科学教育学是近几十年来发展起来的一个十分引人注目的教育研究领域。由于科学教育实践和改革的需要,也由于当代科学哲学、科学史、科学社会学和认知心理学等相关学科的发展,80年代以来科学教育学这门跨学科的新学科在制度和理论层面上都获得了空前的发展,在国际上已成为教育科学中一门显学。

本文第一章是全文的导论,论述了科学教育学是一个正在崛起的、方兴未艾的教育研究领域。首先,笔者论证了科学教育学在西方国家的发展历程,提出了科学教育学经历了两个主要时期的观点:一是“前范式“时期,二是“范式”确立时期。

在论述科学教育学“范式”确立时期(1980年以后)时,笔者阐述了科学教育学范式的建立必须具备的四个条件:(1)必须形成科学教育研究的共同体;(2)必须创办本学科的学术期刊,供研究人员交流研究成果;(3)必须对学科自身的理论建设有自主意识和自觉的努力;(4)必须有相关的理论学科和其他相邻的学科为科学教育学的发展提供理论资源。根据这四个条件,笔者论证了建构主义是当今科学教育研究的范式。

其次,笔者探讨了科学教育学的学科性质,并提出了这门学科的基本定义。本文认为,科学教育学如同其母学科教育学一样,是以有关的理论学科的成果作为其理论基石而建立起来的综合性学科。近几十年来科学教育学的发展轨迹证明了科学教育学正是这样建立起来的。基于此,笔者提出了科学教育学的一个基本定义,即科学教育学以科技教育与教学中的问题为研究对象,以解决这些问题为目的,以有关学科的研究成果和方法为手段的一门跨学科的教育科学。

最后,在分析我国科学教育研究现状的基础上,笔者剖析了我国科学教育研究落后的四个主要原因,并从国际比较的角度提出了建设我国自己的科学教育学的六点政策性建议。

第二章是关于科学教育的历史研究,笔者以19世纪中叶为起点探讨了西方科学教育的实际进程,论述了将近一个半世纪西方科学教育的演变及其历史经验与教训。本章关于西方国家科学教育的历史发展分三个阶段:(1)19世纪下半叶的科学教育(1850-1900年);(2)20世纪上半叶的科学教育;(3)20世纪50-80年代的科学教育改革。对各个阶段科学教育理论、实践与改革都作了分析与评价,尤其对20世纪60年代的科学教育改革作了较为深入的探讨。

第三章分别探讨了科学观、科学教育观和科学素养等问题。随着科学技术本身的发展,以及科学史、科学哲学和科学社会学等相关学科研究的深入,在西方过去几个世纪里科学观经历了一个演变过程。本章先从科学哲学、科学社会学和科学教育学三个学科的角度分别考察了西方科学观的嬗变,然后论述了西方学者对教师和学生科学观的检讨。在此基础上,本章接着分析了当今西方科学教育界一个十分重要而又争论很大的一个理论问题,即科学素养和科学教育目标问题。最后是对我国科学观和科学教育观的反思,着重提出并剖析了五个方面的问题:(1)科学主义的文化观;(2)科学教育的社会本位观;(3)偏颇的“双基”科学知识观;(4)缺少整合与衔接的科学课程观;(5)对小学科学教育不够重视。

第四章是对当今国际上影响最大的三种科学教学理论的探讨。这些理论是:(1)建构主义科学教育理论;(2)观念转变理论;(3)多元文化科学教育理论。对这些理论的研究,虽然由西方科学教育学者作出了开创性的贡献,但对于笔者这样的中国比较教育研究者来说,实际上也是一个重新建构的过程,因此,这是一项综合性研究。

在这一章里,笔者首先探讨了建构主义与科学学习的问题。建构主义的由来、类别(个人建构主义、激进建构主义和社会性建构主义)和各自的基本理论观点是本章研究的起点,以此为基础,剖析了建构主义对科学教育改革的贡献。这些贡献是:建构主义的科学知识观、建构主义的科学教学观和建构主义论教师的作用以及教师的学生观。最后是对建构主义理论的评价。笔者总的观点是,建构主义在本体论上采取骑墙的态度,具有主观唯心主义的倾向;而在认识论上则极有说服力地阐明了认识的建构原则,丰富了认识论的理论宝库,从而为科学教学奠定了较为坚实的理论基础。

本章探讨的第二种科学教学理论是20世纪80年代初期由美国科学教育学者提出的观念转变理论。在这一节里探讨的问题是:(1)观念转变理论的提出;(2)关于错念的经验性研究;(3)观念转变理论的哲学基础;(4)观念转变的机制;(5)对观念转变理论的修正;(6)观念转变理论与建构主义的联系与区别;(7)观念转变理论与科学教学;(8)对观念转变理论的评价。

观念转变理论与以往的学习理论相比,更为有效地解释了学习(尤其是科学学习)发生的机制问题。观念转变理论吸取了科学哲学、认知科学和皮亚杰的建构主义观念以及奥苏伯尔的有意义接受学习的有关成分,更为有效地阐明了儿童掌握科学概念和理论不仅仅是已有观念与新观念的联接和整合的问题,而且是一个从原有观念(包括经验和已经获得的知识)到新的科学观念的转变问题。从这个意义上来说,观念转变理论是科学学习理论的一个突破。

本章第三部分考察了多元文化科学教育理论。在考察这一理论时,笔者着重分析了多元文化科学教育理论的提出、它的基本理论观点、基本框架以及对多元文化科学教育的评价。首先,笔者分析了西方多元文化教育理论和实践的演变过程,提出了由同化论到整合论再到文化多元论的发展轨迹。多元文化科学教育是在多元文化教育理论的框架里发展起来的一个新的分支研究领域,因而它是科学教育理论和实践的重要组成部分。目前,多元文化科学教育的知识体系还不够完善。从已有的知识体系来看,多元文化科学教育包括人们对少数民族群体特征的认识和对其文化与科学的理解。依据这一新的视点,科学教学和科学学习就会出现许多新的问题及其解决途径。

多元文化科学教育理论的基本观点有三个方面:(1)对传统的科学知识观的挑战。多元文化科学教育理论认为,传统的科学知识观是以白人文化为基点的,忽视了其他种族和民族文化关于科学知识的观点。因此它是种族中心主义的。(2)对普适主义的批评。普适主义把科学知识看作是绝对真理,因而不符合当代科学哲学关于科学知识证伪的原则。文化多元科学教育理论借用当代科学哲学的观点,认为科学知识是不确定的、暂时性的。也就是说,人们以为可靠的科学知识其实就是人们尚未能够否证的知识。(3)提出了多元文化科学观。这涉及到什么是科学这一根本性问题。多元文化科学教育的专家们认为,西方传统的关于科学的定义过于狭窄,它完全排斥了多元的观点,因而既有害于科学教育,也不利于科学本身的发展。多元文化科学教育学者虽然不否认起源于西方的现代科学是当代科学的主流,但他们认为西方科学只是多元文化中关于对自然界思考的一种方式,其他文化(如阿拉伯文化、中国古代文化以及其他民族文化)中也有科学思想或理论。科学教育中注意到这一点,就可以使不同文化的学生树立起正确的科学观,从而增强学好科学的信心。

在分析多元文化科学教育基本理论观点的基础上,作者介绍了加拿大科学教育学者霍德森提出的多元文化科学教育的基本框架,主要阐述了怎样在多元文化环境下进行科学教育的问题,揭示了科学教育的多元文化观。最后,笔者对多元文化科学教育理论作了一个总的评价。

本文最后一章即第五章探讨了科学课程理论。在对国际科学课程改革透视的基础上,笔者阐述了当今国际上两大科学课程理论,即STS课程理论和HPS课程理论。

STS教育虽则在20世纪80年代初期以来已有一些介绍和研究,但STS教育的理论和实践在西方是一个不断发展的过程。在本章里,笔者在介绍STS教育的起源和特点后,运用最新的英文原文材料对国际著名的STS教育专家的观点进行了梳理、分析和评价。一是毕比的观点,即STS教育是科学教育的一个主题。在整个科学教育过程中,知识的获得、学习能力的培养和价值观的形成三大科学教育的目标都体现了STS教育的精神。二是加拿大学者默克法顿的观点,即STS教育不应只限于科学课程中,而要把STS教育的内容纳入整个学校课程中,也就是建构一种STS学校课程的观点。例如,可以把对培养学生科学精神和了解科学本质的科学史、科学哲学和科学社会学等内容纳入历史和哲学课程中,把科技与社会发展关系的内容融入社会研究课程中。这种从整个学校课程中规划STS教育的思想打破了科学教育与人文教育的严格界限,同时避免了不同学科课程之间不必要的重复。三是哈特和罗伯顿的观点:重新建构STS教育改革过程。根据他们的观点,要使STS教育改革成功,必须吸取过去科学教育改革的经验和教训,不仅要关注科学课程内容的现代化,更要重视科学教育改革的过程和方法问题。具体而言,就是要摈弃20世纪60年代科学教育改革中那种“研究”、“开发”、“传播”和“采用”的模式,而代之以让广大教师参与改革和研究过程中来的改革模式。这种新的改革模式打通了理论与实践、理论工作者和实践工作者之间的联系,使STS课程具有参与性、批判性和合作性,因而是具有实际效果的改革。

我国近年来也参与到国际性的STS教育中来,因此,笔者很自然地要对我国进行STS教育的研究和实验进行反思。

本章研究的另一种科学课程理论即HPS教育与科学课程改革。HPS教育这个英文缩写词的意思是科学史和科学哲学,后来又加上科学社会学。它是20世纪80年代以来国际科学课程改革的一个重要方面。为什么要在科学教育中进行HPS教育呢？笔者从19世纪中期科学进入西方国家中小学课程中以来,进行了详细的考察。简言之,在科学教育中注重HPS教育目的在于提高学生的科学素养。这使得他们不仅获得科学知识,更要了解科学的本质,懂得科学精神,掌握科学方法,提高学习科学的兴趣,沟通“两种文化”,等等。本章的最后部分具体评述了两种建构HPS课程的新模式,力求达到理论与实际的统一。

ABSTRACT

　　Science education as a discipline is a field of educational research that has attracted much attention over the last decades. Because of the urgent needs felt by the practice and reform of science education as well as the contemporary developments of history, philosophy, and sociology of science and cognitive psychology, science education as a new discipline has gained momentum in its development in terms of infrastructure and theory-building and thus become a burgeoning field of study in educational sciences since the advent of the 1980s.

The first chapter, as an introduction to the whole dissertation, considers the development of science education as a discipline in the western countries. The author divides the whole development of science education as a discipline into two main periods: the “pre-paradigmatic period ”and the “paradigmatic period”.

In discussing the “paradigmatic period,” (since 1980) the author addresses the four necessary conditions for formalizing a paradigm: (1)the common community of researchers of science education must be founded; (2)the academic journal for exchanging findings of research must be set up; (3)those who conduct researches in the field must be conscious of and make efforts to the theory-building; and (4)disciplines relevant to science education are to provide it with theoretical resources for its development. According to these conditions, constructivism, which runs through the whole dissertation as the main theme, is chosen as a paradigm of science education research today.

Secondly, the nature of science education as a discipline is considered and a working definition of science education put forward. As is in the case of its parent discipline—that is, educational science or pedagogy—science education as its sub-discipline is predicated on the findings of other research fields relating to it. Based on this analysis, a working definition of science education is couched as follows: science education, with problems and issues in scientific and technological education as its research objects, with a view to addressing these problems and issues, and using the methods and approaches of relevant disciplines, is one of the interdisciplinary fields of educational sciences.

In the last part of the chapter, an analysis is made of the status quo of researches into science education in China, and, after dealing with the reasons why science education as a discipline is backward and poor, six policy suggestions for initiating the study and development of the venture are indicated in the light of international perspectives.

The second chapter is concerned with the historical study of science education in the west. With the 19^th mid-century as a starting point of institutionalized science education, the evolution of science education practice and the historical experiences and lessons are addressed.

Chapter 3 deals with various views of science, science education and scientific literacy. Beginning with the perspectives of philosophy, sociology, and pedagogy of science, dynamic views on the evolution in these issues are scrutinized. Next is an analysis of the survey results on the views of science on the part of student and teacher in America, which shows that there is a pressing need for a change of their views on science. The rest of the chapter examines the views of science and of science education taken by the Chinese people, a reflection that focuses on five issues: (1)scientism that is insinuated into Chinese culture; (2)science education that is society-oriented at the expense of the individual development; (3)seeking scientific knowledge of the so-called “dual-basic” kind; (4)science curricula that are not integrated and lacking in coherence between different stages or levels of education; and (5) less attention paid to primary science education.

In chapter 4, some of the significant and widespread theories of science education that have emerged during the past 40 decades or so are presented and reviewed, such as constructivism in science education, conceptual change theory, and multicultural science education, based on the works of Western science educators.

The first theory discussed is constructivism in science education. Starting with an exploration of the origin of constructivism, its genre and varieties and their basic ideas, the contributions made by constructivism are analyzed and commented: views on scientific knowledge held by it; views on science instruction espoused by it; and the role of the science teacher as well as their views of students. The author’s overall commentary is that constructivism takes a sit-on-the-fence attitude in terms of  ontology, and in this sense, it seems to be subjective-idealistic; whereas in terms of epistemology, constructivism is far too cogent in explicating how the individual cognition and thinking occur, thus enriching the repertoires of epistemology and establishing a firm basis for science teaching and learning theoretically.

A second theory reviewed is conceptual change theory, proposed by American scholars in the beginning of the 1980s. The main points considered are as follows: (1)an introduction leading to the origins of the theory; (2)empirical research on misconceptions of children; (3)philosophical basis undergirding conceptual change theory; (4)the mechanism that brings about conceptual change in science students; (5)a revision of conceptual change theory; (6)similarities and differences between conceptual change theory and constructivism; (7) conceptual change theory and science teaching and learning; and (8)a criticism of conceptual change theory.

Compared with other learning theories of the past, conceptual change theory seems to more cogently set forth the issue of learning mechanism (especially in science learning). It takes as its sources the elements of philosophy of science, cognitive sciences, constructivist ideas embedded in Piaget, and meaningful reception learning explained by D. P. Ausubel.

A third theory under discussion in Chapter 4 is multicultural science education, which is influential in many other countries. The focus is on the basic ideas of the theory, its framework and criticism of the theory. The author first traces the evolution of the practice and theory of multiculturalism, delineating its course from an assimilationist approach that aimed at the perpetuation, transmission, and promotion of the cultural beliefs of the dominant community to an integrationist approach that aimed for equal opportunity within a culturally diverse and mutually tolerant society to cultural pluralism, which accepts and actively promotes diversity. Multicultural science education is a new research field appearing in the framework of multiculturalism.

In this section, the author opts for three aspects of the theory of multicultural science education: (1)its challenge to traditional views of scientific knowledge; (2)its criticism of universalism that regards scientific knowledge as absolute, therefore contradicting the findings of philosophy of science, for example, the principle of falsification; (3)proposing the views of science based on cultural pluralism. Furthermore, the author describes the basic framework of multicultural science education put forward by Derek Hodson, a Canadian science educator. The last part of the chapter represents an overall critique of multicultural science education.

The final chapter is an exploration of curriculum reform of science education in international perspective, with a particular focus on STS education and HPS education.

Although some ideas of STS education have been introduced into China since the beginning of the 1980s, the practice and theory of STS education as a movement in science education have been in the process of a dynamic and on-going development. After exploring how STS education in the western countries came to the fore and some characteristics of it, the author first of all analyzes and reviews some new perspectives on STS education maintained by well-known science educators of international prestige. R. W. Bybee, an American science educator, thinks that STS education is a main theme in science education. STS education finds expression in the whole course of science education, that is, in the process of knowledge acquisition, development of learning skills, and development of values and ideas. C. P. McFadden, a Canadian science educator, is of the opinion that there should be an STS school curriculum instead of a mere STS education confined within science curriculum. He argues, for instance, that history, philosophy, sociology of science that aims at the development of students’ spirit of science and enables them to know the nature of science could be taught in history and philosophy lessons. Similarly, science/ technology and its impact on and relation to society as science curriculum content could be taught in social studies lessons. Another perspective on STS education is put forward by E. P. Hart, a Canadian science educator, and I. M. Robottom, an Australian science educator. They make a thought-provoking reflection of the reform of science education in the 1960s and STS education in the 1980s, critically examining the RDDA model that characterized the program and professional process in the 1960s, and arguing that new methods of reform must be researched—methods that directly involve practitioners in critical reflection, participatory research, and science curriculum development.

As STS education has been introduced into China and experimented with on a small-scale basis, a reflection of its experimentation and research is naturally in order in the final section of the topic.

Another theory with regard to science curriculum reform is HPS(history, philosophy, and sociology of science) education that has been pervasive and influential in international science education reform since the 1980s. Why HPS? A historical examination of the main ideas regarding the issue since the 19^th mid-century when science was introduce into primary and secondary school curriculum is critically made in order to find its legitimacy for its current emphasis. Put simply, the current science education reform highlights HPS in an attempt to develop the scientific literacy of the students, that is, to familiarize them of the nature of science, to understand the spirit of science, to master the methods of science, to promote their interest in science, and to bridge the gap between the “two cultures,” as well as to enable them to acquire scientific knowledge. In the end of the chapter, two models of putting HPS into science curriculum are introduced and reviewed in order to facilitate the integration of theory and practice.