
applied, IKS theory results in community-centred education and research. Figure 30.1
Collaboration
Recognition
of local Respectful
relationships
language
Role of
Relevance Elders
EDUCATION
AND
RESEARCH
Local cultural Shared

protocols benefits
Importance of
Community place /
perspectives
context
Fig. 30.1 Framework for community-centred education and research

suggests a framework for community-centred education and research. Details may

vary according to contexts.
The framework underscores the appropriateness of education and research that
are guided by the counsel of active community engagement (represented by the
circular formation). I deliberately use the circle to symbolise collective engagement,
consultation, deliberation and sharing which are common among Indigenous peoples.
Science Teaching and Learning
Application of IKS theory begins with a curriculum design that connects with the
languages, cultures and holistic life context of the population that the curriculum is
intended to serve. Teaching and learning resources and assessment methods draw
from students’ lived experiences and worldviews. The knowledges, cultures, lan-
guages values and experiences that students bring into the classroom and continue
to draw on as they process knowledge from school science are made explicit in both
the intended and implemented curricula. In cases where national curricula offer little
support, local level curricula are informed by a deliberate focus on reconstructing
indigeneity through ongoing collaboration and knowledge sharing with Indigenous
peoples. Science education that is based on IKS theory recognises and engages
with students’ realities (knowledge, culture, language(s) and spirituality), not from
a deficit perspective, but through deliberative dialogue. The aim will be to bridge the
knowledge distance between local and school knowledge, and to give opportunity
for cultural and cognitive safety when students cross borders between Indigenous
and school knowledge.
IKS theory recognises the role of community elders, who are the custodians of
local knowledge, language and culture. Elders become co-teachers and resource
centres. IKS-based science education acknowledges the cultural and power-related
dimensions of education, and actively seeks power-balance and inclusivity. An exam-
ple of such school-community collaboration is the Rekindling Traditions—a cross-
cultural science education project among the Cree people in Saskatchewan, Canada
(Aikenhead, 2001; 2002). In Rekindling Traditions, teachers and Elders work together
as cultural guides assisting students to appreciate both the nature of scientific knowl-
edge and the nature of Indigenous knowledge through cross-cultural science teaching.
A broader application of IKS theory is represented in Kaupapa Maori—education
that incorporates a Maori world view. Kaupapa Maori initiatives cover pre-school
to tertiary education all based on Maori worldview and cultural principles. Kaupapa
Maori is based on what the Maori decide is best for their children. Few Indigenous
communities have reached that stage of autonomy—allowing them to make their
own decisions regarding education.
The application of IKS theory in science education requires the adoption of critical
and creative teaching and assessment strategies that continually draw on students’
contexts and experiences. Student experiences may include knowing languages that
are neither spoken nor acknowledged in school, and having a perspective of real-
ity that is not necessarily consistent with that of scientific knowledge. A common
example of the latter could be students understanding spiritual elements as playing
an active role in daily realities. Literature abounds where these and other students’
460 C. Khupe
lived experiences are presented as barriers to learning, especially in science. Teach-

ers often describe multilingual Indigenous students as having ‘language problems’
simply because their home language is not the language of instruction. Negatively
highlighting students’ circumstances distracts teachers from imagining possibilities
of drawing on the students’ multilingual abilities as a resource for learning science.
Community-centred, context-sensitive Indigenous science education research
studies point to the richness of local contexts as resources for science teaching.
Based on findings from an IKS-science education research study in South Africa,
Khupe (2014) provides suggestions for drawing on Indigenous knowledge and world-
view in science teaching (Table 30.1). Such applications are only possible where the
curriculum has penetrable boundaries that allow for integration of different ways of
perceiving reality, and where teachers are given space for creativity. Often, teachers
are constrained by examination-driven work environments that promote uniformity
and chorus responses but unfortunately stifle imagination.
An IKS-based curriculum employs a variety of teaching and learning approaches:
telling, showing, learning by participation, story-telling, outdoor learning, decen-
tralising the teaching and learning process away from the teacher, and spreading
the net of expertise to include the community. Story-telling is especially central to
Indigenous culture, and teachers can draw on story to engage students more in sci-
ence learning. While the actual teaching and learning activities vary according to
context, the overarching aim will be to strengthen Indigenous language, affirm cul-
tural identity and encourage community participation (Smith, 2012). I acknowledge
the difficulty of implementing unconventional teaching methods in contexts where
teachers are pressured to complete set content, and where assessment has not trans-
formed enough to recognise the value of culturally sensitive approaches. However,
the likely benefits of increased interest and engagement in science, deeper and more
meaningful science learning, and an appreciation of diversity of cultural knowledge
and experience, far outweigh the costs.
Research
The application of IKS theory in research is based on the establishment and devel-
opment of respectful relationships. Research relationships that are characterised by
parity often last beyond the research project’s timeframes because of trust. Decision-
making is a result of appropriate consultation processes, aiming for the representa-
tion of multiple voices, shared responsibility and co-participation of academic and
community researchers/participants. In addition, IKS theory requires appropriate
application of the following according to context:
• prioritising use of indigenous languages preferred by the local community.
• making the recognition of culture a fundamental consideration in the research
design, the data generation and interpretation and the dissemination of findings.
Guidance from people familiar with both local language and culture (cultural
guides) ensures appropriately negotiated entry into, and respectful engagement
with the community.
• ensuring adequate understanding and accurate representation of people’s lived
experiences rather than merely seeking to generalise.
Table 30.1 Application of local knowledge in science teaching and learning

Indicator of Knowledge and worldview Possible classroom application
• Relationships based on ubuntu (emphasis is • Practical environmental science education
on respectable relationships) activities based on respect and love for
• Use of collective forms of possessive nature
pronouns when referring to the place (e.g. • Encouraging respectful learner–teacher and
our mountain, our river) learner–learner conversation in the
• Closeness to and dependency on nature classroom
• Appreciation of the beauty of nature and • Encouraging deliberative argumentation on
expressing the need to care for and respect topical issues
nature • Using project work where students consult
• Understanding reality as consisting of both with Elders and/or study phenomena in the
the physical and spiritual elements local environment
• Drawing on wisdom from Elders to
facilitate discussions on issues that require a
cultural perspective
• Promoting classroom dialogue through
giving space for use of local languages
• Using code-switching as a
language-brokering strategy to bridge
between home language and language of
science
• Using locally found and valued examples as
basis for science teaching and learning
• Using role-plays to acknowledge potential
roles for scientific and spiritual perspectives
• Incorporating field-based learning
experiences especially in topics such as life
processes in plants and animals, diversity,
change and continuity
• Structuring teaching and learning from an
issues-based approach, giving room for
local perspectives
• Giving opportunity for students to express
their understanding of topics/concepts in the
form of story, songs/poems and other
Indigenous ways of knowledge
transmission. Poems can reflect the extent to
which students link concepts, as well as
students’ feelings, attitudes and spiritual
connection towards the topic learnt
• Including issues of importance to
community in assessment
Adapted from (Khupe, 2014)
• promoting openness to learning.

Researchers need to consider how to protect communities from exploitation of
their knowledge and resources. Both individual and collective rights to consent to
participate (or refuse to do so) need to be based on honest disclosure of the purposes
and intended outcomes of the research, as well as the ownership and dissemination
462 C. Khupe
of the findings. Researchers have the responsibility to explore and duly respect all
layers of consent, whether individual, collective or both. They (researchers) need to
think about how benefits from the study will be shared, and of appropriate ways to
appreciate participants. It is crucial to respectfully represent participants in reports
and in the dissemination of findings. In addition to these imperatives, researchers
who are not familiar with the context of their intended studies have to develop a
good understanding of the culture and ethics, and put plans in place for language
mediation and ongoing guidance from the community.
Challenges to Application of IKS Theory
In a context where mainstream Western-oriented worldviews continue to dominate

curriculum design, development and implementation, a primary challenge is that of
balancing the valuing of local knowledge and appropriately preparing students for
participation at a global scale. The easier path is often to ignore IK systems completely
or to give them token recognition by mentioning them when it is convenient without
necessarily doing anything about them. The pervasiveness of Western knowledge and
ways of thinking often results in rejection of Indigenous knowledges and cultures
even by Indigenous teachers and communities, who tend to view IK-based curricula
as counter-developmental and as taking students backwards. As Western languages
become increasingly dominant in communities, preference for Indigenous languages
wanes and so does the ability to think beyond Western frameworks. IK-based cur-
riculum innovations suffer the danger of being ignored by mainstream curriculum.
In South Africa, although the inclusion of IKS is an imperative of post-democratic
education, teachers hardly get pre-service preparation in IKS-based education. IKS
theory is often considered in postgraduate courses, but even then, the courses are
more for research purposes rather than intended for teacher education for its own
sake. The extent to which these postgraduate IKS courses translate into sustained
classroom practice is debatable.
Similar challenges are faced in IKS research. Funding bodies are less inclined to
appreciate costs related to long-term engagement with communities, where results
generated are neither quantifiable nor generalisable. In cases where research projects
are for qualification purposes, students are under enormous pressure to complete in
timelines that are consistent with conventional studies. The nature of IKS research
studies as interpretive lends itself to criticism of not being ‘scientific’. As a result,
IKS theory suffers distrust from those in conventional research who are not willing
to engage it on equal terms.
Summary
• The application of IKS theory is about redress. A rational starting point for that
redress in science education and in science education research is acknowledging
the socio-political history that led to IK systems being misunderstood, overlooked
and marginalised.
• Education and research based on IKS theory requires respectful understanding of
the cultural context, and the space for Indigenous peoples to provide guidance on
decisions regarding teaching and research methods.
• The application of IKS theory to science teaching and learning requires thinking
beyond the level of looking for bits of Indigenous knowledge that fit with science
content. IKS must be validated not against the standards of Western science but
on terms that fit its nature.
• Overcoming challenges of applying IKS theory in both education and research
requires overcoming rigidity of thought in order to accommodate ways of being
that are outside of Western frameworks.
African Forum for Children’s Literacy in Science and Technology (AFCLIST). (2004). School
science in Africa: Learning to teach, teaching to learn. Lansdowne: Juta Gariep.
Battiste, M. (2011). Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage.
Chinn, P. (2007). Decolonizing methodologies and Indigenous knowledge: The role of culture, place
and personal experience in professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
44(9), 1247–1268.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (2008). Handbook of critical and Indigenous
methodologies (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Goduka, N. M. (2013). Creating spaces for eziko sipheka sisophula theoretical framework for
teaching and researching in higher education: A philosophical exposition. Indilinga—African
Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 12(1), 1–12.
Kaupapa Maori: Do it Right. Retrieved June 28, 2017 from http://whatworks.org.nz/kaupapa-maori/
Mertens, D. M., Cram, F., & Chilisa, B. (2013). Indigenous pathways into social research: Voices
of a new generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Ministry of Education. (2017). About Māori-medium education Retrieved June 28, 2017 from:
https://education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/nga-whanaketanga-rumaki-
maori/about-maori-medium-education/.
Odora Hoppers, C. A. (Ed.). (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge
systems: Towards a philosophy of articulation. Claremont: New Africa Education.
Wa Thiong’o, N. (1994). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. East
African Publishers.
Rekindling Traditions: Cross-Cultural Science & Technology Units (CCSTU) Project. https://www.
usask.ca/education/ccstu/welcome.html
Sutherland, D., & Henning, D. (2009). Ininiwi-kiskanitamowin: A framework for long-term science
education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 173–190.
464 C. Khupe
Vakalahi, H., & Taiapa, J. (2013). Getting grounded on Maori research. Journal of Intercultural
Studies, 1–11.
References
Aikenhead, G. (2002). Cross-cultural science teaching: Rekindling traditions for aboriginal students.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(3), 287–304.
Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching.
Research in Science Education, 31(3), 337–355.
Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature
review with recommendations. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs.
Hamminga, B. (2005). Epistemology from the African point of view. In B. Hamminga (Ed.),
Knowledge cultures: Comparative Western and African epistemeology (pp. 57–84). Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Khupe, C. (2014). Indigenous knowledge and school science: Possiblities for integration.
Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Retrieved from http://
mobile.wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/15109/C.%20Khupe%20Thesis.pdf?
sequence=2.
Khupe, C. (2017). Language, participation, and indigenous knowledge systems research in Mqat-
sheni, South Africa. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on
indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries (pp. 100–126). IGI Global.
Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education: Complexities, dangers
and profound benefits. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. Smith (Eds.), Critical and indigenous
methodologies (pp. 135–156). Los Angeles: Sage.
Langer-Osuna, J., & Nasir, N. (2016). Rehumanizing the “Other”: Race, culture, and identity in
education research. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 723–743.
Letseka, M. (2013). Educating for ubuntu/botho: Lessons from indigenous education. Open Journal
of Philosophy, 337–344.
Mbiti, J. (1969). African religions and philosophy. London: Heinemann.
Shava, V. (2016). The application/role of indigenous knowledges in transforming the formal educa-
tion curriculum: Cases from southern Africa. In V. A. Msila (Ed.), Africanising the curriculum:
Indigneous perspectives and theories (pp. 121–139). Cape Town: SUN Press.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.).
London: Zed Books.
Veintie, T. (2013). Practical learning and epistemological border crossings: Drawing on indigenous
knowledge in terms of educational practices. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 7,
243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2013.827115.
Chapter 31
STEAM Education—A Transdisciplinary
Teaching and Learning Approach
Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe, and Regina Soobard
Chapter Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to recognise the need for a wider view of the science
education domain, above and beyond the traditional biology, chemistry and physics,
thus seeking the need to encompass technology, engineering, mathematics and also
other societal important areas such as art (in its multiple conceptions). This view is
seen as STEAM-ED. The approach to STEAM-ED, however, rejects a disciplinary
focus and seeks to promote transdisciplinarity, emphasising transdisciplinary skills
within a sustainable, world view, based on inquiry learning and using an approach
based on social constructivist theory within an ‘education through science’ frame.
Introduction
Science education has undergone many changes over the last century in response to
differing perceptions of the role of education and its purpose in the school setting.
While ‘science for scientists’ can be taken to represent an intellectual, factual and
conceptual approach, perhaps heavily embedded in a historical development, other
approaches such as science-technology-society (STS) can be seen as more functional
and bringing science learning closer to the realities of everyday life (Aikenhead,
1994). According to Holbrook and Rannikmäe (2009), scientific literacy (SL), or the
J. Holbrook (B) · M. Rannikmäe · R. Soobard

Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
M. Rannikmäe
R. Soobard

466 J. Holbrook et al.
more society-related, scientific and technological literacy (STL) seek to bridge this
divide, seeing both an academic scientific conceptual challenge and a ‘science for
all’ vision. These literacies are also geared to include the development of personal
and social skills for responsible citizenship and the acquisition of employability
skills (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2014). However, whether science education is a pre-
requisite for emulating a scientist, or for functioning in everyday life, there is always
the concern that the science learning is confined to solely scientific ideas and lacks
coherence to technology, both as useful science applications in society and as tools to
aid science learning. In regard to engineering, science underpins the design, creation
and improvement of constructions or products, within the artificially created world
as we know it, and towards underpinning all this through mathematical applications.
These concerns can be envisaged within or across local, national and global envi-
ronments, and extend to socio-scientific issues involving creative learning associated
with social studies, perhaps focussing on sustainability, artistic endeavours, ethical
aspects and other social interactions.
The approach to science education has moved away from a behaviourist learning
base. This view assumes a learner is essentially passive, responding to environmental
stimuli and behaviour is shaped through positive or negative reinforcement for which
the goal is a permanent change of behaviour often translated into memory recall,
or comprehension of isolated scientific concepts. Much emphasis is being placed
on promoting an inquiry-based or problem-solving learning frame, and in seeking
ways to make the learning within science education more intrinsically motivational
for students. Strongly encouraged in this area are student-centred practices, based on
self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and differential learning within the so-
called zone of proximal development (see Chap. 19). Yet there is still a preponderance
of a subject specific, content focus, often in individual sub-disciplines within the
science field, yet desirably building on a ‘simple to complex’ vision of learning
within the subject itself, but only allowing societal links as a distant after-thought.
This chapter is seeking to re-examine the role of science education in today’s
changing world. It is based on the realisation that science education is far different
in reality from science itself. Science, as a philosophical endeavour, has an ancient
history, heavily based on observation and explanations, and formulating theories and
laws. However, in the twentieth and twenty-firstcenturies, numerous technologies
have emerged which are invading our lives and, through acting as aids within society,
have promoted the frontiers of changing lifestyles of people today. While technology
may be difficult to define, and artistic design may enable some technologies to become
more attractive and popular than others, the interrelationship between science and
technology is ever-present. This is even more so when reflecting on the role of
engineering and designing within today’s created world. There is little doubt that
the industrial revolution, arguably the beginning of modern technology, started by
the ability to make available cheap and abundant energy (in this case steam power),
stimulated further scientific progress. As a result, the developments in technology
played a strong role in the new discoveries and developments in science, which in
turn, furthered the developments in technology, of which engineering, as the design
creation and improvement of technology, played a major role.
31 STEAM Education—A Transdisciplinary Teaching … 467
But alas, technology, and hence the interrelated science, can be both good and
bad. Whether this is related to facilitating today’s lifestyle (e.g. modern means of
transport, supporting the increasing longevity of human life, the development of the
digital world and artificial intelligence), or raising concerns about global warming,
environmental degradation, sustainable ways of life, or the engineering of new tech-
nologies, all having a foundation in scientific advancements and yet have led to major
social dilemmas in today’s world. Furthermore, while design can take on an aesthetic
dimension, it can lead to ethical and moral dimensions, all indicating the interrela-
tionship of scientific endeavours with the social world. In short, in today’s world,
the science education dimension, encompassing learning associated with technolog-
ical/engineering developments, is intertwined with the human or social dimension,
especially so when seeking a sustainable world. There is a growing recognition that
the learning associated with decision making within socio-scientific issues cannot
be ignored, both in societal debates and also in the school science curriculum.
In recognition of the changing world, science education, or the education processes
related to an understanding of the natural and artificial world, are, by necessity, also
changing. Science education is widening to take note of technological links, soci-
etal involvements, creative problem-solving abilities and, inevitably, related to such
developments, to make informed decisions, related to both technological choice and
socio-scientific reasoning. Science education, even at the school level, can no longer
function as isolated training in the promotion of higher level cognitive skills, or
even that accompanied by creative, practical endeavours associated with cognitively
driven psychomotor skills. Science education cannot ignore its mathematical base,
and its interrelationship with the natural and artificial world. Science education has
a role to play in preparing today’s youth for a future, changing society, preparing
students to relate to changing career opportunities and the need to recognise conflict-
ing societal values, whether these are linked to religious intolerance, ways of life, or
individuals’ freedoms and limitations.
Enhancing STL is a multi-faceted vision and needs to relate to education, itself a
moving frontier. With a multi-faceted vision of the role of education, it is inevitable
that the older need to keep up with coverage of the ever-expanding scientific knowl-
edge is very much diminished. The needs of society, whether associated with issues
related to the local, national or global environment, or the understanding of inter-
actions between the natural and technological world, suggest a demand for strong
socio-scientific interlinking. With this, there is a growing need for bringing together
scientific ideas, technological endeavours and engineering practices linked to social
priority choices. The latter encompasses social, even artistic values, leading to a
suggested intermix of scientific endeavours, through the enhancement of transdis-
ciplinary skills, with wider areas of learning, seeing the whole (the overall edu-
cation gains) as greater than the component parts (the education within subject
sub-divisions).
Thus, this chapter proposes that science education is in need of moving from sci-
ence disciplinary education (SE), from a science and technology education (STE),
and even from a science-technology-society education (STSE), to a new vision of
scientific and technological literacy (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2009). A transdisci-

plinary scientific and technological literacy (STL) is encapsulated in terms, such as
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), or even more, in recogni-
tion of the social or artistic direction, STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art,
mathematics), not forgetting that STEAM in relation to education, especially within
a transdisciplinary view, can lead to the realisation of STEAM-ED as the new STL
goal.
The Theoretical and Philosophical Underpinning

of STEAM-ED
The approach to learning within science education is grounded on constructivist

theory (see Chaps. 16–26, especially Chap. 18). In interrelating science conceptual
learning with socio-scientific relevance, social constructivism is very much favoured.
Linked to this is the growing recognition of the importance of the context in which
the relevance of the learning for the learner is enhanced.
The recognition of the education emphasis within a vision for science education
can be captured through the expression ‘Education through Science (EtS)’ (Holbrook
& Rannikmäe, 2007). The term ‘Education through Science’ can thus be proposed
as a philosophy. This recognises that the learning approach to education relates
to the issues and concerns of society (both present and futuristic), although just
because something is related to everyday life does not automatically mean it is seen
as relevant to students. The relevancy is likely to be linked to the immediate concern
or issue of the society, expressed in the media and impinging on the students’ daily
life (from a local, national or global perspective). The emphasis on relevancy and
issues and concerns is seen to be important. However ‘education through science’
portrays science education learning as appreciating the nature of science, developing
within student intellectual development as well as positive attitudes and aptitudes,
and acquiring skills associated with society development especially those linked to
interpersonal relationships and in making informed socio-scientific decisions within
society (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007).
Yet as a philosophy, ‘education through science’ goes further. It recognises the
need to undertake academic challenges, preparation for the world of work and the
need to promote responsible citizenship. It seeks to encompass key learning compe-
tences for education, and thus provides a focus for the needs of students in learning
‘how to learn’ through the gaining of science and technology/engineering compe-
tences (accompanied by mathematical competences), interrelated with the impor-
tance of promoting social, cultural, entrepreneurial and digital competences enhanc-
ing personal and social attribute development and the need to further promote com-
munication abilities in verbal, written, symbolic, graphic as well as digital aspects.
In this, it contrasts with the more standard view of science education, with its focus
on lessons labelled science, or a sub-division and organised by subject content.
Formulating a STEAM-ED Approach
In a quest to conceptualise STEAM-ED the following questions can be put forward:

(1) Is STEAM a more meaningful term to represent science education in a wide
transdisciplinary sense, or does it need to be seen as a movement to reflect on
a multidisciplinary vision of science education, merely seeking to replace STL
as the philosophical pinnacle?
(2) Can STEAM-ED be seen as a more meaningful vision at the operational, or
curriculum level to promote a skills enhanced, science education focus reflecting
a new way of thinking about inquiry that includes a wide range of societal
perspectives, or for considering, designing and implementing tangible solutions
to “real world” problems?
Refuting a Disciplinary Approach in Education
Mahan (1970) criticised both the compartmentalisation of the traditional disciplines

and ideals of detachment and aloofness associated with any disciplinary inquiry. The
disciplines, as both intellectual and social constructs, are nothing more than organi-
sational pillars within a system. Disciplinarity, which may be defined as the compart-
mentalisation of learning into system-defined units, can be perceived as essential for
an understanding of an organisation of particular directions of knowledge. However,
the knowledge specified in a discipline, thus defining the discipline, only relates to a
small part of a larger picture. This leads to the need for a matrix of disciplines with
specific methodologies, paradigms and inherited problem areas. Disciplinary think-
ing is in danger of becoming all-pervasive when one starts viewing and speaking
about everyday matters in terms of specific disciplinary concepts and priorities.
Examining Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity,

Transdisciplinarity
To overcome the limits of a given discipline, multiple disciplines can be grouped

together, each giving separate isolated inputs, but still giving rise to the danger of
omitting a valued discipline to tackle problems associated with a changing world,
whether this is in connection with responsible citizenship, employability prepara-
tion, or conceptualising advancements. A Multidisciplinary approach involves the
collecting of inputs from different disciplines putting them together without synthe-
sis. Interdisciplinarity finds favour in grouping disciplines together leading to col-
laboration between researchers from different disciplines aimed at a synthesis and
Fig. 31.1 Comparing the four different approaches
integration of knowledge, but the approach is still discipline-led and each discipline
employs skills and directions suited to that discipline.
While the distinction between transdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and inter-
disciplinarity need not be sharp or absolute, transdisciplinarity generally rejects
the separation and distribution of topics and scholarly approaches into disciplinary
compartments (Choi & Pak, 2006).
Below is an illustration of the four different approaches (Fig. 31.1).
A Transdisciplinary Focus for STEAM Education
Transdisciplinarity is a new way of thinking about, and engaging in, inquiry (Mon-
tuori, 2008). It goes beyond disciplines and identifies with a new knowledge about
what is between, across, and beyond disciplines (thus the term trans)” (McGregor,
2015) and includes approaches from ethical, metaphysical, and even mystical per-
spectives aiming at designing and implementing tangible solutions to “real world”
problems. On the one hand, it can emphasise a concept of the human life world and
lived meanings, while on the other, it can emphasise skills to tackle the interface
between science, society, and technology in the contemporary world (ibid).
Transdisciplinarity seeks the framing of a topic/big idea as an overarching theme
for the inquiry process. It moves instruction beyond just the blending of disciplines
and links concepts and skills through a real-world context. Within science education,
it aims at creating an engaged socially responsible science. For example, the notion of
sustainability has evolved from a concept to a movement involving not only science,
government, and industry, but citizen participation, including input from religious
leaders, consumer awareness, boycotts and protests, and much more (Cardonna,
2014). Furthermore, with concerns voiced about a possibly dying planet, the need to
prevent catastrophe lends a sense of transdisciplinary urgency to this work, with a
necessity to not only to raise awareness, but provoke an informed change of behaviour.
Evans (2015) has written of a sustainability crisis and thinks educators need to situate
their discussions of sustainability in terms that are not only scientific, but ethical,
involving “intergenerational fairness extending over long timeframes and on the
health and integrity of human societies and the natural world.” Sustainability can
this be considered as an example of the expected direction of science education
learning within transdisciplinary STEAM education?
Transdisciplinary education re-values the role of intuition, imagination and sensi-
bility in the transmission of knowledge. Transdisciplinarity is sometimes described,
at least in part, as a response to the increased complexity of contemporary problems
in science and technology. Indeed, complexity itself could be a problem area for
transdisciplinary studies. Complexity is not exactly synonymous with complicated-
ness, since a complicated system may be understandable in terms of its components,
while in a complex system the individual components interact with each other and
with their environment in such a way that the system as a whole cannot be explained
in terms of its parts.
What sets transdisciplinarity apart from other approaches, and what assures its
role in twenty-first-century education, is its acceptance of, and its focus on, the
inherent complexity of reality. This is realised when one examines a problem, or
phenomenon from multiple angles and dimensions, with a view towards discover-
ing hidden connections between different disciplines (Madni, 2007). It is in using
this multidimensional complexity to analyse problems and communicate and teach
lessons about them that the novel contribution of transdisciplinarity lies (Bernstein,
2015).
Transdisciplinarity does not necessarily need to be seen as applied or practical.
Macdonald (2000) insists that transdisciplinarity is as much about the liberal arts,
and about cultural symbolisms, as it is about the so-called social and natural sciences,
or professions like medicine, engineering, or law. Nevertheless, transdisciplinarity
can be viewed as utilising skills for knowledge production, involving knowledge
developed for a particular application and involving the work of experts drawn from
academia, government, and industry.
Characteristics of Transdisciplinary Inquiry
According to Bernstein (2015), transdisciplinary inquiry-based focus is expected to

involve:
(a) transcending disciplinary boundaries in an attempt to bring continuity to inquiry
and knowledge;
(b) attention to comprehensiveness;
(c) context and frame of reference of inquiry and knowledge;
(d) interpenetration of boundaries between concepts and disciplines;
(e) exposing disciplinary boundaries to facilitate understanding of implicit assump-
tions;
(f) processes of inquiry and resulting knowledge;
(g) humanistic reverence for life and human dignity; and
(h) a desire to actively apply knowledge for the betterment of individuals and
society.
A further property is emergence. Emergence, explained by Holland (2014) through
the wetness of water, is seen as a characteristic of ‘wetness’ which cannot reasonably
be assigned to individual molecules. Thus, the ‘wetness’ of water is not obtained
by summing up the wetness of the constituent H2 O molecules—rather ‘wetness’
emerges from the interactions between the molecules.
A further key characteristic of transdisciplinarity is the tendency to think later-
ally, imaginatively and creatively, not only about solutions to problems, but on the
combination of factors that need to be considered. Thus, inputs from the arts and
humanities can transform research and education in sustainability, or other topics
that are traditionally viewed as scientific, into an entirely new kind of product (Clark
& Button, 2011). This leads to seeing desirable attributes to be developed, abilities
to think in a complex, interlinked manner, and engaging in new modes of thinking
and taking action.
According to Yakman (2008), STEAM education is an example showing how
the boundaries between subjects can be removed and more integrated approaches
to science teaching can take place in school settings. Integrating Arts into STEM,
the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, supports
students’ cognitive, emotional and psychomotor growth, critical thinking, problem-
solving skills, creativity and self-expression (Ge, Ifenthaler, & Spector, 2015). Art is
an essential component, adding the construction of meaning, expressing observations
and creativity (Ge et al., 2015), and working with other to develop transferable skills
and abilities to deal with complex problems innovatively and creatively.
STEAM education seeks to relate to careers in truly “helping” professions that
build communities and transform nations. These professionals are in charge of solv-
ing the complex problems of today’s world and its future. They are working to find
solutions for global warming, cancer, third world hunger, disappearing habitats, and
an interdependent world economy. Yesterday’s stereotype of the ‘geek’ in a lab coat is
not representative of today’s STL vision, where economists work with researchers on
technical transfer and engineers build the state-of-the-art equipment for businesses
working with cutting-edge technologies.
The STEAM-ED Emphasis on Skills
Much attention in science education has focused on the development of twenty-first

century skills (see Chap. 32). Although these can be defined, grouped and determined
differently in specific settings, an overview can be identified as
• Critical thinking, problem-solving, reasoning, analysis, interpretation, synthesis-
ing information;
• Research skills and practices, interrogative questioning;
• Creativity, artistry, curiosity, imagination, innovation, personal expression;
• Perseverance, self-direction, planning, self-discipline, adaptability, initiative;
• Oral and written communication, public speaking and presenting, listening;
• Leadership, teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, facility in using virtual
workspaces;
• Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy, media and internet
literacy, data interpretation and analysis, computer programming;
• Civic, ethical, and social-justice literacy;
• Economic and financial literacy, entrepreneurialism;
• Global awareness, multicultural literacy, humanitarianism;
• Scientific literacy and reasoning, scientific methods;
• Environmental and conservation literacy, ecosystems understanding; and
• Health and wellness literacy, including nutrition, diet, exercise, and public health
and safety.
These skills, grouped into five main areas and more specifically categorised can be
considered transdisciplinary skills, as illustrated in Fig. 31.2.
Examples of STEAM education in a Transdisciplinary frame
Example 31.1 Water (Bernstein, 2015)

A subject such as water falls between the various disciplines and is easily ignored
or taken for granted by scholars since it seems on the surface to be neutral. A feature
of the landscape, water is something used by animals and plants or that gets combined
with other substances, something that makes everything else work, but that seems
rather lacking in character in its own right, even though life itself could not exist
without it. It has a chemical basis and can be studied from a chemical or physical
perspective (hydraulics and hydrology); it is also important in technology, engineer-
ing, manufacturing, and equally important, the culinary arts, since there could be no
food or drink without water. It is a component of nutrition, digestion, physiology and
health; there are sanitation and purity considerations in using water and having it in
our environment. There are cultural and religious aspects of water and it is a theme
in all the arts. Geographers, geologists, economists and agricultural scientists could
Acquiring knowledge
Comprehending/conceptualising
Linking with previous knowledge
ApplicaƟon to new situaƟons
Analysing
Synthesising
EvaluaƟng
Posing criƟcal points of view Responsible acƟon
MetacogniƟon Respecƞul behaviour
CreaƟng quesƟons
CooperaƟon and collaboraƟon
Undertaking/using observaƟons
JusƟfied decision making
Making research plans
Leadership skills
CollecƟng data
Thinking skills AdapƟng mulƟple roles
Organising data
InterpreƟng data
PresentaƟon skills
Research skills Social skills
Planning skills
Time management
Safety
Listening Transdisci- Self- Understanding
CommunicaƟon
Speaking skills plinary management surroundings
Reading skills skils Taking care of oneself
WriƟng Understanding choices
PresenƟng (using ICT) Responsible behaviour
Non-verbal communicaƟon
Fig. 31.2 Transdisciplinary skills
study water as a resource. Obviously, the sustainability of water as a resource is an

issue, as in the problem of waste caused by packaging in disposable water bottles.
There are even political aspects to an important resource such as water, shortages
of which can lead to famine, war, revolution, or other vast socio-political changes.
One could continue ad infinitum about the innumerable facets of water that need
to be studied. Questions about water bring together the social sciences, humanities,
physical sciences, biological sciences and practical arts and sciences in ways that
can be enlightening for educational purposes on the interaction between disciplines.
Example 31.2 Water related to a STEAM-ED focus

In this example, A STEAM education approach is used in developing an optional
course for 10–12 grade students in Estonia. The whole course includes eight mod-
ules, each starting with a motivational scenario introducing a relevant, science-related
problem in a society setting to students. Following this comes a science learning com-
ponent (using an inquiry approach to conceptualise new science content knowledge)
and this is followed-up by students relating their new knowledge (science, mathe-
matics) and skills (scientific, engineering, technology, etc.) to interact further with
the initial issue faced in the scenario and seek to make a justified decision, based on
evidence available for them. In this part, students also need to demonstrate creativity,
design skills (for example, product design) and self-expression (oral or written com-
munication, for example). Therefore, the three stages brings together a multitude of
disciplines from SSI to STEM to creativity design and self-expression, which now
can be referred as STEAM education. This skill-driven approach focuses heavily on
social and self-management skills, while the frame is driven by research skills involv-
ing all relevant components of STEAM that lead to focused and justified decision
making across a transdisciplinary spectrum.
Conclusion
STEAM-ED is seen as a way of interrelating science education to the relevance and

issues of society at a local, national or global level, or even beyond into the universe,
or even the world of fantasy. Such interrelatedness is seen as problematic, if viewed
at a single discipline level and seen as the compartmentalisation of learning into
system-defined units perceived as essential for an understanding of the organisation
of knowledge. Transdisciplinarity, on the other hand, promotes across curriculum
skills and leads to a new way of thinking about knowledge and inquiry. It identifies
with a new knowledge about what is between, across, and even beyond disciplines.
By and large, the term STEAM or STEAM-ED merely replaces the term STL in
its philosophical and societal-related considerations, both seeing science education
as wider than the science disciplines and seeing education relating to societal values,
employability needs and sustainability at an international level. It is proposed that
STEAM-ED can seek more acceptability if it portrays science education in a wide
transdisciplinary sense, going beyond, but interconnecting, the individual disciplines.
Even more the term STEAM-ED, recognising the education thrust, can be favourably
considered in reflecting on new ways of thinking about inquiry that include a wide
range of societal perspectives, and for considering, designing and implementing
tangible solutions to “real world” problems.
Summary
• Meaning of STEAM-ED
• Social Constructivist Theory
• Issue of Disciplinarity in Education
• Contrasting Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary
• Introduction to Transdisciplinarity
• A STEAM-ED approach through transdisciplinarity
• Transdisciplinary inquiry
• Transdisciplinary skills
• Example of Transdisciplinary STEAM-ED.
(Nil).
References
Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS
education: International perspectives on reform (Chapter 5). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues.
Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), Article R1. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/
jrp/article/view/510/412.
Cardonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability: A history. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity
in health research, services, education, and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of
effectiveness. Clinical Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.
Clark, B., & Button, C. (2011). Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: Interface of arts,
science, and community. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1),
41–54.
Evans, T. L. (2015). Transdisciplinary collaborations for sustainability education: Institutional and
intragroup challenges and opportunities. Policy Futures in Education, 15(1), 2015, 70–97.
Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2015). Moving forward with STEAM education research.
In: X. Ge et al. (Eds.), Emerging technologies for STEAM education, full STEAM ahead (pp. 383–
395). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2014). The philosophy and approach on which the PROFILES
project is based. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 9–21.
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Macdonald, R. (2000). The education sector. In M. A. Somerville & D. J. Rapport (Eds.),
Transdisciplinarity: Recreating integrated knowledge (pp. 241–244). Oxford, UK: EOLSS.
Madni, A. M. (2007). Transdisciplinarity: Reaching beyond disciplines to find connections. Journal
of Integrated Design and Process Science, 11(1), 1–11.
Mahan, J. L., Jr. (1970). Toward transdisciplinary inquiry in the humane sciences. Doctoral dis-
sertation, United States International University. UMI No. 702145. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
McGregor, S. L. T. (2015). The Nicolescuian and Zurich approaches to transdisciplinarity. Integral
Leadership Review, 15(2). Retrieved from http://integralleadershipreview.com/13135-616-the-
nicolescuian-and-zurich-approaches-to-transdisciplinarity/.
Montuori, A. (2008). Foreword: transdisciplinarity. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity:
Theory and practice (pp. ix–xvii). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education.
Presented at the Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-19) Conference: Research on
Technology, Innovation, Design & Engineering Teaching, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Jack B. Holbrook is a visiting professor at the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. Initially trained as a chemistry/maths teacher in the UK (University of London), Jack
spent 5 years as a secondary school teacher before moving into teacher training, first in the UK
followed by Tanzania, Hong Kong and Estonia. Currently, Jack is involved in guiding science edu-
cation Ph.D. students, European science education projects and being an International Consultant
in Curriculum, Teacher Education and Assessment. Jack’s qualifications include a Ph.D. in Chem-
istry (University of London), FRSC from the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) and Past President
and Distinguished Award Holder for ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science
Education). Jack has written a number of articles in international journals and as a co-editor a
book entitled ‘The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education in Post-Soviet Countries.’
Miia Rannikmäe is Professor and Head of the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. She has considerable experience in science education within Estonia, Europe and world-
wide (Fulbright fellow—University of Iowa, USA). She is an honorary doctor in the Eastern Uni-
versity of Finland. She has a strong school teaching background, considerable experience in pre-
and in-service teacher education and has strong links with science teacher associations worldwide.
She has been a member of a EC high-level group publishing a report on ‘Europe needs more
Scientists’. She has been running a number of EC-funded projects and Estonian research grants.
Her Ph.D. students are involved in areas such as scientific literacy, relevance, creativity/reasoning,
inquiry teaching/learning and the nature of science.
Regina Soobard is a research fellow in the Centre for Science education, University of Tartu,
Estonia. She earned her Ph.D. in science education at the University of Tartu (2015) on gymna-
sium students’ scientific literacy development based on determinants of cognitive learning out-
comes and self-perception. She is teaching at the MSc level and holding the position of director
of the gymnasium science teacher programme, as well as co supervising Ph.D. students in sci-
ence education and educational sciences. She has been awarded BAFF a scholarship for research
in Michigan State University, USA.
Chapter 32
21st Century Skills
Teresa J. Kennedy and Cheryl W. Sundberg
Introduction
This chapter seeks to provide an overview of 21st century skills (21CS) as pre-
sented in a number of education and policy documents related to science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Toward the end of the last
century, and into the 21st century, the education community has been challenged
with developing educational programming to keep pace with accelerating change in
the economy and advances in technology. The rapid state of change in the workplace
continues to increase demands on the education system to prepare students for an
evolving workforce. Traditional approaches to education that focus on knowledge
acquisition are not typically seen as meeting the needs of employers in the current
global information economy context. Promising pedagogies such as Project-Based
Learning (PBL) and Problem-Based Learning (PrBL), described in Chap. 23, as
well as Phenomenon-based Learning (PhBL), help students learn information and
address 21CS. PBL, PrBL, and PhBL pedagogies allow students to choose projects,
problems, and phenomena to study as outlined in Chap. 3, Glasser’s Choice Theory,
and produce a product, as described in Chap. 7, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.
Promising new frameworks for organizing education, such as through various STEM
applications, along with the transdisciplinary approach to science education referred
to as STEAM (science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics) as dis-
cussed in Chap. 31, break down the artificial barriers of disciplines enabling students
to understand the connected nature of knowledge utilizing critical skills leading to
success in the 21st century economy. In addition, integrating new media approaches
T. J. Kennedy (B)
College of Education and Psychology; College of Engineering, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler,
USA
C. W. Sundberg
The Ronin Institute, Montclair, USA
480 T. J. Kennedy and C. W. Sundberg
to teaching and learning, as well as utilizing technological innovations in the science

classroom, further connects students to real-life situations and creates opportunities
to meaningfully construct concepts and relationships in context (see Chap. 9). Such
frameworks allow students to focus on necessary content acquisition as well as 21CS
and may provide schools the opportunity to keep pace with the increasing changes
occurring in the workplace.
Education is often a reactive institution in responding to the needs of society.
In the current century, the pace of advancements in society and the workforce are
creating stress on the education system. Unlike the past, workforce needs change
so fast that once education systems update curriculum and technology they become
obsolete. Breaking down traditional disciplinary barriers in education and embrac-
ing pedagogies that include transferable skills to the workplace could help education
keep pace with the rapid changes occurring. In other words, education systems, espe-
cially those promoting STEM education and supporting education for innovation,
must become proactive and focus on meaningful learning (see Chap. 12). Since it
is difficult to predict future change, and given that the costs associated with keep-
ing up with technological developments tend to be prohibitive for schools, focusing
on transferable 21CS makes sense. We already know the limitations of “re-active”
education policies based on history of education reform efforts. Reactive education
policy and practices cannot address the rapid changes that are occurring in the econ-
omy. Focusing on 21CS and school models that support 21st century STEM learning
will allow educators to place emphasis on the future by aligning how students learn
using the skills needed to survive and thrive in the modern workplace, rather than
focusing on a defined set of knowledge that is quickly out of date.
Background
“21st century skills,” “21st century learning,” and “college and career readiness” are
currently common phrases in the field of education. The push to embed workforce-
related skills into STEM education can be traced back to the late 1970s. Ulti-
mately, these efforts laid the foundation for the identification and promotion of 21CS
into STEM education. Since the early 1980s, academia, government agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and industry have invested in research to identify aca-
demic skills and competencies needed for the current and future workforce. Although
the identification of specific 21CS in need of implementation in the workplace ini-
tiated in the United States, much attention to these goals spread across the globe as
economies have expanded. In addition to efforts in the U.S., a number of reports
released by international organizations, such as the Asia Pacific Economic Coopera-
tion (APEC), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), as well as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD), and their Business and Industry Advisory Committee, have made
32 21st Century Skills 481
substantial recommendations concerning 21CS. In addition, there have been signif-

icant publications from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom,
among other countries.
A Nation at Risk
Looking back, in 1981, then U.S. Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, under President
Ronald Reagan, convened the National Commission on Excellence in Education,
tasked with examining the overall quality of education in the United States and
making recommendations for future educational improvements, including content
covered and mastery of skills. The commission issued the report entitled A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence
in Education, 1983). This report had a profound impact on education in the United
States and, as a result, several reform efforts originated to improve education. A key
recommendation stated that educational reform should focus on creating a “Learning
Society.” The report defined a learning society as follows:
In a world of ever-accelerating competition and change in the conditions of the workplace,
of ever-greater danger, and of ever-larger opportunities for those prepared to meet them,
educational reform should focus on the goal of creating a Learning Society. At the heart of
such a society is the commitment to a set of values and to a system of education that affords
all members the opportunity to stretch their minds to full capacity, from early childhood
through adulthood, learning more as the world itself changes. Such a society has as a basic
foundation the idea that education is important not only because of what it contributes to
one’s career goals but also because of the value it adds to the general quality of one’s life.
Also at the heart of the Learning Society are educational opportunities extending far beyond
the traditional institutions of learning, our schools and colleges. They extend into homes and
workplaces; into libraries, art galleries, museums, and science centers; indeed, into every
place where the individual can develop and mature in work and life. (The Learning Society
section, para. 1).
Although a Nation at Risk did not address 21CS directly, the report did lay the
foundation for future reports and symposia from around the globe issuing similar
recommendations while addressing their own context. A few of the most influential
reports follow:
• The Hobart Declaration on Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling
in Australia. (Australian Education Council, 1989);
• Learning: The Treasure Within. (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, 1996);
• Learning for the 21st Century. (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003);
• 21st Century Skills Realising Our Potential: Individuals, Employers, Nation.
(Crown Copyright, UK, 2003);
• Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future. (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2007);
• 21st Century Learning: Research, Innovation and Policy, Directions from recent
OECD analyses. (OECD, 2003, 2005, 2008);
• Education to Achieve 21st Century Competencies and Skills for All: Respecting
the Past to Move Toward the Future. (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2008a,
2008b, 2008c);
• A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and
Core Ideas. (National Academies Press, 2012);
• AAAS Science Assessment. (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2015);
• Shifting Minds 3.0: Redefining the Learning Landscape in Canada. (C21 Canada,
2015); and
• The Futures of Learning 1: Why Must Learning Content and Methods Change in
the 21st Century? (Scott, 2015).
Comparisons of International Student Assessments
International comparisons of student achievement scores revealing the need for

improved academic success were included in many of the reports citing 21CS. Assess-
ments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), launched
in 1997 by member countries of the OECD (2014a, 2014b), were used to monitor
if students had acquired the knowledge and skills necessary for full participation
in society. PISA scores became an increasingly important tactic to draw attention
to the case that students in other countries may be outperforming students in their
own country. Given the competitiveness of our global economy, PISA results have
been used as an indicator of how well education systems are preparing students in
mathematics and science, STEM subjects that are critical to the innovation economy.
In addition to assessing students’ knowledge and skills, the OECD examined
student competencies and identified three “Competency Categories” (OECD, 2003,
2005). These categories included: (1) using tools interactively, (2) interacting in
heterogeneous groups, and (3) acting autonomously. “Using tools interactively” was
defined as acquiring and using language, information, and knowledge, including
using the tools of technology. Simply having access to technology does not guarantee
students have the technical skills to use the technology. For example, many schools
provide students with computers but do not equip teachers and students with the
skills to use them in a meaningful context.
Interacting in “heterogeneous groups” refers to relating well to others. These skills
are often referred to as “soft skills” and include the ability to be cooperative and work
in teams. In addition, they also require students to manage and resolve conflicts,
which involves using advanced communication skills. The final category is “acting
autonomously,” which includes knowing how the individual fits within the greater
context of society. Acting autonomously is important, since unlike the past where
one’s position was well-defined, that is no longer the case today. The ability to plan
Table 32.1 Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development competency categories
Using tools interactively Interacting in heterogeneous Acting autonomously
groups (soft skills)
Utilizing technology Relating to others Fitting into society
• Language • Be cooperative • Form and conduct life plans
• Symbols • Work in teams/groups • Conduct personal projects
• Texts • Manage conflicts • Define projects and set goals
• Information • Resolve conflicts • Identify and evaluate
• Knowledge • Communication skills resources
• Technology • Prioritize and refine goals
• Balance resources/meet goals
• Learn from past actions
• Monitor progress/make
adjustments
• Defend/assert one’s rights,
interests, limits, needs
and carry out life plans and coordinate personal projects is especially important, but
it also has implications for science education. Similar to the project-based learning
approach, this competency assumes individuals are able to: (a) define projects and
set goals, (b) identify and evaluate both the resources they have access to as well
as the resources they need, (c) prioritize and refine goals, (d) balance resources to
meet multiple goals, (e) learn from past actions and plan future outcomes, and (f)
monitor one’s progress, adjusting goals as the project unfolds. Acting autonomously
also addresses the need to defend and assert one’s personal goals and needs (OECD,
2005). See Chap. 5, Bildung Theory and Chap. 13, discovery learning in a cultural
context. Table 32.1 lists the three OECD competency categories and their associated
skills.
Defining Skills for Success
The National Education Association (NEA) of the United States, working in coop-
eration with educators, education experts, and business leaders in the U.S., defined
the skill sets necessary for success in work, life, and citizenship in 2002 known as
the Framework for 21st Century Learning (National Education Association, 2012).
The report highlighted 18 skills that schools could refer to when building standards,
professional development, and assessments. Ten years later, many believed the frame-
work was too long and complicated, and therefore these skills were further refined
into four primary skills termed the “Four C’s”: critical thinking, communication,
collaboration, and creativity (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010, 2015).
In 2012, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) categorized the 21CS to more
clearly show the relationships between skills, as well as summarized evidence col-
lected in support of 21CS development. One of the concerns that the NRC addressed
was the lack of specific definitions for the terms used to describe each skill. They
further organized the skills into three broad competency domains: (1) the cognitive
domain, including thinking and reasoning; (2) the intrapersonal domain, involving
self-management and the ability to regulate one’s behavior and emotions; and (3)
the interpersonal domain, focusing on self-expression, interpretation of messages,
and appropriate response (NRC, 2012). A content analysis of the existing lists of
21CS was completed and the skills were further grouped within the three domains.
Table 32.2 displays the three NRC domains and their associated competencies/skills.
The Four C’s (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity) are
clearly visible within this framework.
The World Economic Forum’s report a New Vision for Education: Unlocking the
Potential of Technology highlighted the growing deficit in 21CS development in our
youth and included strategies focused on addressing this gap through technology.
Sixteen skills were identified for student success in the 21st century and emphasized
the need for “lifelong learning” (World Economic Forum, 2015, p. 3). These 16
Table 32.2 National Research Council competency categories

Cognitive domain Intrapersonal domain Interpersonal domain
Cognitive Intellectual openness Teamwork/collaboration
processes/strategies
• Critical thinking • Flexibility • Communication
• Problem solving • Adaptability • Collaboration
• Analysis • Artistic and cultural • Cooperation
• Reasoning and appreciation • Teamwork
argumentation • Personal and social • Coordination
• Interpretation responsibility • Interpersonal skills
• Decision-making • Appreciation for diversity
• Adaptive learning • Adaptability
• Continuous learning
• Intellectual interest and
curiosity
Knowledge Work ethic/conscientiousness Leadership
• Information literacy • Initiative • Responsibility
• ICT literacy • Self-direction • Assertive communication
• Oral and written • Responsibility • Self-presentation
communication • Perseverance • Social influence with others
• Active listening • Grit
• Career orientation, ethics
• Integrity
• Citizenship
Creativity Positive core self-evaluation
• Creativity • Self-monitoring
• Innovation • Self-evaluation
• Self-reinforcement
• Physical and psychological
health
Table 32.3 World Economic Forum competency categories

Foundational literacies Competencies Character qualities
Applying core skills to Approaching complex Approaching their changing
everyday tasks challenges environment
• Literacy • Critical • Curiosity
• Numeracy thinking/problem-solving • Initiative
• Scientific literacy • Creativity • Persistence/grit
• Information and • Communication • Adaptability
communications • Collaboration • Leadership
technology literacy • Social and cultural
• Financial literacy awareness
• Cultural and civic literacy
skills were divided into three categories, (1) Foundational Literacies, defining how
students apply core skills to the tasks they are faced with on a day-to-day basis;
(2) Competencies, defining how students solve complex problems and challenges;
and (3) Character Qualities, defining how students react to the environment around
them. Table 32.3 shows the World Economic Forum 21CS. Once again, the Four C’s
emerge.
The Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2017) assembled an
explanation of 21CS providing teachers with a clear picture of supportive student
expectations. Creative pedagogy is crucial for 21st century learning and skill develop-
ment. Instructional interventions and techniques such as team-teaching, social con-
structivist game design/game play, as well as uses of social media including wikis and
online communications, help to equip students with 21CS (Chu, Reynolds, Tavares,
Notari, & Lee, 2017). See Chap. 4 for information on gaming design and Chap. 9
regarding New Media Technologies.
The Four C’s are present in a number of 21CS policy documents from around
the globe in one fashion or another, often times including social and emotional
intelligence, technological literacy, and problem-solving skills (See Chap. 27, Mul-
tiple Intelligences and Chap. 28, Systems Thinking). Application of knowledge and
moving beyond rote memorization is required, thus PBL/PrBL/PhBL approaches
push students to be more creative, use multiple technologies in their projects, and
develop the higher-level thinking skills needed in higher education and the workplace.
Creativity is a motivation for learning (see Chap. 2).
Crockett, Jukes, and Churches (2011) further sought to refine the classification
of 21CS. Based on New Zealand’s Ministry of Education (2007) definition for the
five key competencies for living and lifelong learning (thinking; using language,
symbols, and text: managing self; relating to others; participating and contributing),
along with the International Baccalaureate Program (2010) desired student outcome
skills (inquirers; knowledgeable; thinkers; communicators; principled; open-minded;
caring; risk-takers; balanced; reflective), Crockett, Jukes and Churches contend that
students need to develop transparency-level skills in the following six areas: problem-
solving; creativity; analytical thinking; collaboration; communication; and ethics,
action and accountability. Further to this, Crockett and Churches (2018) push for
schools to play a significant role in preparing students for life beyond the classroom.
They postulate that purposefully teaching skills that focus on effective and ethical
participation in online and offline communities promote critical thinking and the
development of global digital citizenship (GDC) practices, resulting in students who
are contributors and valuable citizens.
For the purposes of this chapter, we are interested in and will focus on 21CS
for STEM Education. STEM is a critical component supporting our technology-rich
global economy. To maintain technological development, there is a need to prepare
students in the STEM disciplines within a 21st century context. STEM education
intersects with 21CS to include rigorous core content with critical thinking skills
(Bybee & Fuchs, 2006).
21st Century STEM Education: A Second Renaissance?
Driven by economic forces and global competition, refocusing education on the

development of skills required for success in our rapidly changing digital society has
become an international quest. Many of these skills are associated with inquiry learn-
ing described in numerous STEM education reform documents. These documents
also place priority on mastering skills in analytic reasoning and complex problem-
solving (see Chap. 11, Mastery Learning), along with working collaboratively as a
team player, rather than solely developing traditional academic skills based on con-
tent knowledge. 21CS and effective STEM pedagogy appear to have a number of
related goals.
Historians generally date the first Renaissance in Western culture to have occurred
around the 11th century (Montgomery & Kumar, 2015). Descriptors for the First
Renaissance typically involve the convergence of the arts with science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEAM), as described in Chap. 31. However, tradi-
tional education has isolated STEM subjects into distinct disciplines. The artificial
barriers between STEM disciplines are disappearing, as each of the components of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are necessary for innovation. In
this sense, we see a resurgence of the convergence of STEM disciplines, non-STEM
disciplines, and 21CS such as the Four C’s. For example, stereotypes of engineers
as expert loners promulgated by the media are counterproductive. In stark contrast,
high tech multimedia cartoonists and science fiction illustrators function as teams
of artisans, musicians, and technicians (Disney, 2016). Science educators assert the
importance of the role of science in today’s society. From the WWII Generation,
Baby Boomers, and Millennials, our global society is united by technology, and
thus, we have life-long education mediated by the latest gizmo technology, from
tweeted homework reminders, cell phones, and tablet-based educational games and
apps, to self-driving vehicles.
In the STEM context, what is meant by the term 21CS? In general, essential
skills in STEM education include rigorous core content (biology, chemistry, Earth
sciences, engineering, mathematics, physics, and technology) combined with critical

thinking skills (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006). In addition, business and education leaders
increasingly tout the importance of soft skills (effective verbal and written commu-
nication, career readiness, and emotional I.Q.) for the workforce in a global, high
technology economy (Broadening Advanced Technological Education Connections,
2013). Members of today’s workforce need teamwork and collaboration skills and
the ability to apply critical thinking and problem-solving skills within day-to-day
scenarios (The Conference Board, Inc., 2006).
A central barrier to reform is the dichotomy between the importance of hard
skills, referring to rigorous core content, and the need for soft skills, such as col-
laboration, creativity, and work ethic. Student success relies on “greater connection
between traditional core courses, hard skills, and soft skills like social skills and
workforce readiness” (Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishrass, 2013, p. 410). In addi-
tion, Silva (2009) valued not only cognition of core constructs but emphasized the
essence of 21CS to increase students’ capacity for applying knowledge to real-world
scenarios. PBL/PrBL/PhBL provide an inquiry-based pedagogy for the inclusion
of 21CS. These pedagogical approaches promote student-centered opportunities for
deeper learning. Collaboration is essential for problem-solving because the com-
plexity of real-life problems require a variety of skills. Özdemir (2019) postulated
entrepreneurship often begins with a problem from an individual who seeks out col-
laboration from others with diverse expertise, which Özdemir termed soloborative
learning, solo thinking, collaborative tinkering (see Chap. 8 Connectionism, Edward
Thorndike).
PBL/PrBL/PhBL also embed critical thinking, problem-solving, and many of the
soft skills included in the Four C’s into the STEM classroom. Beers (2016) listed
creativity and innovation as crucial skills involved in the processes of problem-
solving and the creation of new products and services. In addition to academic skills,
Beers noted 21st century students need cultural awareness to succeed in the global
economy.
In a position statement, the National Science Teaching Association (2011) indi-
cated science has many inherent connections to 21CS including complex communica-
tion skills and unique problem-solving scenarios/strategies. In an analogous manner,
Beers (2016, p. 5) reported the emphasis on STEM intersects with 21CS, stating
that STEM is “inherently cross-curricular.” In STEM professions, a team approach
is used to solve complex problems and, often, workable solutions are mediated with
technology. STEM professionals use a wide variety of technology tools and software
applications in problem-solving. For example, spreadsheets are used to mine and
analyze data. Data collecting technologies, such as satellite imaging of atmospheric
phenomena, are submitted to large databases, analyzed by computer software, and
the information gleaned from the analyses is utilized in the building of complex mod-
els and hypotheses, such as weather forecasting. See The GLOBE Program, https://
www.globe.gov, for more information about involving students in large-scale inter-
national data collection activities, and refer to Chap 9, New Media Technologies and
Information Processing Theory—George A. Miller and Others.
In 2015, a landmark research study in the U.S., conducted by the Research Consor-
tium on STEM Career Pathways, surveyed high school students in STEM classes and
concluded that “creativity is an essential skill for 21st century students” (Educational
Research Center of America, 2016, p. 3). The study reported that increasing student
efficacy for confidence in the ability to learn and select a career in STEM strongly
correlates with a creative component in STEM classes in primary and secondary
schools. While this study noted that males were consistently more confident of their
STEM abilities than females, it also determined that when including a creative com-
ponent in the curricula, students, both female and male, were approximately twice as
likely to report confidence in their ability to learn STEM. The study concluded that
“creative learning matters,” further suggesting that “greater access to STEM learn-
ing environments which students themselves see as creative might boost the STEM
confidence of a generation” (Educational Research Center of America, 2016, p. 6).
This same study also noted that in addition to the gender gap described above,
historically marginalized groups in the U.S. (women, African Americans, Hispanics,
and Native Americans) often did not plan to pursue a STEM career, despite students
acknowledging STEM is important for future career aspirations. According to data
collected by the Educational Research Center of America, female students were 38%
less likely to select a STEM profession and historically marginalized groups were
not provided with an adequate number of advanced courses in STEM. To address
equity, the Educational Research Center of America recommended including creativ-
ity learning in all STEM courses and increasing access of advanced STEM courses
for historically marginalized students, significantly underrepresented in STEM pro-
fessions. To augment the traditional classroom, after school STEM clubs, maker
spaces, and camps can provide opportunities for increased representation of histor-
ically marginalized students in STEM professions (Educational Research Center of
America, 2016, p. 8). See Chap. 29 for additional information addressing the gender
gap in STEM education.
What Makes an Effective 21st Century STEM Education

Program?
According to the National Research Council Committee on Highly Successful

Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education (NRC, 2011), one factor for achieve-
ment in highly successful schools for students ages 5–18 is the implementation of a
STEM blueprint, guiding a college preparatory curriculum with focused emphasis on
college readiness for all students. Along with committed educators and community
leaders, the curricula should involve active student learning, linking prior knowledge
to new knowledge in learning tasks where students are engaged in the practices of
science.
Many effective programs promoting 21st century STEM skills have been function-
ing for years in countries around the world. In addition to the International Baccalau-
reate program previously mentioned, Montessori Schools and their K-12 Academies,
Reggio Emilia Schools, and schools within the Waldorf Education System, have also
earned global reputations. Short descriptions of each follow.
Montessori Schools adhere to a method of early childhood education building on
the way children learn naturally. Developed in 1907 by Italian physician, educator
and innovator Maria Montessori, the schools encompass a child-centered educa-
tional philosophy involving multi-age grouping in the classroom, mirroring real-
world interactions between people of all ages. The Montessori methods congruent
with 21CS include encouraging students to think critically, work collaboratively, and
act boldly (American Montessori Society, 2018).
The North America Reggio Emilia Alliance (NAREA), based on the early child-
hood education philosophy termed Reggio Emilia, was developed by Loris Malaguzzi
in 1945 in Italy. The NAREA early childhood education approach centers on the phi-
losophy that intelligent children deserve intelligent teachers (NAREA, 2018). 21st
century STEM skills supported by NAREA schools include relating to others in
cooperative experiences and Progettazione, projects designed by teachers in cooper-
ation with their students who in turn share the results of their projects with the larger
group to promote learning from one another (Reggio Emilia Australia Information
Exchange, 2018).
Waldorf Education, established by Emil Molt and Rudolf Steiner in 1919, has its
foundations in Anthroposophy, the belief that humanity has the wisdom to transform
itself and the world, through one’s own spiritual development (Waldorf Education,
2018). Waldorf schools integrate arts in all curricular areas, and currently there are
more than one thousand Waldorf/Steiner schools in over 60 countries. The education
philosophy of Waldorf schools support 21CS, and reports show “94% of Waldorf
graduates attended college or university with almost half selecting a STEM major”
(Mitchell & Gerwin, 2007; Montgomery & Kumar, 2015, p. 16).
Many charter and private schools in the U.S. take on specific disciplinary themes
such as STEM and other content areas. For example, High Tech High (HTH), an inte-
grated network of thirteen charter schools in San Diego, California, serves students
age 5–18. HTH has its own teacher certification program, and focuses on curricula
involving PBL supported by state-of-the-art technology. While the numbers of total
alumni attending and/or completing a university education are impressive, 30% of
HTH graduates enroll in a STEM field compared to 17% of high school graduates
across the U.S., with 35% of their graduates attending university as first-generation
college students (HTH, 2016). Why is HTH so successful? HTH’s philosophy centers
on the concept of Teacher as designer, involving teacher teams designing the courses
they teach and providing students with opportunities to work on real-life problems
that are meaningful and important to them in order to increase student engagement
(Cernavskis, 2015; HTH, 2016).
Another U.S. public charter school STEM network, the Denver School for Science
and Technology (DSST), includes fourteen schools on eight campuses in Denver, Col-
orado, and utilizes similar philosophies related to project and problem-based peda-
gogies. DSST schools increase student achievement for all students at a significantly
faster rate than comparable schools (Carroll, 2015).
Critics of traditional high schools often recommend competitive enrollment for
effective STEM schools. One unique facet of DSST is the policy of open enrollment,
which is often atypical for other STEM-focused schools (Cernansky, 2013). How-
ever, despite the open enrollment policy, Cernansky reported student achievement
on state assessments is high, citing that students graduating from DSST enroll in
STEM programs at three times the national average, with a diverse student popu-
lation (high percentage of traditionally marginalized students in STEM, girls, and
low-socioeconomic students). What makes the difference in achievement? School
culture is cited as one factor for the success of DSST. In addition, students in their
junior year at DSST are required to complete a STEM-focused internship offering
students a needed conceptual bridge from school into higher education and the work
force.
In the U.S., there are several emerging STEM school models that promote 21st
century STEM skills. Manor New Technology High School (MNTH) in Texas was
created as part of a statewide STEM initiative entitled The Texas High School Project;
creating inclusive STEM high schools where students are accepted in the program
based on interest in STEM as opposed to traditional acceptance criteria, high apti-
tude or prior achievement (Lynch et al., 2017). Opportunity structures are built into
the design of the MNTH curricula, providing students with support in pursuing
STEM opportunities and careers. Evaluation of program success cites almost 100%
of MNTH students graduated high school and have been accepted into post-secondary
programs. In addition, scores on the 8th grade assessment conducted during the 2007
school year indicated that the students enrolled at MNTH scored above average in sci-
ence, 65% students meeting standard, compared to 53% their peers meeting standard
in other schools in the district (Lynch et al., 2017).
The Texas High School Project was established by the 79th Texas Legislature,
allowing students in high school to complete two years of college concurrently with
completion of a high school diploma (Chapa, Galvan-De Leon, Solis, & Mundy,
2014; SRI International, 2018). STEM academies emerged as a result, transforming
schools into 21st century learning communities (Kennedy & Odell, 2014). The foun-
dation of the Texas High School Project model is supported through four pillars: (1)
effective teachers; (2) supportive and knowledgeable educational leaders; (3) learn-
ing systems (curricula, scheduling, and classroom design); and (4) streamlined data
analysis of performance (Haney, Holland, Moore, & Osborne, 2013, p. 25). All Texas
STEM (T-STEM) academies follow and implement the same Design Blueprint, serv-
ing as a guide to produce college and career-ready students. The University of Texas
at Tyler University Academy extended the T-STEM Design Blueprint to encom-
pass K-12 students, engaging students in PBL/PrBL/PhBL as the primary pedagogy
for learning, resulting in a shift from a teacher-centered learning environment to a
student-centered learning environment (Odell, Kennedy, & Stocks, 2019). 21st cen-
tury STEM skills development is an important part of the school assessment model.
Students not only receive grades for content achievement but are also evaluated on
acquiring 21st century STEM skills.
Evaluation of dual enrollment in the Texas High School Project revealed stu-
dents who completed college courses during their high school years, attended and
completed an Associate’s degree or higher during their college experience. These
findings, along with findings of the Central Texas Student Futures Project, were par-
ticularly significant for completion rates held for traditionally marginalized groups,
racial minorities, and students from low-income families (Cumpton & King, 2013;
Struhl & Vargas, 2012) and showed that students from diverse backgrounds attend-
ing STEM academies outperformed their counterparts at traditional high schools
(Kennedy & Odell, 2014). There are many STEM schools emerging in the U.S. and
across the globe that provide access to any student interested in STEM. These schools
implement 21st century pedagogies involving students in real-world projects.
Recommendations
The review of the preceding reports and STEM program descriptions are not exhaus-
tive but provide enough evidence that there are clearly areas of commonality in the
21CS and learning documents, as well as from successful STEM school models from
around the world. We are 20 years into the 21st century and we are still struggling
to define 21CS with precision due to the dynamic nature of the skill sets necessary
for success. These definitions will undoubtedly evolve as we move into the 22nd
century.
In many countries, including the U.S., educational policies and accountability
systems rely solely on standardized tests structured around memorization of facts
and procedures. As long as accountability systems reward scores on achievement
tests, schools will focus on maximizing test scores rather than on developing 21CS.
Of particular importance today is the need to evaluate the actual level of penetration
of 21CS into classroom instruction.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates “that employment in STEM-related
fields will increase by one million between 2012 and 2022” (Educational Research
Center of America, 2016, p. 3). Teaching students to be creative producers of knowl-
edge and innovation supports the development of 21st century STEM skills. Specialty
Schools, especially those that focus on skills rather than test scores, can foster future
STEM leaders and immerse students in high-quality STEM education aimed at devel-
oping 21CS. These environments, flexible in design, can also provide a venue to test
teaching materials and provide professional development to prepare teachers ready
to immerse their students in environments rich in PBL/PrBL/PhBL. In addition, open
enrollment STEM schools, such as those described earlier, can serve as a transition
to STEM majors and careers for all students.
The 22nd Century is just around the corner and we need to be forward-thinking.
The constant reoccurrence of the Four C’s implies that the most critical skills for
students of all ages are represented through a continuing thread throughout most
of the 21CS documents. Developing 21CS begins in the early years and progresses
through secondary school, requiring educators to align how students learn through
concept acquisition and development while promoting students to use the skills
needed to survive and thrive in the modern workplace. Learning about scientific
practice, through Problem and Project-based Learning, Phenomenon-based Learn-
ing, and other transdisciplinary STEM approaches to teaching science education,
promotes student engagement in scientific inquiry for and by themselves. 21CS is a
vehicle for promoting socio-political activism, assisting students to become active
citizens in addressing science and technology issues at local, national and global
levels. 21st century STEM skills are more important than ever as industry advances
and places greater importance on preparing students for the world of work.
Summary
• The U.S. National Education Association and the Partnership for 21st Century
Skills Four C’s (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity)
appear equivalent to international descriptions of desirable 21CS, as well as with
the NRC and World Economic Forum competency categories.
• An examination of curriculum documents from multiple countries show the inclu-
sion of 21CS, and that the goals encompassing 21st century competencies have
been included in many standards and curriculum documents.
• Project-Based Learning (PBL), Problem-Based learning (PrBL), and
Phenomenon-based Learning (PhBL), along with transdisciplinary approaches
to teaching science education such as STEM (science, technology, engineering
and mathematics) and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, the arts, and
mathematics), break down the artificial barriers of disciplines enabling students
to understand the connected nature of knowledge and utilize critical skills leading
to success in the 21st century economy.
• Successful schools provide technology tools for classrooms, and equip teachers
and students with the skills to use them in a meaningful context, thus promoting
the development of the technical skills supporting 21st century STEM skills.
• There is broad recognition that 21st century STEM skills are important, but there
is little research to indicate the level of implementation in the classroom.
• Classroom implementation of the 21CS, and the pedagogies that support them,
may not come to fruition until standardized assessments are reformed to include
measurements related to 21CS and professional development for teachers is
designed to include 21CS across the primary and secondary school experience.
Further Reading on Model 21CS STEM Schools
Denver School for Science and Technology, Colorado: https://www.greatschools.org/colorado/

denver/2427-Denver-School-Of-Science-And-Technology-Stapleton-High-School/.
High Tech High Charter School, San Diego, California: https://www.hightechhigh.org/.
Manor New Technology High School, Texas: https://mnths.manorisd.net/Domain/22.
University of Texas at Tyler University Academy: http://www.uttia.org/.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2015). AAAS science assessment. American
Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061 Science Assessment. Retrieved from
http://assessment.aaas.org/pages/home.
American Montessori Society. (2018). Retrieved from https://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/
History-of-Montessori-Education/Biography-of-Maria-Montessori.
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2008a). Education to achieve 21st century competencies
and skills for all: Respecting the past to move toward the future. Retrieved from https://
www.apec.org/Press/Speeches/2008/0115_cn_ednetserminarambcapunay and http://www.
sociedadytecnologia.org/pages/view/94024/education-to-achieve-21st-century-competencies-
and-skills-for-all-respecting-the-past-to-move-toward-the-future.
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2008b). 2nd APEC Education Reform Symposium: 21st Cen-
tury Competencies. Xi’an, China, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Human Resources Devel-
opment Working Group. Retrieved from http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/21st_Century_ Compe-
tencies.
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2008c). Education to achieve 21st century compe-
tencies and skills: Recommendations. 4th APEC Education Ministerial Meeting, Lima,
Peru. Retrieved from http://www.sei2003.com/APEC/forum_report_files/08_4aemm_018_
Education_to_Achieve_21st_Century_Competencies_and_Skills.pdf.
Australian Education Council. (1989). The Hobart declaration on common and agreed national
goals for schooling in Australia. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natgoals_file.pdf.
Beers, S. (2016). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. 21st Century Skills, 1–6.
ASCD. Retrieved from https://cosee.umaine.edu/files/coseeos/21st_century_skills.pdf.
Broadening Advanced Technological Education Connections. (2013, March 20). March Newsletter
(D. Boisvert, Ed.) Boston, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science
and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352. Retrieved
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20147/epdf.
C21 Canada. (2015). Shifting minds 3.0: Redefining the learning landscape in Canada. Canadians
for the 21st Century Learning and Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.c21canada.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/C21-ShiftingMinds-3.pdf.
Carroll, V. (2015, February 6). Do DSST schools have an unfair advantage? The Denver
Post. Retrieved from https://www.denverpost.com/2015/02/06/carroll-do-dsst-schools-have-an-
unfair-advantage/.
Cernansky, R. (2013, April 14). The very model of a modern STEM school. Retrieved
from the Smithsonian website https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/the-very-model-of-
a-modern-major-stem-school-23163130/.
Cernavskis, A. (2015, August 11). How teens move from innovative K-12 to college: With a
new spotlight on San Diego’s High Tech High, questions arise about its model. U.S. News
& World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/11/how-teens-

move-from-innovative-k-12-to-college.
Chapa, M., Galvan-De Leon, V., Solis, J., & Mundy, M. A. (2014). College readiness. Research
in Higher Education Journal, 25(1), 1–5. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1055338.pdf.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Twenty-first
century skills and global education roadmaps. In Chu, et al. (Eds.), 21st century skills development
through inquiry-based learning (pp. 17–32). Singapore: Springer.
Crockett, L. W., & Churches, A. (2018). Growing global digital citizens: Better practices that build
better learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Crockett, L. W., Jukes, I., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is not enough: 21st century fluencies for
the digital age. 21st Century Fluency Project and Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crown Copyright. (2003). 21st century skills realising our potential: Individuals, employers, nation.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
336816/21st_Century_Skills_Realising_Our_Potential.pdf.
Cumpton, G., & King, C. T. (2013). Trends in low-income enrollment and outcomes in Central
Texas for school districts and campuses, 2008 through 2012. Ray Marshall Center for the
Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of
Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/25278/
Trends%20in%20Low-Income%20Enrollment%20and%20Outcomes%20in%20Central%
20Texas%20for%20School%20Districts%20and%20Campuses%2C%202008%20through%
202012.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
Disney. (2016). About Imagineering. Walt Disney Imagineering Imaginations: Dream,
Design, Diversify. Retrieved from https://disneyimaginations.com/about-imaginations/about-
imagineering/.
Educational Research Center of America. (2016). STEM classroom to career: Opportunities to
close the gap. Educational Research Center of America. Retrieved from https://www.napequity.
org/nape-content/uploads/STEM-Classroom-to-Career-report-FINAL.pdf.
Haney, J., Holland, T., Moore, N. N., & Osborne, C. (2013). Stephen F. Austin High School.
Retrieved from http://www.edtx.org/uploads/research-and-reports/Stephen%20F%20Austin_
Redesign.pdf.
High Tech High. (2016). High Tech High: About Us. Retrieved from https://www.hightechhigh.org/
about-us/.
International Baccalaureate. (2010). The IB Learner Profile. Retrieved from https://www.ibo.org/
globalassets/publications/recognition/learnerprofile-en.pdf.
Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education
International, 25(3), 246–258. Retrieved from http://www.icaseonline.net/sei/september2014/
p1.pdf.
Lynch, S. J., Spillane, N., House, A., Peters-Burton, E., Behrend, T., Ross, K. M., & Han,
E. M. (2017). A policy-relevant instrumental case study of an inclusive STEM-focused high
school: Manor New Tech High. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology, 5(1), 1–20.
Mitchell, D., & Gerwin, D. (2007). Survey of Waldorf Graduates, Phase II. Research Institute for
Waldorf Education, Wilton, New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://www.journeyschool.net/wp-
content/uploads/Waldorf_Graduates_Gerwin_Mitchell.pdf.
Montgomery, S. L., & Kumar, A. (2015). A history of science in world cultures: Voices of knowledge.
Routledge.
National Academy Press. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-
k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts#.
National of Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine.

(2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter eco-
nomic future. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.
edu/catalog/11463/rising-above-the-gathering-storm-energizing-and-employing-america-for.
National Academy of Sciences. (1997). Preparing for the 21st century: The education impera-
tive. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/read/9537/
chapter/2.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington DC: United States Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.
National Education Association. (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An
educator’s guide to “the four Cs.”. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nea.
org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf.
National Research Council. (2012). In J. W. Pellegrino & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Education for life and
work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century. Committee on Defining
Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13398/education-for-
life-and-work-developing-transferable-knowledge-and-skills.
National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs
for K-12 STEM Education. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13158/successful-k-12-stem-
education-identifying-effective-approaches-in-science.
National Science Teaching Association. (2011). Quality science education and 21st-century skills.
NSTA Position Statement. Arlington, VA, USA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved
from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New
Zealand: Learning Media Limited. Retrieved from https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/
download/1108/11989/file/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum.pdf.
North America Reggio Emilia Alliance. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.reggioalliance.org/
narea/.
Odell, M. R. L., Kennedy, T. J., & Stocks, E. (2019). The impact of pbl as a stem school reform
model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(2). Retrieved from https://docs.
lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol13/iss2/4.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The definition and selection of
key competencies: Executive summary. In S. D. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Key competen-
cies for a successful life and well-functioning society. Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). The definitions and selection of
key competencies. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.
pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). 21st century learning:
Research, innovation and policy, directions from recent OECD analyses. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554299.pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014a). Beyond PISA 2015: A longer-
term strategy of PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
pisaproducts/Longer-term-strategy-of-PISA.pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014b). PISA 2012 results: Creative
problem solving (volume V): Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems. Paris: PISA, OECD
Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208070-en.
Özdemir, S. (2019). Soloborative learning: Solo thinking, collaborative tinkering. International
Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(3), 217–219.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide
for 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Report.pdf.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator prepa-
ration. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.
pdf.
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2017). Queensland 21st century skills: Expla-
nations of associated skills. Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_
syll_redev_21st_century_skills_associate_skills.pdf.
Reggio Emilia Australia Information Exchange. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.
reggioaustralia.org.au/component/content/article/65.
Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of learning 1: Why must learning content and methods change in
the 21st century? United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Education
Research and Foresight, Paris [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 13]. Retrieved from http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002348/234807E.pdf.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 9(90), 630–634. Sage
Journals. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172170909000905.
SRI International. (2018). Evaluation of the Texas High School Project. Retrieved from https://
www.sri.com/work/projects/evaluation-texas-high-school-project.
Struhl, B., & Vargas, J. (2012). Taking college courses in high school: A strategy guide for college
readiness—The college outcomes of dual enrollment in Texas. Jobs for the Future.
The Conference Board, Inc. (2006). Are they really ready to work?: Employers’ perspectives on
the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st Century U.S. Workforce. The
Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
UNESCO. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commis-
sion on Education for the Twenty-first Century (pp. 1–46). Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001095/109590eo.pdf.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishrass, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the
digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29, 403–413.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029.
Waldorf Education. (2018). Retrieved from https://waldorfeducation.org/waldorf_education.
World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of tech-
nology. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_
Report2015.pdf.
Teresa J. Kennedy, Ph.D. holds a joint appointment as Professor of International STEM and
Bilingual/ELL Education in the College of Education and Psychology and in the College of Engi-
neering at the University of Texas at Tyler, United States of America. Her research interests
focus on STEM Education, international comparative studies, gender equity, and brain research
in relation to second language acquisition and bilingualism.
Cheryl W. Sundberg, Ph.D. is a Research Scholar at The Ronin Institute (of the United States),
with a substantial portion of her current scholarship centered on the use of Web 2.0 to facilitate
science learning at all levels. Her research interests include interactive online teaching, teaching
with emerging technology, and science teaching.
Correction to: The Bildung
Theory—From von Humboldt
to Klafki and Beyond
Correction to:
Chapter 5 in: B. Akpan and T. Kennedy (eds.),
Science Education in Theory and Practice,
Springer Texts in Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_5
Chapter 5, “The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki and Beyond” was
previously published non-open access. It has now been converted to open access
under a CC BY 4.0 license and the Copyright Holder is “The Author(s)”. The book
has also been updated with this change.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
The updated version of this chapter can be found at

© The Author(s) 2021 C1

Springer Texts in Education,
Index
Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” indicate figures; those followed by “t” indicate
tables.
A inquiry-based science teaching within,

Abdi, A., 411 317–319
Ability Leont’ev and (second generation), 314–
to comprehend instruction, 151 315
learning, 247, 248 Vygotsky and (first generation), 311–314
to making observations, 94 Adaptation, 134
for participation, 60 Advanced organizers, 164
self-determination, 60, 168 AE. See Active Experimentation (AE)
solidarity, 60 Affective outcomes, 155
Abramovich, S., 123 Agardh, C. A., 56
Absolutist stage, 218, 220 Ahmadyan, H., 411
Abstract conceptions, 283–284 Ahmed, S. A. M., 419
Abstract Conceptualisation (AC), 243 Aikin, S. F., 227, 228
AC. See Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) Air resistance (R), 141t, 142
Academic skills, 487 Ako, 169
Accommodating learners, 248 Akpan, B., 1, 71, 149
Accommodation, 134 Aldrich, N. J., 183, 184
Accumulative fragmentalism, 379 Alfieri, L., 183, 184
Achievement, distribution of Allgemeinbildung, 58, 63
in mastery classrooms, 151f Alvermann, D. E., 325
in traditional classrooms, 149f Amazon, 121
Acquisition phase, 72–73 Anchoring process, 164, 166t
‘acteurs-L‘, 324, 325 Andersson, B., 281
“Acting autonomously”, 482–483, 483t Applying and Innovating Curricular Compe-
Action, 230–234 tency for Grade 4 Science, 39
Active Experimentation (AE), 243 Applying stage, of experiential learning, 244
Active learning process, 166, 169, 181, 260 Apprentice Teaching, 351
Activity, 45, 50 Apprenticeship of observation, 169
of learning, 300 Aptitude, 151
Activity Theory, 281, 311–320 Aristotle, 178
characteristics, 312 Arlin, P. K., 211
Engeström and (third generation), 315– Arnold, R. D., 429
317 Articulation, 306
Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9
498 Index
ASCD. See Association for Supervision and Beasley, C., 437

Curriculum Development (ASCD) Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories,
Asoko, H., 264 Critical Thinkers (Beasley), 437, 438
Assaraf, O. B.-Z., 428 gender/sexuality theory, 437–446
‘Assessing Performance’ event, 193–194, Beers, S., 487
199t, 203 Behavior
Assessment tasks, 39 in classroom, 26
Assignments, 26, 158, 249, 299 irresponsible, 31
Assimilation, 134 multiple motivations of, 22
learning style, 248 reinforcement, 78, 79f
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Behavior over time graphs (BOT), 429
Development (ASCD), 408–409 Behaviorist approach, 3
Associative learning, 106 cognitivist approach and, 4t
Atkinson, R. C., 116, 118–119 Behaviour of Organisms: An Experimental
Atkinson–Shiffrin model, 118–119 Analysis, The (1938), 78
Attainment, of mastery learning, 152, 154 Bekhterev, V., 313
Attention Bell, P., 299, 317
capture, 94 Bell, T., 481
gaining, 193, 196t, 200 Belonging needs, 20, 25
in information processing model, 120 Benedict, R., 18
in modeling process, 88, 88f , 92 Benveniste, E., 325
Attention-deficit disorder, 4 Bernstein, J. H., 472
Attitudes, 192 Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971), 78
Audio and visual effects, 49 Bholoa, A., 133, 191, 323
Audio discussion board, 122 Bianchini, J. A., 389
Ausubel, D., 5 Biesta, G., 236
Educational Psychology: A Cognitive Bifocal modeling, 430
View, 163, 164 Bildung
theory of meaningful learning, 163–173 applying to science education, 63–65
Authenticity, 299
categorical, 59, 60
Autonomy, 168
classical, 57
Aversion therapy, 75
and critical-constructive Didaktik, 60–61
Aydeniz, M., 293
critical-hermeneutic, 58, 62, 63
democratic education, 58
B different ideas related to, 57–58
Bandura, A. formal theories, 59, 60
Bobo doll study, 87 Klafki’s view of, 58–60
Social Learning Theory (SLT), 32–33, liberal education, 57–58
85–96 material theories, 59
“Banking” model of education, 296 Scandinavian folk-Bildung, 58
Bartel, B., 126 scientific literacy, visions of, 62–63, 62f
Bartlett, F., 117 socio-scientific issues (SSIs) for, 63–64
Basic needs theory, 55–57, 65
Glasser’s, 31, 39–40 types of, 59–60, 59f
Maslow’s, 19–21, 24–26 Bilican, K., 177
Basler, D., 126 Binet, A., 284, 406
Batlolona, J. R., 185 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
Battiste, M., 453 (BSCS), 49, 318
Bauer, W., 56 Blades, D., 8
BC Curriculum. See British Columbia (BC) Blogs, 121, 122, 124
Science Curriculum Bloom, B., 5, 149, 210
BCME. See British Columbia Ministry of biography of, 150
Education (BCME) mastery learning. See Mastery learning
Index 499
Taxonomy, 150 Causal net, 392

Blumenfield-Jones, D., 409 Cavas, B., 405
Bodily−kinesthetic intelligence, 407, 414t Cavas, P., 405
Bogeholz, S., 327, 338 CCCs. See Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs)
Borton Primary Magnet School, 431 CE. See Concrete Experience (CE)
BOT. See Behavior over time graphs (BOT) Cernansky, R., 490
Boulanouar, A. W., 23 Challenge, 47
Bouzenita, A. I., 23 and curiosity, 49
Bradley, H., 439 Character Qualities, 485
Brady, M., 125, 126 CHAT. See Cultural–historical activity the-
Bricker, L. A., 299 ory (CHAT)
British Columbia (BC) Science Curriculum, Cherry, K., 72–73, 76
29, 34 Cheung, W. S., 122, 124
core competencies in revised curriculum, Children
35, 36t positive interaction, 33
core element of, 32 safety needs, 20
curricular competencies, 36, 37f Chilisa, B., 453
new K-12, 35–38 Chinese post-primary science curriculum,
British Columbia Education Plan, 35 243
British Columbia Ministry of Education Choice theory (CT), 29, 31–32
(BCME), 34, 35, 38 and BC Science Curriculum, 29, 34,
Brock, R., 101 35–38
Brooks, P. J., 183, 184 and science teaching, 38–41
Brown, A., 293 and Social Learning Theory (SLT), 32–
Brown, J. S., 294–300, 305, 307 33
Bruner, J., 5, 46, 138, 177, 204, 217, 259 and sociocultural theory, 33
Towards a Theory of Instruction in 1966, and teaching, 33–41
262 Chomsky, N., 86, 178
cognitive constructivism, 179–180 Churches, A., 485, 486
on cognitive revolution leading to con- Cianci, R., 23
structivism, 262–263 CK. See Content knowledge (CK)
constructivism and social construc- Clark, R., 254
tivism, comparing, 266t Classical Bildung, 57
Culture of Education, The, 262 Classical conditioning, 3, 71–72
discovery learning, 181–185 acquisition phase, 72–73
educational implications, 180–181 disinhibition, 74
Process of Education, The, 177, 179, 180, example of, 72, 76
262 external inhibition, 74
social constructivism and, 263–273 extinction, 74, 75f
BSCS. See Biological Sciences Curriculum guidelines for implementation in science
Study (BSCS) teaching, 81–82
Building blocks of knowledge, 134 internal inhibition, 74
Burbules, N. C., 236 other uses of, 75
Burner, T., 45, 311 phobias and, 76
Buss, A. R., 22 process, 73f
PTSD and, 76
spontaneous recovery, 74, 75f
C systemic desensitization and, 77
Cakmakci, G., 293 terminologies associated with, 72–74
Calabrese-Barton, A., 298 Classification, 136–137
Campbell, T., 398 Classroom research, 167, 169
Categorical Bildung, 59, 60 Clinton, K., 121, 126
Causal loops diagrams, 429 Coaching, 306
500 Index
Cobb, P., 365 Conditioned Reflexes and Psychiatry (1941),

Cognitive and moral development, 209–211 72
Cognitive apprenticeship, 301–302 Conditioned stimulus, 73
design thinking from, 302–305 Connectionism, for science teaching,
dimensions for designing learning envi- 107–108.. See also Thorndike, E.
ronment, 305 Connell, M. L., 123
pedagogical practices of, 302f Connell, R., 442
six processes used in promoting student Conservation, 137
learning, 306–307 Consistency, 46, 49
Cognitive competency domain, 484, 484t Construct repertory test (CRT), 381–382,
Cognitive constructivism 383f
Bruner’s, 179–180 Construct system, as framework, 380–381
historical and theoretical background, Constructive alternativism, 373, 374, 379
178–179 Constructivism, 178
Cognitive curiosity, 46, 49, 50 cognitive revolution leading to, 262–263
Cognitive development theory, stages of, comparison with social constructivism,
135–138, 136f.. See also Stage theory 265, 266t
of cognitive development overview of, 260–262
Cognitive outcomes, 155 radical, 359–360, 376–377. See also
Cognitive revolution, 262 Social constructivism
Cognitive skills, 410 Constructivist approaches, 6–7
Cognitive strategies, 192 Content, for designing learning environ-
Cognitivist approach, 4–6 ment, 305
behaviorist approach and, 4t Content knowledge (CK), 139
Coherence, 394 Contextual learning process, 260, 267, 271t
Cole, M., 315 Contingent knowledge, 205
Collaboration, 487 Continuity of experience, 232
Collaborative learning activities, 25, 264, Contradictions, in activity system, 316–317
319 Control
Collective activity, individuals and, 314–315 external versus internal, 31
Collins, A., 294–300, 296, 301, 305, 307 of variables, 138t
Colonialism, 454 Conventional teaching methods, 295–296
Combinatorial reasoning, 138t, 141t Converging learning style, 248
Common Framework of Science Learning Cooke, B., 23
Outcomes, K to 12 project, 34 Coordination classes, 392
Communication, 233–234 Cope, B., 122
competency, 35, 36t Correctives, 153
Community-centred education and research, Cowan, N., 117–118
IKS theory in, 458f , 459 CRADLE (Center for Research on Activity
Community engagement, 30, 166 and Learning), 312
Competencies, 159 Craik, F. I. M., 116, 119, 123
Competency categories, 482–484 Crash Course video, 119
NRC, 484t Creativity, 21
OECD, 483t skills, 487, 488
WEF, 485t Critical-constructive Didaktik, 60–61
Completeness, 46, 49 “Critical friends” process, 349
Computer games, fantasies in, 48 Critical-hermeneutic Bildung, 58, 60, 62, 63
Concept cartoons, 50 Critical thinking, development of, 217–220
Concept mapping activity, 249–250 Critique of Pure Reason (Kant), 420
Conceptual change model, 392 Crockett, L. W., 10, 485, 486
Concrete Experience (CE), 243 Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), 427
Concrete operational period, 136–137, 136f , CRT. See Construct repertory test (CRT)
145f CT. See Choice theory (CT)
Index 501
Cultural context, of learning, 298 Direct reinforcement, 88

Cultural diversity, 166, 315, 326 Disciplinarity, 469
Cultural literacy, 323 Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI), 395, 427
Cultural mediation, 314 Discovery learning
Cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT), arguments against, 184–185
281, 294 benefits of, 184
Culture of Education, The (Bruner), 262 Bruner’s, 5, 181–185
Cultures, hierarchy of needs on, 23 as cognitive process, 177
Curiosity, 49 definitions of, 181
Curricular competencies implementation of, 182
from BC revised curriculum, 36, 37f modes of, 183–184
research on, 185–186
in science education, 108, 177, 186–188
D and scientific discovery, 182
d’Agnese, V., 368 Discrimination
Dalai Lama, 85 stimulus generalization and, 80
Davis, E. A., 317 diSessa, A., 389
Davis, P. R., 390 phenomenological primitives, 391–392
Dawson, M. R. W., 117 “Toward an Epistemology of Physics”,
391
DCI. See Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI)
“What Changes in Conceptual
De-contextualised learning, 267, 271t
Change?”, 392
Decentering, 137
Disinhibition, 74
Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and
Diverging learning style, 248
Indigenous peoples (Smith), 453
Diversity and inclusion, 166, 447
Defectology, 287–288
Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test
Democratic education, 58, 60
(DLTCT), 411
Denver School for Science and Technology
DLTCT. See Diversity of Living Things
(DSST), 490
Concepts Test (DLTCT)
“Depth of processing”, 119
Dodick, J., 428
Design process (three-stage), 157
“Doing science”, 93
Design thinking methodology
Dollard, J., 86
from cognitive apprenticeship perspec-
Doubt and belief, 229–230
tive, 302–305
Driver, R., 378
delivering solutions, 305 DSST. See Denver School for Science and
practicing the process, 304 Technology (DSST)
understanding the process, 304 Dual education system, 293
Determinate situation, 230 Duguid, P., 294–300
Developmental scheme, representation of
Perry’s, 213, 214f
Dewey, J., 58, 59, 299, 343, 347 E
comparing constructivism and social Education
constructivism based on work of, 266t “banking” model of, 296
and pragmatism, 227–236 democratic, 58
Didactical analysis, 61 dual system, 293
Didacticism, 367 Gagné’s theory in, 194
Didaktik, 56–57 liberal, 57–58
applying to science education, 63–65 See also STEAM-ED; STEM education
Bildung and, 60–61 Education through Science (EtS), 468
Differentiated Instruction approach, 157 Educational practices, 296
Digital technologies Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View
social learning in science using, 95–96 (Ausubel), 163, 164
See also New media technologies Educational Research Center of America,
Dimitrakopoulou, A., 296 488
502 Index
Educational technology, in classroom, 123 assessment of, 251–253, 252t

Educative process, 237 effect on teacher, 253
Eilks, I., 55, 57, 63, 64 examples in science education, 244–248
Einem, G., 156 focus on, 243–244
Elaboration, 50, 319 model of, 243, 246f
‘Eliciting Performance’ event, 193, 198t, origins of, 242
202–203 other instructional strategies on, 248–
Elitism, 23 251
ELT. See Experiential Learning Theory research against, 253–254
(ELT) Experimentalism. See Pragmatism
Emdin, C., 126–128 Explanation, 50, 318–319
Emotional literacy, 323 Exploration, 50, 307, 318
Enactive representation, 264 External inhibition, 74
Enculturation, 180, 279, 298 Extinction, 74, 75f , 79
Engagement, 49–50, 318 Extrinsic fantasies, 48
“Engagement with Pop Culture in Your Extrinsic motivation, 45, 265
STEM Classroom” blog post, 125 Extrinsic reinforcement, 46
Engel, P., 313
Engeström, Y., 312, 316
‘Enhancing Retention and Transfer’ event, F
194, 199t, 204 Facebook, 121, 122, 124, 126
Enrichments, 153–154 Falsificationism, 378
Entry document, 346 Fantasies, 48
Epistemological resources, 393 Fast-paced tasks, 304
Epistemological understanding Fear response, 76
four-stage model of levels, 218–220, Feedback, 153
218f informative, 192
Equilibration, 135 providing, 193
Equilibrium, 135, 135f Feiman-Nemser, S., 163
Esteem needs, 20 Feminist studies, 438
teaching strategies for, 25–26 5E model, 39, 49–51, 317–319, 318f
Estonia, 259 Five-level model of Maslow’s theory of
EtS. See Education through Science (EtS) human motivation, 19–21
European Union, 9 Focus inquiry, 170–171
Evaluation, 50, 319 Folk-Bildung tradition, 58, 60
types of, 155 Fontana, D., 87
Evaluativist stage, 218 Formal Bildung theories, 59, 60
Evans, T. L., 471 Formal operational period, 136f , 137–138,
Existential intelligence, 408, 414t 210
Expansive learning theory, 316–317 cyclic interaction between concrete,
Experience, 230, 232, 234 145f
as action, 232, 234 fifth stage beyond, 211–212
continuity of, 232 reasoning patterns during, 137–138, 138t
of doubt, 230 study in relation to reasoning patterns at,
grasping and transforming, 243 139–144
inquiry as, 235 Formative assessments, 153, 154
interaction, 232 Formative evaluation, 155
learning through, 242 Forrester, J, 424, 426, 431
meanings, 325 Forward force, 142, 143
perception of, 230 Foundational Literacies, 485
and reflection, 243 Four C’s, 483–485
stage, of experiential learning, 244 Frames of Mind (Gardner), 406, 408
Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), 242 Framework for 21st Century Learning, 483
Index 503
Framework for K-12 Science Education, 366 Golf ball task (of formal operations), 140–
Free will of learners, 3 144
Freedom, 31, 40 Goodnough, K., 411
Freire, P., 296 Grasping experience, 243, 248
Frieman, J., 75 Gray, P., 81
Fun, 31, 40 Green, H., 119
Functional Bildung, 59 Green, J., 119
Greene, D., 46
Greeno, J. G., 296
G Group
Gadamer, H.-G., 56, 58 roles within, 249
Gagné, R. M., 5 selection, 249
influence of his theory in education, 194 Grube, D., 327, 338
instructional events (nine), 193–194 Grundtvig, N. F. S., 56
on ‘connected particles’ (case study), GST. See General System Theory (GST)
194–204 Guardians of the Galaxy (film), 125–126
taxonomies of learning, 192 Guided discovery, 183, 184, 191–206.. See
theory on guided discovery, 191–206 also Gagné, R. M.
‘Gaining Attention’ event, 193, 196t, 200 Güneysu, S., 411
Galotti, K. M., 137 Gunn, J., 126
Gambrel, P. A., 23 Gurbin, T., 120, 128
Gamification, 47 Guskey, T. R., 153–154
Gan, B., 122
Gannon, T. F., 429
Gardner, H., 7, 406 H
Frames of Mind (Gardner), 406, 408 Habits, 231
See also Multiple intelligences (MI) the- Hammer, D., 392–394
ory Hamminga, B., 457
GDC practices. See Global digital citizen- Hard skills, 487
ship (GDC) practices Harlow, D. B., 389
Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Crit- HCI. See Human–computer interaction
ical Thinkers (Beasley), 437, 438 (HCI)
Gender gap, in STEM education, 488 Hearn, J., 446
Gender/sexuality theory, 8, 437–446 Hegemony of men, Hearn’s, 446
background, 439–440 Henderlong, J., 46
challenging normative perceptions, 440– Herder, J. G., 55
446 Heredity, 135
General System Theory (GST), 421–423 Herr, N., 40
Generalising stage, of experiential learning, “Heterogeneous groups,” interacting in, 482,
244 483t
Genetic epistemology, 362 Hew, K. F., 122, 124
Gifted pedagogy, special needs and, 287– Hidi, S., 327
289 Hierarchy of needs, in Maslow’s theory,
Glasser, W. 19–21, 19f
basic needs, 31, 39–40 1: physiological needs, 19–20
choice theory and science education, 29– 2: safety needs, 20
41 3: love and belonging needs, 20
information on, 29–30 4: esteem needs, 20
reality therapy (RT), 30–31 5: need for self-actualization, 20–21
Global digital citizenship (GDC) practices, Hierarchy reversal of needs, 21–22
486 High expectations, 167
GLOBE Program, 123–124, 431, 487 High Tech High (HTH), 489
Goldstein, K., 18 Hip-hop culture, 127–128
504 Index
#HipHopEd social movement, 127–128 recognition of, 451

Holbrook, J., 259, 265, 465 research and ethics, 455–456, 460–462
Holland, J. H., 472 Individual action and collective activity,
Holstermann, N., 327, 338 Leont’ev’s, 314–315
Holum, A., 294, 301, 305, 307 Individual differences in school achieve-
Hoppers, C. O., 453 ment: A vanishing point? (Bloom),
Horn, M. S., 390 151
How Computer Memory Works (Senanan), Individualism, 22–23
117 Individuals, 2, 18
How We Think (Dewey), 233 Individual/situational interests, 327
HTH. See High Tech High (HTH) Industry 4.0, 293
Huckstep, P., 204–205, 209 Information and communications technol-
Hudha, M. N., 185 ogy (ICT), 47, 96
“Human Memory” (Atkinson and Shiffrin), Information literacy, 323
116 Information processing theory, 116–120
Human motivation theory (Maslow), 19–23 applying new media technologies to,
Human–computer interaction (HCI), 420 121–128
Humanism, definition of, 2 memory system, 118f
Humanistic approach, 2–3 redefined with social/cultural influences,
Humanistic Bildung, 59, 60 120f
Huxley, T. H., 378 Informative feedback, 192
Hypothesis, 1 ‘Informing Learners of the Lesson Objec-
tive’ event, 193, 196t, 200–201
Inhibition, external and internal, 74
I Initial teacher education (ITE), 254, 439, 447
IBST. See Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Initiation/motor, 93
(IBST) Innovation Academy, 353
Iconic representation, 264 Inquiry and the National Science Education
ICT. See Information and communications Standards (2000), 235
technology (ICT) Inquiry-Based Science Teaching (IBST),
Idealism, 366 234, 235, 252, 271–272t, 317–319
IKS theory. See Indigenous knowledge sys- See also Science teaching/education,
tems (IKS) theory applications to
Il’enkov, E. V., 315, 317 Inquiry, concept of, 229–230, 235–236
ILS. See Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) Inquiry-discovery learning, 185
Imitation, 87 Instagram, 121, 124
Impetus force, 143 Institute for Reality Therapy, 30
Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) the- Instruction
ory, 8–9 differentiation of, 157
addressing socio-political injustice, 454– quality of, 151
455 See also Intrinsically motivating instruc-
application of, 457–462 tions
assumptions, 456–457 Instructional alignment, 154
challenges to application of, 462 Instructional designers, 48
in community-centred education and Instructional environments, designing, 47–
research, 458f , 459 49
countering knowledge monopoly, 455 by using 5E-model, 49–51
development of, 453–454 Instructional events, Gagné’s, 193–194
historical background, 451–453 on ‘connected particles’ (case study),
local knowledge in science teaching and 194–204
learning, 461t Instructional theory, 180, 191, 204
nature of, 456–457 Instrumentalism. See Pragmatism
reasons for, 454–456 Integrated Learning Systems (ILS), 82
Index 505
Integrated reconciliation, 164, 166t Johnson-Laird, P., 178

Integrated resource package (IRPs), 34 Journal of Educational Psychology, 108
Intellectual and ethical development, stages Jukes, I., 485
of, 209
Intellectual skills, 192
Intellectually oriented and skill-based theo- K
ries K-12
gender/sexuality theory, 8 new BC Science Curriculum, 35–38
indigenous knowledge systems, 8–9 new media technologies on, 122
multiple intelligences theory, 7 systems thinking implementation in, 432
STEAM framework, 9 Kalantzis, M., 122
systems thinking, 8 Kang, H., 298
twenty-first-century skills, 9–10 Kansanen, P., 61
Intelligence Kant, I., 420
concept of, 406, 408 Kaupapa Maori initiatives, 459
definition of, 407 Keislar, E. R., 46
style, 410 Keller’s plan. See Personalised System of
types of, 407–408 Instruction (PSI) approach
See also Multiple intelligences (MI) the- Kelly, G.
ory biography of, 373–374
Interaction, 232 Personnel Construct Theory (PCT), 373–
Interactive learning process, 260 385
Interdisciplinarity, 469–470 Kennedy, T. J., 1, 479
Interest, conceptualization of, 326–327 Key, E., 56
Internal inhibition, 74 Khan Academy Medicine video, 120
International Baccalaureate Program, 485 Khupe, C., 451, 460
Interpersonal domain, 484, 484t Kiddell, R. B., 29
Interpersonal intelligence, 407, 414t KiP theory. See Knowledge-in-pieces (KiP)
Intrapersonal domain, 484, 484t theory
Intrapersonal intelligence, 407, 414t Kirschner, P., 254
Intrinsic fantasies, 48 Klafki, W., 56, 58
Intrinsic motivation, 46, 265 didactical analysis, 61
Intrinsically motivating instructions his view of Bildung, 58–60
challenge, 47 Klein, P., 415
curiosity, 49 Klett, M. D., 115
environmental features of, 47–49 Knowledge
fantasy, 48 acquisition, 6, 144, 261, 296
iPad applications, 122–123 and action, 230–234, 235
IQ tests, 406 building blocks of, 134
Ireland experiential learning, stages of, 244 construction, 6, 328, 452
IRPs. See Integrated resource package formation of networks, 329
(IRPs) nature of, 264, 297
Irvine, J., 39 and reality, 361
ITE. See Initial teacher education (ITE) See also Indigenous knowledge systems
iTunes, 121 (IKS) theory
Knowledge-in-pieces (KiP) theory, 389–391
development of, 391–394
J learning progression frameworks, 394
Jackson, M. C., 420 and reform-based science teaching, 395–
James, W., 102, 227 399
Jenkins, H., 121, 126 “Know/need to know” statements, 346
Jewitt, C., 324–325 Kohn, A., 39
Jigsaw methodology, 244 Kolb, D. A.
506 Index
experiential learning. See Experiential as developmental process, 252–253

Learning Theory (ELT) element of, 104
Kress, G., 324–325 expansive cycle of, 316–317
Ku, C. K., 411 through experience, 242, 247
Kuhn, D., 209 humanistic theory of, 2–3
on development of critical thinking, 217– inquiry, 171
220 KiP theory on. See Knowledge-in-pieces
model of levels of epistemological under- (KiP) theory
standing, 218–220, 218f logs, 250
Kuhn, T., 363, 380 for mastery, 150
in multiliteracy paradigm, 324–325
nature of, 105–106, 264–265
L observational, 86, 87–88
Lab Out Loud podcast, 126 personalized, 36, 38
Laei, S., 411 principles of, 34, 102–105
Lai, H. Y., 410 as process and product, 5
Lakatos, I., 377, 378 progressions, 105, 366, 394
Lakoff, G., 178 promoting long-term, 123, 124
Language providing guidance, 193
in development, 282 situated cognition perspective on, 291–
and knowledge, 457 301
and literacy, in science education, 326 situated learning. See Situated cognition
Lave, J., 295
as social activity, 294
Law
and STEM teaching via technology-
of assimilation or analogy, 104
enhanced inquiry, 123
of associative shifting, 104–105
styles, 248
of effect, 102
taxonomies of, 192
of exercise, 102–103
theories role in teaching and, 1–2
of multiple response, 103
of partial activity, 104 trajectories, 365–366
of readiness, 103 use of new media technologies in class-
of set or attitude, 103–104 room to promoting, 121–123
Leach, J., 264 See also Cognitive apprenticeship; Dis-
Learners, categories of, 248 covery learning; Experiential Learn-
Learning ing Theory (ELT); Mastery learn-
abilities, 247, 248 ing; Meaningful learning; Science
as active process, 166, 169, 181, 260, 300 teaching/education, applications to;
Social Learning Theory (SLT); specific
associative, 106
entries
assumptions about nature of, 105–106
behaviorist and cognitivist approach to, Learning for Mastery (LFM) approach, 156
4t, 71 “Learning how to learn” skill, 46
Bruner’s stages of, 264 Learning Modernization Project (LMP), 35
cognitive approaches to, 86 Learning science, 89
in cognitive constructivism, 179 Learning society, defined, 481
cognitive science in relation to, 4–5 LeBlanc, J., 126
collaborative activities, 25, 264, 319 Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes (1928), 72
conception from perspective of MI the- Lectures on the Work of the Principal Diges-
ory. See Multiple intelligences (MI) tive Glands (1897), 72
theory Lehane, L., 241
constructivist models of, 6–7, 106–107 Leibniz, G. W., 422
contexts in, 297–300 Lemke, J., 325–326
de-contextualised, 267 Leont’ev, A. N.
definition, 71 “primeval collective hunt” example, 315
Index 507
second generation of Activity Theory, Martin, M., 409

314–315 Masculinity studies, 438
Lepper, M. R., 46 Maslow, A.
Lerman, S., 317 biography of, 18
Levels of processing framework, 116, 119, theory of human motivation, 19–23, 19f
120, 123 Mastery learning, 5
Levinson, P., 121 application in science education, 158–
Lewickki, P., 76 159
LFM approach. See Learning for Mastery approaches to, 156–158
(LFM) approach Bloom, 149–159
Liberal education, 57–58 components of instruction, 154
Linguistic intelligence, 407, 414t Differentiated Instruction, 157
Linn, M. C., 317 elements of, 153–154
Lipponen, L., 316 factors affecting, 151–152
Literacy pedagogy, 323, 324.. See also Mul- formative evaluation, 155
tiliteracies Keller Plan, 156–157
Little Albert experiment, 76 Learning for Mastery (LFM), 156
Liu, W. Y., 411 outcomes, 155
“Live models,” science educators as, 90 in practice, 153–154
Living and lifelong learning, competencies process, 152–153, 152f
for, 485 Understanding by Design, 157–158
LMP. See Learning Modernization Project Material Bildung theories, 59
(LMP) Matthews, M. R., 365, 367
Loannides, C., 296 Mayer, R. E., 184
Lockhart, R. S., 116, 119, 123 McCallum, D., 8
Logical–mathematical intelligence, 407, McClelland, J., 178
414t McCloskey, M., 391
Long-term store (LTS), 118–119 Mcivor, O., 8
Lortie, D. C., 169 McKenzie, M., 409
Love and belonging needs McLeod, S., 120
Glasser’s, 31 ME310 class example, as overview of design
Maslow’s, 20 thinking method, 303–305
teaching strategies for, 25, 39 Meadows, D., 421, 431
LTS. See Long-term store (LTS) on system dynamics, 431
Luria, A., 117, 314 and systems thinking, 424–425
Meaningful learning, 5
Ausubel, 164–165
M education through science as, 170–173
Macdonald, R., 471 in New Zealand Curriculum (NZC), 166–
“Magical Number Seven, The” (Miller), 116, 170, 166t
117 Meaning/knowledge, 231
Mahan, J. L., Jr., 469 Mechanisms, 391
Makokha, J. M., 293 Media, categories of, 121
Malaguzzi, L., 489 Media literacy, in twenty-first century, 128–
Malone, T. 129
theory of intrinsically motivating instruc- Mediated action, identification of, 313–314
tion, 45–51 Mediating artefact, 319
Mangal, S. K., 77, 81 Mediation, 280–281, 313–314
Manifold ontology, 392 Meira, L., 317
Manor New Technology High School Memory, 92
(MNTH), 490 multi-store model of, 118–119
Māori people, 167, 438 system structure, 118f
Marks, R., 63, 64 working, 4, 119
508 Index
Menkhoff, T., 122 discussion, 329–338

Mental functions, 105 interest, conceptualization of, 326–327
Mental health, psychiatry and, 30 learning experience and, 324–325
Metacognition, 4–5, 217–218 linguistic features and physics concep-
Metaphysics, 361 tions, 329, 331–332t
Method minds-on engagement and hands-on con-
-based Bildung, 59 nections, 338, 338f
for designing learning environment, 305 multimodality, 325–326, 327–328
of science, 236 New London Group (NLG), 323
of triads. See Construct repertory test science and, 325
(CRT) semiotics, 325–326
MI theory. See Multiple intelligences (MI) study, 328–329
theory themes, 329, 330f
Miettinen, R., 253 think-aloud session, 333–337t
Milford, T. M., 29 Multimodality, 325–326, 327, 329
Miller, G., 116–117, 178 integration in physics, 327–328
Miller, N. E., 86 Multiple intelligences (MI) theory, 7
Mind and matter, 231 advantage of, 412
Mind in Society (Vygotsky), 277 classroom implementation of, 412–413
Minsky, M., 178 criticisms and responses, 415
Misbehavior in classroom, actions to cor- educational implications of, 408–409
recting, 26 introduction, 405, 406–408
Misconceptions, 391, 395 purpose of, 413
MNTH. See Manor New Technology High suggestions for science teaching, 413–
School (MNTH) 414
‘Mode’, 324 uses in science education, 409–412, 414t
Modeling, 306, 421 Multiple motivations of behavior, 22
process, in Social Learning Theory, 87– Multiplist stage, 218, 219
88, 88f Musical intelligence, 407, 414t
Modified discovery learning, 183, 184 My Pedagogic Creed (Dewey), 343
Molt, E., 489
Monat, J. P., 429
Montessori, M., 489 N
Montessori Schools, 489 NAREA. See North America Reggio Emilia
Moon Machines, 126 Alliance (NAREA)
Moral/cognitive development, 209–211 Narod, F., 85
Morgan, C. T., 80 Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educa-
Morgan, H., 415 tional Reform, A, 481
Morrison, D., 11 National Education Association (NEA),
Mortimer, E. F., 284 U.S., 483
Motivation, 18, 88, 88f , 93, 180 National Research Council (NRC), 483–484
human behavior and, 29 Committee on Highly Successful
nature of, 265 Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM
See also Theory of human motivation Education, 488
Motor skills, 192 competency categories, 484t
Multi-store model of memory, 118–119 publications, 235–236
MultiCo project, 259, 267–268 National Science Education Standards, 182,
Multidisciplinarity, 469 235, 293
Multiliteracies National Science Teaching Association
characteristics of, 324 (NSTA), 126, 487
concept map, physics concepts, 329, Naturalistic intelligence, 408, 414t
330f Nature of Science
defining aspects of, 323 elements of, 165
Index 509
experiential learning and, 245 NRC. See National Research Council (NRC)
Participating and Contributing, 172–173 NSTA. See National Science Teaching Asso-
Navy, S. L., 17 ciation (NSTA)
Nazir, J., 63 Nussbaum, M., 57–58
NEA. See National Education Association Nuthall, G., 167, 169
(NEA), U.S. NZC. See New Zealand Curriculum, The
“Need to know” statements, 346 (NZC)
Needs
hierarchy reversal of, 21–22
levels of, 19–21 O
Negative reinforcement, 78 Observational learning, 86
Negotiation, 328 and modeling process, 87–88, 88f
Netlogo, 431 Odell, M. R. L., 343
Networks of activity systems, Engeström’s, OECD. See Organization For Economic
315–317 Cooperation and Development
Neutral stimulus, 72 (OECD)
Nevis, E. C., 23 Ogborn, J., 324–325
New London Group (NLG), 323 Ohm’s p-prim, 391
‘New media’, 121 Old media, 121
‘New media content’, 122, 124, 128 Olson, G. M., 45
New media technologies One-on-one oral assessments, 252
in classroom, 121–123 O’Neil, T., 298
incorporation into science education, Online critical literacy, 323–324
123–124 OnlineUniversities.com, 125
and information processing theory, 121– Oogarah-Pratap, B., 133
128 Oozeerally, S., 323
New New Media (Levinson), 121 Open-ended/close-ended responses, 25
New York Times, The, 121 Open systems, 422, 423
New Zealand, 167, 438 indigenous knowledge systems as, 456
Ministry of Education, 166–167, 447, Open/unassisted/pure discovery, 183, 184
485 Operant conditioning, 77–78
primary educational context, 438–439 extinction, 79
New Zealand Curriculum, The (NZC), 163, guidelines for implementation in science
165 teaching, 81–82
effective pedagogies (seven), 166t, 167– note on, 81
169 positive/negative reinforcement, 78–79
eight principles (foundations of decision- punishment, 80
making), 166–167 reinforcement, 78
meaningful learning in, 166–170 reinforcers, types, 79
New Zealand Sign Language, 167 stimulus generalization and discrimina-
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), tion, 80
25, 124, 293, 359, 366, 394, 395, 426, terminologies associated with, 78–80
427 Oral vernacular genres, 323
NGSS. See Next Generation Science Stan- Orange Grove Middle School, 431
dards (NGSS) Organization For Economic Cooperation
Ngugi wa Thiong’o, 453 and Development (OECD)
Nicholas of Cusa, 422 competency categories, 482–483, 483t
Nine instructional events, 193–204 Ormrod, J., 181
Nisbett, R. E., 46 Osborne, J., 326
NLG. See New London Group (NLG) Out-of-school learning, 299–300
Normal reaction (N), 141t, 142 Outcomes (cognitive and affective), 155
North America Reggio Emilia Alliance Over-justification effect, 81
(NAREA), 489 Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y., 177
510 Index
Özdemir, S., 487 Personalised System of Instruction (PSI)

Ozdermir, P., 411 approach, 156–157
Personality, 86
Personalized learning, 36, 38
P Personnel Construct Theory (PCT), 373,
Pākehā/European, 438–439 374–378
Pan-Canadian Protocol (PCP) classroom application, 384–385
for Collaboration on School Curriculum, construct repertory test (CRT), 381–382,
34 383f
Papademetriou, E., 296 key tenets of, 375t
Papert, S., 46 methodology for, 381
Parsimony, 46, 49 repertory grid, 382–384, 383f
“Participatory culture”, 121, 124 PGCE. See Post graduate certificate course
Pathology, 2 in education (PGCE)
Pavlov, I., 71, 313 PhBL. See Phenomenon-based Learning
assessing contribution, 75–77 (PhBL)
biography of, 72 Phenomenological primitives (p-prims),
classical conditioning, 71–74 391–392
work on digestive secretions of dogs, Phenomenon-based Learning (PhBL), 479,
71–72, 313 487
PBL. See Project-based learning (PBL) PhET Interactive simulation, 430
PCK. See Pedagogical content knowledge PHSG. See Pedagogical University of St.
(PCK) Gallen (PHSG)
PCP. See Pan-Canadian Protocol (PCP) Physical context, of learning, 299–300
PCT. See Personnel Construct Theory (PCT) Physical experience, 135
PD plan. See Professional development (PD) Physics, multimodality in, 327–328
plan Physiological needs, 19–20
Pearson, E. M., 22 teaching strategies for, 24
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), 61, Piaget, J., 1, 5, 6, 46, 117, 178, 209–211, 359,
241, 253 376, 406
Pedagogical University of St. Gallen background information, 134–135
(PHSG), 431 comparing constructivism and social
Pedagogy, scaffolding and, 285–287 constructivism, 266t
Pedersen, J. L., 343 criticisms of his theory, 138–139
Pedretti, E., 63 features, 136f
Peirce, C. S., 227–229 fifth stage beyond formal operational
Performance assessment task, 39 level, 211–212
Perry, W. G., 209 radical constructivism and, 362
challenge of becoming scholar, 214–215 stage theory of cognitive development,
model, informing science pedagogy, 133–146, 210
216–217 theoretical/combinatorial/proportional
relevance of scheme to socio-scientific reasonings, 141t
thinking, 215–216 Pima County Schools, 431
representation of his developmental Pinker, S., 178
scheme, 213, 214f PISA. See Program for International Student
study of undergraduate thinking, 212– Assessment (PISA)
213 Place-based learning, 299–300
theory of stages of intellectual and ethical Plato, 178
development, 209 PLOs. See Prescribed learning outcomes
Perseverance, 151–152 (PLOs)
Personal and social competency, 35, 36t, 38 Pluralism, 219
Personal Construction of Knowledge Group, Podcasts, 122, 124
377 Popper, K., 363, 378, 380
Index 511
Popular culture similarities, 345t

through new media technologies, in sci- T-STEM Design Blueprint as reform
ence classroom, 124–126 strategy, 353
Positive reinforcement, 78 as school reform model, 351–352
Post graduate certificate course in education Proportional reasoning, 138t, 141t
(PGCE), 133, 139, 194 ‘Providing Feedback’ event, 193, 199t, 203
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), 76 ‘Providing Learning Guidance’ event, 193,
Power and achievement needs, 31, 39 197t, 202
“Power principle”, 46 PSI approach. See Personalised System of
Practical action, 210, 236 Instruction (PSI) approach
Practice, 164–165, 166t, 168–169 Psychiatry and mental health, 30
teaching as inquiry in, 172–173 Psychodynamics, 2
Pragmatic maxim, 228–229 PTSD. See Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Pragmatism (PTSD)
action/meaning/knowledge, 230–234 Punishment, 80
origins of, 227–230 and reward, 102
and science education, 234–236 Pupil as scientist? (Driver), 378
as theory of action, 230 Pure discovery learning, 5, 183–184, 186,
Praise, 46 188
Pre-operational period, 136f Purushotma, R., 121, 126
Pre-service teachers, in experiential learn-
ing, 254–255
Q
Prescribed learning outcomes (PLOs), 34
Quale, A., 365
‘Presenting the Stimulus’ event, 193, 197t,
Qualitative observation, 94
201–202
Quality of instruction, 151
Primary reinforcers, 78
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment
Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology,
Authority, 485
The (Thorndike), 106
Quill, P., 125
Private talk, 282
Probabilistic and correlational reasoning,
138t R
Problem-solving skills, 89–90, 180 Radical constructivism
Problematic situation, 230 criticisms and limitations of, 366–368
Process of Education, The (Bruner), 177, defined, 359
179, 180, 262 epistemological issues of, 360–362
Processing stage, of experiential learning, fundamental principles of, 362
244 and learning about scientific practice,
Professional development (PD) plan, 353 362–363
Program for International Student Assess- and Piaget, 362
ment (PISA) framework, 428, 482 and science teaching and learning, 363–
Progressive differentiation, 164, 166t 366
Project-based learning (PBL) and von Glasersfeld, 359–360, 376–377
characteristics, 344 Ramma, Y., 133, 191, 323
model approach, 346f Rannikmae, M., 259, 265, 465
pedagogy, 346 Rantavuori, J., 316
and problem-based learning (PrBL), 345, Ravenscroft, A., 205
347–348, 348f , 487 Re-contextualization phase, 267
benefits, 349 Readout strategies, 392
differences, 345t Realist stage, 218–219
implementation strategies, 353–355, Reality, nature of, 265
354t Reality Pedagogy, 127
preparing future teachers, 349–351 Reality therapy (RT), 29, 30–31
reflection process, 349 Recidivism, reducing, 31
512 Index
Reductionism, 419–420 planks and poles, 287

Reflection, 306 promoting student learning, 107, 262,
experience and, 243 267, 306
Reflective Observation (RO), 243 teachers, 188
Reflective thinking, 233 tools, 287
Reflexology, 313 use of, 50
Reggio Emilia Schools, 489 Scandinavian folk-Bildung, 58
Rehearsal process, 119 Schemas, 6, 134
Reinforcement, 78, 79f Schickore, J., 182
direct, 88 Schneider, K., 56
positive/negative, 78–79 School
self-, 88 curriculum, 216
vicarious, 88 funding, 353
Reinforcers, types of, 79 reform, 351–352
Rekindling Traditions project, 459 Schoolteacher: A sociological study (Lor-
Relative satisfaction, degrees of, 22 tie), 169
Relativism, 366 Schwarz, C., 398
Repertory grid, 382–384, 383f Science
Reproduction, 88, 88f attitudes, 94
Research questions, 1 communication in, 165, 172
Resources, epistemological, 393 content, 93
Retention, 88, 88f , 92 curriculum, 215
Retention/memory, 92 defined, 89
Reversibility, 137 falsificationist model of, 378
Reward, punishment and, 102 investigating in, 165
Rhode Island School of Design, in USA, 9 and multiliteracies, 325
Richmond, B., 422 processes, 93–94, 379
Ricoeur, P., 56, 58 understanding about, 165
Riedinger, K., 298 See also Science teaching/education,
Riga, F., 227 applications to
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs),
343, 351 427
RO. See Reflective Observation (RO) Science and Human Behaviour (1953), 78
Road friction, 141t, 144 Science as part of Bildung for all—a critical
Roberts, D. A., 62 subject-Didaktik (Sjøberg), 57
Robillard, D., 324 Science Curriculum Improvement Study
Robison, A. J., 121, 126 (SCIS), 426–427
Rogoff, B., 301 The Science Of website and blog, 125
Røkenes, F. M., 45 Science Taboo, 40
Rossett, A., 155 Science teaching/education, applications to
Rote learning, 164, 166t, 253, 363 Activity Theory in, 317–319
Rowland, T., 204–205, 209 Bildung and Didaktik, 63–65
RT. See Reality therapy (RT) characteristics from SLT perspective,
Rumjaun, A., 85 94–95
choice theory (CT) in, 38–41
classical and operant conditioning, 81–
S 83
Safety needs, 20 connectionism for, 107–108
teaching strategies for, 24–25 Dewey’s pragmatism and, 234–236
Scaffolding, 7, 306 discovery learning in, 108, 177, 186–188
description, 180, 193 embedding SLT in, 92–95
learning guidance, 193, 267 experiential learning examples in, 244–
and pedagogy, 285–287 248
Index 513
five levels in hierarchy theory, 24–26 meeting developmental needs, 23

importance of dialogue in, 284 need for, 20–21
indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) teaching strategies for, 26
theory in, 457–462 Self-awareness tools and exercises, 252
knowledge-in-pieces (KiP) theory in, Self-determination ability, 60, 168
395–399 Self-efficacy, 33, 253, 443
mastery learning approach in, 158–159 Self-esteem, 21, 25–26, 49
meaningful learning in, 170–173 Self-evaluation, 41
models of learning in, 102–105 Self-regulation, 88
multiliteracy-based approach in, 326– Self-reinforcement, 88
327 Seminal theory, 191
multiple intelligences (MI) theory in, Semiotic triangle, 281f
409–414, 414t Semiotics, 325–326
new media technologies in, 123–124 Senanan, K., 117
Personnel Construct Theory (PCT) in, Senge, P., 422
384–385 and systems thinking, 423–424, 425–426
popular culture in, 124–126 Sensorimotor period, 136f
radical constructivism and, 363–366 Sensory curiosity, 49
situated cognition in, 301 Sensory register, 118–119, 120
SLT in technologically-based, 95–96 SEPs. See Science and Engineering Practices
social constructivism in, 265, 267–269 (SEPs)
Social Learning Theory (SLT) implica- Sequencing, for designing learning environ-
tions, 88–91 ment, 305
Socio-Constructivist Theory versus SLT Seriation, 136
in, 91–92 Sesame Street, 125
socio-critical and problem-oriented Sexton, S. S., 163, 437
approach, 64f Sexuality studies, 438
student culture in urban, 126–128 Sheldon, K., 155
systems thinking in, 425–432 Sherin, B., 390, 392
Science-technology-society (STS) Shiffrin, R. M., 116, 118–119
approach, 465 Short-term store (STS), 118–119
Scientific Bildung, 59 Shuell, T., 3, 10
Scientific concepts, 282, 283 Shulman, L., 46, 61
Scientific discovery, 182 Signalization, 313
Scientific inquiry Signification, 313
and experiential learning theory, 245– Signs, 325
246 Sikorski, T.-R., 394
levels of, 254t Silva, E., 487
Scientific investigations, 94 Silver, L., 115
Scientific literacy (SL), 465–466 Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learn-
definition of, 186 ing (1989), 295
on social constructivist approach, 265 Situated cognition/situated learning, 294–
visions of, 62–63, 62f 301
Scientific reasoning, 217 activity, 300–301
Scientific thinking, 217 cultural context, 298–299
SCIS. See Science Curriculum Improvement defined, 296
Study (SCIS) knowledge, 297
Scott, P., 264, 284 physical context, 299–300
Second generation of Activity Theory, 314– role of context in learning, 297–300
315 social context, 298
Secondary reinforcers, 79 Situational interests, concept of, 327
Self-actualization Situations, 229–230
concept of, 18 Sjøberg, S., 57
514 Index
Sjöström, J., 55, 57, 63 Sociocultural theory, 33

Skills, defining for success, 483–486.. See Sociology, for designing learning environ-
also specific entries ment, 305
Skinner, B. F., 75, 313 Soft skills, 482, 483t, 487
biography of, 78 Solidarity ability, 60
operant conditioning, 77–81 Solomon, J., 373
SL. See Scientific literacy (SL) Soobard, R., 259, 465
Slezak, P., 366, 367–368 Spatial intelligence, 407, 414t
SLT. See Social Learning Theory (SLT) Spearman, C., 406
Smartphone ownership, among young Special needs and gifted pedagogy, 287–289
adults, 115 Spontaneous and scientific concepts, 282–
Smith, J. B., 45 283
Smith, L. T., 453–454, 455 Spontaneous recovery, 74, 75f
Smith, R., 122 SSIs. See Socio-scientific issues (SSIs)
Social, importance in learning and develop- Stage theory of cognitive development, 5
ment, 278–279 accommodation, 134–135
Social cognition perspective, 295 assimilation, 134–135
Social constructivism, 263–264, 279–280 background information, 134–135
in classroom, 264–265 concrete operations, 136–137
comparison of constructivism with, 265, equilibrium, 134–135
266t and experiential learning, 242, 247
science teaching–learning practice fifth stage of post-formal operations,
enabling, 265, 267–269, 270f 211–212
teaching module and evaluation, 270– formal operations, 137–138, 210
273, 271t operations, 136
Social context, of learning science, 298 Piaget, 133–146
Social Development Theory, Vygotsky’s, 85, schemas, 134
277–289 study findings, 139–144
Social hierarchy, 23 STEAM-ED
Social identities, 298 disciplinarity, 469
Social learning process, 260 examples in transdisciplinary frame,
Social Learning Theory (SLT) 473–475
Bandura’s, 32–33, 85–96 formulating approach, 469–470
characteristics of science teaching from interdisciplinarity, 469–470
SLT, 94–95 introduction, 465–468
embedding in science teaching, 92–95 multidisciplinarity, 469
features, 87–88 refuting disciplinary approach in educa-
historical perspective, 86–87 tion, 469, 470f
implications on science education, 88–91 on skills, 473–475, 474f
in science using digital technologies, theoretical and philosophical underpin-
95–96 ning of, 468
versus Socio-Constructivist Theory, 91– transdisciplinarity, 470–475
92 STEAM framework, 9, 127
Social networks, 121, 122 Steffe, L., 364, 365
Social transmission, 135 Steiner, D. M., 179
Socio-Constructivist Theory Steiner, R., 489
Social Learning Theory versus, 91–92 STELLA (Structural Thinking, Experien-
Socio-critical and problem-oriented tial Learning Laboratory with Ani-
approach to science teaching, 64f mation), 422
Socio-political injustice, addressing, 454– STEM education
455 21CS for, 486–491
Socio-scientific issues (SSIs), 63–64, 215– addressing PBL and PrBL, 343–355
216, 245, 247, 466 gender gap in, 488
Index 515
integrating systems thinking in, 426 tools for, 429–430

and MI theory, 410–411
‘Stimulating Recall of Prior Learning’ event,
193, 196t, 201 T
Stimuli, 3, 72, 313 T-STEM Design Blueprint, 352, 353, 490
Stimulus generalization, 76 Taber, K. S., 209, 277, 367, 373
and discrimination, 80 Talents, 415
Stimulus–response connection, 102–103 Talisse, R. B., 227, 228
Stolz, M., 63 Tan, E., 298
Story-telling, 460 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Hand-
Stout, P. J., 115 book 1, the Cognitive Domain
STS. See Short-term store (STS) (Bloom), 151
STS approach. See Science-technology- Taylor, K., 115
society (STS) approach Te Reo Māori, 167
Student culture, in urban science education, Teacher as designer, 489
126–128 Teacher replacement model, 123
Study skills, 217 Teaching and learning
choice theory and, 33–41
Subitizing, 117
theories role in, 1–2
Subject Didactics module, 140
See also Science teaching/education,
Sumida, M., 154
applications to
Summative evaluation, 155
Teaching as inquiry, 169–170
Sundberg, C. W., 479
focusing inquiry, 170–171
Suprapto, N., 411
learning inquiry, 171
Survival, basic needs of, 31, 39–40
in practice, 172–173
Sustainability, 471
teaching inquiry, 171
Svendsen, B., 45, 311
Teaching strategies/science education. See
Sweller, J., 254 Science teaching/education, applica-
Symbolic models, 90–91 tions to
Symbolic representation, 264 Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences
System, defined, 420–421 (TIMI), 411
System theory, 422–423 Tekkaya, C., 411
Systematic desensitization, 77 Tenenbaum, H. R., 183, 184
Systemdenken. See Systems thinking Texas High School Project, The, 490–491
Systemic diagrams, 429 Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and
Systemic Root Cause Analysis (RCA), 429 Mathematics (T-STEM) Academies
Systems archetypes, 424, 429 initiatives, 351–352
Systems thinking, 8 Theoretical reasoning, 138t, 141t
background, 419–421 Theories
challenges, 431–432 meanings of, 1
defined, 422 and practice, 10–11
developing and assessing skills, 428–429 role in teaching and learning, 1–2
examples of linking theory and practice, Theory of human motivation
430–431 additional characteristics, 21–22
as “The Fifth Discipline”, 424 basic needs, 19–21, 19f
historical background, 421–422 controversies, 22–23
implementing in K–12 education, 432 incorporating into science teaching, 24–
importance in science education, 425– 26
426 Theory of Human Motivation, A (Maslow),
Meadows and, 424–425 18, 19
mental models and, 424 Theory of meaningful learning. See Mean-
in science curricular standards, 426–428 ingful learning
science teaching and, 425–432 Theory of Personality: The psychology of
Senge and, 423–424 personal constructs, A (Kelly), 374
516 Index
Think-aloud task, 333–337t Type I and II punishment, 80

Thinking competency, 35, 36t
Third generation of Activity Theory,
Engeström’s, 315–317 U
Thorndike, E., 18, 101 Ubuntu, 457
assumptions about nature of learning, Unassisted discovery learning, 183, 184
105–106 Unconditioned response, 72
connectionism for science teaching, Unconditioned stimulus, 71–72
107–108 Undergraduate thinking, Perry’s study of,
contribution to educational research, 212–213
108–109 Understanding by Design approach, 157–
critiques of his work, 109 158
description of his early research, 102 Unimodality, 339
model of learning, 102–105 University of Minnesota, 76
and progression of learning, 105 University of Otago, 439
as proto-constructivist, 106–107 University of Texas, 490
puzzle box experiments, 102, 105 Urban Science Education for the Hip-hop
version of connectionism, 103 Generation (Emdin), 126–127
Thought, 233 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 491
Thought and Language (Vygotsky), 277 U.S. National Education Association
Thwaites, A., 204–205, 209 (NEA), 483
Time allocated for learning, 152 U.S. National Research Council (NRC),
235–236, 483–484, 484t, 488
TIMI. See Teele Inventory of Multiple Intel-
“Using Pop Culture to Teach Science”, 126
ligences (TIMI)
“Using tools interactively”, 482, 483t
Tomlinson, C. A., 157
UTeach Program, 350, 350f
Tools and mediation, 280–281, 313–314
“Toward an Epistemology of Physics”
(diSessa), 391 V
Transdisciplinarity, 470–471 Valanides, C. N., 138
characteristics of inquiry, 472–473 van Joolingen, W., 181
examples, 473–475 Verbal Behaviour (1957), 78
STEAM-ED emphasis on skills, 473– Verbal information, 192
475, 474f Verbal instructional models, 90
Transduction, 327–328 Vicarious learning, 87
Transforming experience, 243 Vicarious reinforcement, 88
Transitivity, 136 Video sharing, 122
Treaty of Waitangi (1840), 167 Vision Board, The, 9
Trier, J., 125 Visual literacy, 323
Tripto, J., 428 von Bertalanffy, L., 420, 421, 426
Tsatsarelis, C., 324–325 and system theory, 422–423
Turing, A., 178 von Glasersfeld, E.
Turner, F., 204–205, 209 biography of, 360
21st Century Learning, 124 radical constructivism, 359–368, 376–
21st Century skills (21CS), 9–10 377
background, 480–486 von Goethe, J. W., 422
defining skills for success, 483–486 von Humboldt, W., 55, 57, 60
international student assessments, com- von Neumann, J., 178
parisons, 482–483 Vosniadou, S., 296
introduction, 479–480 Vygotsky, L., 1, 6, 32, 33, 85, 91, 138, 210,
Nation at Risk, A, 481–482 263, 277, 376
promoting socio-political activism, 492 Activity Theory, 311–314
for STEM education, 486–491 comparing constructivism and social
Twitter, 121, 122, 124 constructivism, 266t
Index 517
conceptual development, 282–284 Weniger, E., 56, 58

dialectical method, 313 Wertheimer, M., 18
identification of mediated action, 313– Wertsch, J. V., 314, 317
314 Westbury, I., 56
language in development, 282 Western cultures
Mind in Society, 277 hierarchy of needs on, 23
scaffolding and pedagogy, 285–287 “What Changes in Conceptual Change?”
social constructivism, 279–280 (diSessa), 392
social development theory of, 277–289 Why questions, 252
social nature of learning and develop- WiFi, 125
ment, 278 Wikis, 122, 124
special needs and gifted pedagogy, 287– Wilson, A. A., 325
289 Wilson, S., 453
Thought and Language, 277 Windschitl, M., 6, 398
tools and mediation, 280–281 Wing Institute, 158–159
zone of proximal development (ZPD), Witteck, T., 63
33, 284–285, 317 Woolfolk, A., 1, 7, 78
Working memory, 4, 119
World Economic Forum
W New Vision for Education: Unlocking the
Wade, J. P., 429 Potential of Technology, 484
Walden Two (1948), 78 Wright, D., 421
Waldorf Education, 489
Walshe, G., 359
Walters, J., 415
Wartono, W., 185 Y
Waters Foundation project, 431 Yakman, G., 472
Watson, J., 75, 313 Yap, S. L., 410
experiment, 76 YouTube, 122, 124, 126
Watts, M., 191
WDEP system, 40–41
Weather unit, 172–173 Z
Web 2.0, 121, 123 Zhang, B. H., 419
Web culture, 121 Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 33,
Weblog (blog), 122, 124 284–285, 317
Weigel, M., 121, 126 ZPD. See Zone of proximal development
Weight (W), 141t, 142 (ZPD)
Wellington, J., 326 Zygote, formation of, 85

Science Education in Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Education in Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Education in Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Texts in Education

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13812

Science Education in Theory

ISSN 2366-7672 ISSN 2366-7680 (electronic)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, corrected publication 2021

Science Education in Theory and Practice, is intended for use by undergraduate

Abuja, Nigeria Ben Akpan

1 Introduction—Theory into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I Humanistic Theories

Part II Behaviourist Theories

Part III Cognitivist Theories

Part IV Constructivist Theories

23 Project and Problem-Based Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Part V Intellectually-Oriented and Skill-Based Theories

Ben Akpan and Teresa J. Kennedy

What Role Do Theories Play in Teaching and Learning?

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

Prior to the advent of the humanistic approach, psychodynamic theories such as

on free will of learners, the placement of learners’ subjective experiences as well

Cognitivism is the psychology of learning that is concerned with several mental

Table 1.1 Differences between behavioural and cognitive approaches

thinking. It regulates thinking and learning through planning, monitoring, and

Elsewhere, Bruner also reiterated:

However, Gagné (1975) retorts:

Intellectually Oriented and Skill-Based Theories

Multiple Intelligences Theory

The multiple intelligences theory proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 (Edutopia,

Systems thinking is a theory that explores an understanding of a system by examin-

Gender/Sexuality is a dedicated area of interdisciplinary study on gender represen-

Indigenous Knowledge Systems

knowledge is useful in imparting knowledge about intellectual property rights of

The STEAM Framework

communication, interpretation, planning, synthesising information, teamwork, and

How to Use This Book

In the foregoing discourse, we have provided an overview of the various groups

In this chapter, we have discussed the following:

Introduction and Chapter Map

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 17

Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) is considered the father of humanistic psychology.

A Theory of Human Motivation

The Basic Needs

Fig. 2.1 The pyramid

Love & Belonging –

Safety – peace, stability,

Physiological – food, water, sleep

self-actualization. These characteristics included: accurate perception, spontaneity,

Applications to Science Teaching

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, I routinely found myself referenc-

• Maslow believed not everything in human nature can be studied by behaviorist

Shannon L. Navy is an Assistant Professor of Science Education at Kent State University in

Todd M. Milford and Robert B. Kiddell

T. M. Milford (B) · R. B. Kiddell

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 29

Choice Theory and Reality Therapy

Relationship to Other Behavior Theories

Choice Theory and Teaching

New K-12 BC Science Curriculum

Questioning and Planning Processing Communicating Evaluating Applying and

Sensing and Responding: humans, other animals, plants