the nature of science in science curricula (ferreira & morais, 2013)

8/13/2019 The nature of science in science curricula (Ferreira & Morais, 2013)

1/24

1

The nature of science in science curricula

Methods and concepts of analysis1

Sílvia Ferreira2

Ana Maria Morais

Institute of Education, University of Lisbon

Abstract

The article shows methods and concepts of analysis of the nature of science in science curricula

through an exemplary study made in Portugal. The study analyses the extent to which the message

transmitted by the Natural Science curriculum for Portuguese middle school considers the nature of

science. It is epistemologically and sociologically grounded with particular emphasis on Bernstein’s

theory of pedagogic discourse and Ziman’s conceptualization of science construction. The study used

a mixed methodology and followed a dialectical process between the theoretical and the empirical.

The results show that the nature of science has a low status in the curriculum with the exception of the

external sociological dimension of science. Intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and

metascientific knowledge are mostly absent. Recontextualization processes occurred between the two

main parts of the curriculum. These results are discussed and their consequences in terms of scientific

learning are explored. The mode of analysis used in the study has the potential of highlighting the

level of a science curriculum, in terms of specific aspects of the nature of science.

Key words: Science education; Curricula; Nature of science; Intradisciplinarity.

1 Revised personal version of the article published in:

International Journal of Science Education, 2013, 35(16), 2670-2691.

DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.6219822 Corresponding author, [email protected].


2/24

2

INTRODUCTION

The idea that science education should integrate a metascientific dimension, related to science

construction/ nature of science, aroused out in the twentieth century. Incorporating the nature

of science in school science has widely been associated with the relation between science,technology and society (Aikenhead, 2000; Santos, 1999). This means that aspects related to

the methodology of science, how science progresses, the relation between science, technology

and society, the relations within the scientific community and the psychological

characteristics of scientists, should be considered as important dimensions of science

education (e.g. McComas & Olson, 1998; Lederman, 2007). According to McComas, Clough

e Almazroa (1998),

“the phrase ‘nature of science’ is used to describe the intersection of issues addressed by the philosophy,

history, sociology, and psychology of science as they apply to and potentially impact science teaching and

learning. As such, the nature of science is a fundamental domain for guiding science educators in accurately

portraying science to students” (p.5).

Following these perspectives, science curricula have worldwide given more emphasis to the

nature of science (BouJaoude, 2002). The main objective of this article is to divulge methods

and concepts that may be used to appreciate the nature of science in science curricula. With

this purpose we describe an exemplary study made with a Portuguese curriculum.

Portugal has followed the international trend for long namely when, in the academic year of

2001/2002, a curricular reorganization took place at the level of compulsory schooling (ages

6-15) with the application of new organizational guidelines and a new curriculum design.

Within this curricular reorganization, two main guiding texts were produced, the Essential

Competences (DEB, 2001) and the Curriculum Guidelines (DEB, 2002). The first text sets up

the competences to be developed across the various disciplines and the second defines the

competences specific of each discipline. At the level of middle school (ages 13-

- 15+

), thetwo traditional science disciplines in Portuguese curricula (Physics/Chemistry and

Biology/Geology) are now integrated in one same area of Physical and Natural Sciences. The

respective curriculum guidelines are presented in parallel in a common text which is unified

around four organizational themes: ‘Earth in Space’, ‘Earth in Transformation’,

‘Sustainability in the Earth’ and ‘Living Better on Earth’.

The study presented in this article was focused on the theme “Sustainability in the Earth” (8th

year of schooling, age 14) and is part of a broader research developed by the ESSA Group1

that was centred on the process of curricular reorganization (Alves, 2007; Calado, 2007;


3/24

3

Ferreira, 2007)2. The study carried out by Ferreira (2007) analyzed the sociological message

transmitted by the Official Pedagogic Discourse (OPD) of the Natural Science curriculum and

the extent to which that message is a result of the ideological and pedagogical principles of

the authors of the curriculum. The study was focused on the OPD dimensions related to the

what is taught and the how it is taught, regarding the nature of science. In the first case,

science construction and conceptual demand, in terms of the complexity of scientific

competences and knowledge, were selected for analysis, and, in the second case, the relation

between science and metascience, as discourses of the same discipline (intradisciplinarity),

was selected. Intradisciplinarity was also considered when appreciating the conceptual

demand of the curriculum3. The selection of these dimensions derived from results of former

studies carried out by the ESSA Group (e.g. Domingos, 1989; Morais, Neves & Pires, 2004)

and by other authors (e.g. McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 1998), who all have highlighted

their importance in the promotion of high levels of scientific literacy. The form how the OPD

is explicated to teachers in the Ministry of Education/Teachers relation (evaluation criteria)

was also part of the analysis of the OPD message. It should be noted that the Portuguese

educational system is a centralised system. Figure 1 shows a schematic overview of the

relations analyzed in the study.

Figure 1. Diagram of the relations analyzed in the research (Ferreira, 2007).

The part of the study presented in this paper is focused on the message of the OPD with

respect to the process of science construction and to intra-disciplinary relations between

scientific and metascientific knowledge4. The study addressed the following problem: What is

the extent to which the sociological message transmitted by the OPD of the science


4/24

4

curriculum considers the nature of science? The following research questions derived from

this problem: (1) What is the extent to which the OPD present in the two curricular texts

(Essential Competences and Curriculum Guidelines) contains the process of science

construction and the intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific

knowledge?; and (2) What is the extent and direction of the recontextualization process that

may have occurred when passing from the Essential Competences to the Curriculum

Guidelines?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study is mostly based on epistemology and sociology namely Ziman’s theorization of

science construction (1984, 2000) and Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (1999,2000). According to Bernstein, the pedagogic discourse is determined by a complex of

relations that are a consequence of the intervention of different fields and contexts, from the

State field at the macro-level to the classroom at the micro-level.

The General Regulative Discourse (GRD) is produced in the State field as a result of the

influence of the international field, the economy field (physical resources) and the field of

symbolic control (discursive resources). The official recontextualising field (represented by

the Ministry of Education and its agencies) is a field where the GRD is recontextualised toproduce the official pedagogic discourse which is institutionalised in texts namely syllabuses

and curricula. Such recontextualising process is also influenced by the field of economy, the

intellectual field of education (part of the field of symbolic control) and the international field

and also and mostly by authors’ ideologies. According to Neves and Morais (2001):

“The message of this official text contains the principles and norms which constitute the general regulative

discourse that characterizes a given socio-political context. However, as a pedagogic text, it also carries a

message that reflects a set of options considered adequate to a given educational context, which are they

themselves influenced by the various fields.” (p.226).

These options include, among others: the knowledge and competences to be acquired; the

nature of relations between the various types of knowledge within a discipline (intra-

disciplinary relation) and between the various types of knowledge of the discipline and the

knowledge of other disciplines of the curriculum (interdisciplinary relation); the form of

pedagogic interaction that should be present in the teacher-student relation (privileged model

of theory of instruction). These options define the what and the how of the OPD, that is, the

discourses to be transmitted and the form how these discourses are to be transmitted in the


5/24

5

teaching-learning context. The model shows that the pedagogic discourse is not the

mechanical result of the dominant principles of society, since recontextualizations may occur

at the various levels of the pedagogic device. These recontextualizations create spaces of

change and for that reason the discourse that is produced (OPD) and the discourse that is

reproduced in the classroom do not correspond strictly to the general regulative discourse.

The pedagogical discourse transmits, as a sociological message, specific power and control

relations between the following categories: spaces (teacher-student space and student-student

space), discourses (between disciplines, within a discipline and academic-non academic) and

subjects (Ministry of Education-teacher, teacher-student and student-student). These relations

reflect, to a greater or lesser extent, the relations legitimized by the underlying GRD,

depending on the recontextualization process that has occurred. In order to analyze power andcontrol relations, Bernstein (1990, 2000) used, respectively, the concepts of classification and

framing. Classification refers to the degree of maintenance of boundaries between categories

(subjects, spaces, discourses). The more distinct the separation between categories the

stronger classification will be. Framing refers to the social relations between categories, that

is, to communication between them. Framing is strong when the categories with higher status

(e.g. Ministry of Education) have the control in the relation and is weak when the categories

with lower status (e.g. teachers) have also some control in the relation. Classification and

framing can, within given limits, vary independently, for example, a strong classification can

coexist with a weak framing.

Bernstein’s theory opens up new and promising ways of looking at curriculum (OPD)

construction. In the case of the part of the study described in this article it allows to appreciate

with more rigor the relative status that is accorded by curriculum authors to the nature of

science discourse (in its various dimensions) in relation to the science knowledge discourse

and how explicit are directions given to teachers and textbook authors. It also allows to

appreciate the recontextualizing processes that may occur within the official recontextualizing

field, that is in the Ministry of Education. The consequences for teachers’ practices and

students’ scientific literacy can then be explored on a more sound basis.

This study follows Ziman’s conceptualization of science construction (1984). According to

this author, science should be faced as a social institution with four main metascientific

dimensions: philosophical, historical, psychological and sociological.

The philosophical dimension of science emphasizes the methodological aspects of science,

that is, the methods used by scientists when doing science. "The philosophy of science


6/24

6

analyses theories about science construction, the conditions that validate them and the various

scientific methods used" (Fontes & Silva, 2004, p.18). These methods include, for example,

observation, experimentation and theorizing, and are considered by Ziman (1984) as elements

of a specific method of obtaining reliable information about the natural world.

The historical dimension of science emphasizes its aspect of archive – the accumulation of

scientific knowledge, organized into coherent theoretical schemes and divulged in

publications is a historical process with special meaning. Scientific knowledge becomes

meaningful when it is made public, therefore allowing to restructure universal theoretical

schemes and use them for the benefit of humanity (Ziman, 1984). Thus, the historical

dimension presents science as a dynamic activity which evolves over time.

The psychological dimension of science focuses on the psychological characteristics of

scientists which influence their scientific work. It should be noted that, since science is a

human activity and therefore subject to the constraints of human nature, it may entail, as any

other activity, correct or less correct procedures (Ziman, 1984).

The sociological dimension of science entails two sub-dimensions, the internal sociological

and the external sociological dimensions. The first involves the social relations that are

established and operate within the scientific community. The second is related to scientific

production in its relations to the various social actors. With regard to the internal sociological

dimension of science, Ziman (1984) notes that scientists are part of a scientific community,

establishing social interactions with each other as scientists. Thus, scientists communicate

with each other, sharing perspectives and experimental results that lead them to constantly

restructure their work, to find new ways of research in an enterprise that is increasingly a

collaborative process instead of an isolated activity. With regard to the external sociological

dimension of science, science is seen as a social institution, embedded in society and carrying

out specific functions for society. From this point of view, the worldwide known STS

(interaction between science, technology and society) may be considered as part of this

dimension of Ziman’s conceptualization of science construction (1984). Thus, the present

study departs from other authors (e.g. Aikenhead, 2000; Santos, 1999)5, and regards the

relation STS as the external sociological dimension of science.

When studying the introduction of science construction in scientific learning, it is important

to be aware of the difference between the structure of the two types of knowledge, scientific

and metascientific. According to Bernstein (1999), we can say that metascientific knowledge

corresponds to a discourse with a horizontal structure, characterized by a series of parallel


7/24

7

languages, and its development is achieved through the construction of a new language, with

a new set of questions and relations and highly classified in relation to other pre-existing

languages. Scientific knowledge has a hierarchical structure, in which development is

achieved through the selection and integration of different concepts in order to achieve a

common body of knowledge with higher level of abstraction and explanatory power. The

scientific what of science education is knowledge with a hierarchical structure, whereas the

metascientific what is knowledge with a horizontal structure.

METHODOLOGY

General aspects

The study made use of a mixed methodology which combines features associated with both

qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2003; Morais & Neves, 2010; Tashakkori

& Teddlie, 1998). A quantitative approach was followed when, for example, in the analysis of

curricular texts, several categories and indicators were previously defined on the basis of

theory. However, a qualitative approach was also followed whenever empirical data gave a

contribution to the definition of categories and indicators.

The study followed a dialectical process between the theoretical and the empirical. In this

way, we reject the empirical analysis without a theoretical basis and the use of a theory that

does not permit its transformation on the basis of the empirical. This dialectics was only

possible because the study used an external language of description derived from a powerful

internal language of description, as the one created by Bernstein (2000).

The analysis of the OPD of the Natural Sciences curriculum for the Portuguese middle school

was focused on two curricular texts: National curriculum for basic school – Essential

competences (DEB, 2001), particularly the section devoted to competences for Physical and

Natural Sciences; and Curriculum guidelines for basic school (DEB, 2002), specifically the

section devoted to the discipline of Natural Sciences. The analysis was centred on the theme

"Sustainability in the Earth”. The analysis required that the whole text of both documents

related to that theme was segmented into units of analysis: 76 units of analysis in the case of

the Essential Competences (pages 129 to 135 and 140 to 143) and 91 units in the case of the

Curriculum Guidelines (pages 4 to 10 and 22 to 30). A unit of analysis was considered as an

excerpt of the curricular text, with one or more periods, which together have a particular

semantic meaning (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). Whenever lists of items were present in the


8/24

8

curricular text, as in the case of competences and learning activities, each one of the items

was considered as a unit of analysis. Each scheme/diagram was considered as a unit of

analysis.

The study of the OPD of the Natural Sciences curriculum, with regard to the nature ofscience, followed the diagram of Figure 2. The analysis was focused on the instructional

dimension of the transmission/acquisition context, that is, on the discourses (knowledge and

competences) to be transmitted/acquired, and considered two aspects: the what the Ministry of

Education legitimates as the OPD of the curriculum, related to the discourses to be

transmitted/ acquired; and the how these discourses are to be transmitted in the teaching-

learning context, related to the principles that regulate the transmission/acquisition of the

discourses. The study was also focused on the Ministry of Education-teacher relation.

Figure 2. Scheme of analysis of the nature of science in the Natural Sciences curriculum.

The analysis of the what of the OPD present in the curriculum was focused on the

characterization of the knowledge related to science construction (metascientific knowledge)

and respective level of complexity. The analysis of the how of the OPD was focused on the

relation between discourses by analyzing specifically the degree of relation between scientific

and metascientific knowledge. These intra-disciplinary relations were characterized by using

the concept of classification. The Ministry of Education-teacher relation was also studied by


9/24

9

analyzing the degree of control given by the Ministry of Education to teachers – degree of

explicitness of OPD – with regard to metascientific knowledge and to the relation between

scientific and metascientific knowledge. The degree of explicitness was characterized by the

concept of framing. The part of the study presented in this paper is focused on the message of

the OPD with respect to the metascientific knowledge and the relations between scientific and

metascientific knowledge.

Instruments construction and application

In order to carry out the analysis of the OPD of the two texts – Essential Competences and

Curriculum Guidelines – instruments6 were constructed, piloted and applied. These

instruments were based on models/ instruments constructed in former studies of the ESSAGroup for the analysis of science curricula (e.g. Castro, 2006). For each one of the aspects

under study, the instruments were organized to contain the four main sections usually present

in any syllabus: (a) Knowledge; (b) Aims; (c) Methodological Guidelines; and (d) Evaluation.

Thus, each unit of analysis was associated with one of those four sections and analyzed by

using the various instruments constructed. This was a joint task of three researchers validated

later on by two other researchers.

The description of the instruments starts with the instruments related to the characterization ofscience construction and respective explanation, followed by the instruments focused on the

relation between scientific and metascientific knowledge and respective explanation.

Characterization of the process of science construction

In order to characterize the process of science construction two instruments were constructed:

(1) instrument for characterizing the process of science construction, in terms of the

conceptualization level of metascientific knowledge; and (2) instrument with knowledge and

cognitive competences related to science construction dimensions, as conceptualized by

Ziman (1984, 2000).

The first instrument (Instrument 1) was constructed taking into consideration the nature and

complexity of metascientific knowledge, as well as the development of competences related

to metascience. Both knowledge and competences were considered at the level of the main

dimensions of science construction suggested by Ziman (1984): philosophical, historical,

psychological, external sociological and internal sociological.


10/24

10

This instrument included the four sections considered in the study (knowledge, aims,

methodological guidelines and evaluation) and each section contained descriptors

corresponding to four degrees of complexity of metascientific knowledge, for each dimension

of science construction. A four degree scale was made on the basis of the following criteria:

Degree 1 – corresponds to the absence of knowledge related to the dimension of science construction under

analysis, and also to the absence of competences associated with that dimension.

Degree 2 – may correspond to one of three distinct situations: (i) reference to simple order knowledge related to

the dimension of science construction under analysis, but without using that knowledge to develop

competences associated with that dimension; (ii) reference to competences development, but with no

relation to the process of science construction; or (iii) reference to simple order knowledge, andsimultaneously to the development of competences associated with the dimension of science

construction under analysis.

Degree 3 – corresponds to complex order knowledge related to the dimension of science construction under

analysis, but without using that knowledge to the development of competences associated with that

dimension.

Degree 4 – corresponds to complex order knowledge and, simultaneously, to the development of competences

associated with the dimension of science construction under analysis.

According to this four degree scale, the lowest degree is the least desirable for a science

education that promotes a high level of scientific literacy and the highest degree is the most

desirable. It should be noticed that the various situations presented in the degree 2 descriptor

came out of a former exploratory analysis of the units of analysis of both curricular texts. The

second part the descriptor is a consequence of the fact that the curriculum frequently indicates

the development of competences (e.g. investigative) without relating them to the process of

science construction.

Table I presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the section Knowledge and for the external

sociological dimension, and examples of units of analysis of the curriculum which illustrate

different degrees of complexity.

Table I. Characterization of the process of science construction - Excerpt of the Instrument 1

Section Dimensions ofScience

Degree 1 Degree 2 Degree 3 Degree 4

Knowledge External

sociological

dimension

Knowledge related to

the external sociological

dimension of science is

not mentioned nor arementioned competences

associated with this

dimension

Simple order knowledge

related to the external

sociological dimension

of science is mentioned,but that knowledge is

not used in the

development of

competences associatedwith this dimension;

and/or

Complex order

knowledge related to the

external sociological

dimension of science ismentioned, but that

knowledge is not used

in the development of

competences associatedwith this dimension.

Complex order

knowledge related to the

external sociological

dimension of science ismentioned as is the

development of

competences associated

to this dimension.


11/24

11

Development ofcompetences related to

the external sociological

dimension of science ismentioned but with no

relation to the process of

science construction.

Units of analysis:

Degree 1: “With respect to the cycles of matter, it is not intended to analyze the various biogeochemical cycles,

but to highlight the existence in communities of groups of living things with activities in a way

complementary (producers, consumers and decomposers), which enable the permanent recycling of

matter.” (Curriculum Guidelines, pp.23-24).

Degree 4: “[...] by understanding the potentialities and limits of Science and of its technological applications in

Society. On the other hand, it allows one to become aware of the scientific, technological and socialmeaning of human intervention on Earth and this may constitute an important dimension in terms of a

desirable education for citizenship.” ( Essential Competences, p.134).

The need of both a referential and consistency when applying Instrument 1 required the

construction of an auxiliary instrument (Instrument 2). This instrument contained lists of

various types of knowledge of simple and complex order and also of cognitive competences,

all related to the various dimensions of science construction (Ziman, 1984, 2000). When

developing this definition, simple order knowledge included generalized facts and simple

concepts and complex order knowledge included complex concepts and unifying themes.

The competences related to metascience were defined in association with particular

dimensions of science construction and by reference to the science field rather than to any one

knowledge field, the instrument was designed to analyse science curricula. However, it should

be noted that some of the competences selected may also be developed within disciplines

other than science. Competences were not grouped in terms of degree of complexity,

something that is considered as a limitation of the study. Analysis of competences was

restricted to the cognitive domain, therefore excluding the social and emotional competences.

Table II shows an excerpt of the instrument for case of the external sociological dimension.

Table II. Knowledge and cognitive competences of science construction dimensions – Excerpt of the Instrument 2

External Sociological Dimension

Simple order knowledge:

Scientific observation is more rigorous with the invention of

more complex technologies – Technology and Science relation.

The evolution of scientific knowledge allows the development of

new technologies – Science and Technology relation.

Cognitive competences:

Development of critical thinking: selection, analysis and

critical evaluation of scientific information in real social

situations; reflection of scientific arguments on

controversial social issues.

Development of communication competences:understanding, interpretation and synthesis of scientificComplex order knowledge:


12/24

12

The application of science to society has both positive and

negative effects (political, social, economic and ethical), at short

and long term – Science and Society relation.

The use of science and technology in solving social, personal

and environmental problems has potentialities and limitations –

S-T-S relation.

information disseminated by the media.

Intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific knowledge

In order to characterize the intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific

knowledge, an instrument was constructed to evaluate the degree of relation between

scientific and metascientific knowledge (Instrument 3). This relation was given by a four

degree scale of classification (C++

, C+, C

-, C

- -) with an increasing degree of relation.

Table III presents an excerpt of this instrument for the section Aims. This is followed by

examples of units of analysis of the curricular texts which illustrate different levels of

classification with regard to intra-disciplinary relations.

Table III. Evaluation of the degree of relation between scientific and metascientific knowledge – Excerpt of the Instrument 3

Section C++ C+ C- C- -

Aims The aims are only focusedon scientific knowledge.

Or

The aims are only focused

on metascientificknowledge.

The aims are focused onscientific and metascientifc

knowledge, but do not make

the relation between them.

The aims are focused on therelation between scientific

and metascientific

knowledge, being given

higher status to scientificknowledge in this relation.

The aims are focused on therelation between scientific

and metascientific

knowledge, being given

equal status to these twotypes of knowledge in this

relation.

Units of analysis:

Degree C++

-1st part: “With respect to this subject, students interpretation of the various examples of interactions

should be valued, benefits and losses to living beings involved being identified, rather than the simple

application of terminology.” (Curriculum Guidelines, p.23).

Degree C- -: “Recognition of the need for treatment of waste materials in order to prevent their accumulation,

considering the economic, environmental, political and ethical dimensions.” ( Essential Competences,

p.143).

The application of each one of the instruments to all units of analysis of both curricular texts

of Natural Sciences was followed by the analysis of the results, where each text was analyzed

separately.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Characterization of the process of science construction

In order to characterize the process of science construction contained in the two curricular

texts under study, the relative frequency (in percentage) of the excerpts analyzed was


13/24

13

determined according to the four degree scale and considering each one of the metascientific

dimensions. The graph of Figure 3 shows the results of this analysis for the philosophical

dimension. Results are organized by considering each one of the four sections of the curricular

texts separately and the sections taken together.

The graph of Figure 3 shows that, when both curricular texts are considered as a whole, most

of the excerpts analyzed do not include knowledge of the philosophical dimension of science

construction and do not also consider the development of metascientific competences

associated with this dimension (degree 1). Most of the excerpts classified with degree 2

correspond to the second part of the respective descriptor, that is, the excerpts indicate the

development of competences associated with the philosophical dimension of science but do

not indicate their relation to the respective metascientific knowledge. This global trend wasalso found in the various sections of the curriculum, with the exception of the Methodological

Guidelines, where degree 2 overcomes slightly degree 1. This was mainly a consequence of

the fact that strategies suggested in this section focused only on competences rather than on

knowledge associated with the philosophical dimension of science. The excerpts that follow

illustrate this fact:

“Develop experimental work and have the opportunity to use different tools of observation and measurement.

[…] hypothesis formulation and results prediction, observation and explanation should take place” ( Essential

Competences, pp.131-132)“Within the study of this topic, experimental activities can also be done in order to observe, for example, the

influence of light on plant development.” (Curriculum Guidelines, p.22)

Figure 3. Philosophical dimension of science in the Natural Sciences curriculum: Essential Competences (EC)and Curricular Guidelines (CG).


14/24


15/24

15

is absent of most of the excerpts analyzed. A greater emphasis is now given to metascientific

knowledge of a simple order (degree 2) and of a complex order (degrees 3 and 4), as well as

to the development of competences (degrees 2 and 4). This shows that the theme

‘Sustainability in the Earth’ of the Natural Sciences curriculum accords to the external

sociological dimension higher status and higher degree of complexity in the context of the

science construction learning.

Figure 4. External sociological dimension of science in Natural Sciences curriculum: Essential Competences(EC) and Curricular Guidelines (CG).

There is a relative devaluing of the external sociological dimension when passing from the

Essential Competences text to the Curriculum Guidelines text, in the case of the Knowledge

and Aims sections. This, however, should be read by taking into account that the number of

excerpts differs in the two curricular texts – much lesser excerpts in the Knowledge section of

the Essential Competences and much lesser excerpts in the Aims section of Curriculum

Guidelines. In the case of the Methodological Guidelines section, it should be noted that the

complexity of knowledge of the external sociological dimension is higher in the Curriculum

Guidelines. This is of particular importance since this is the section that is more represented in

this curricular text.

Intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific knowledge

The graph of Figure 5 shows the results of the analysis of the intra-disciplinary relations

between scientific and metascientific knowledge. The global results show that half of the

excerpts of the Essential Competences text and most of the excerpts of the Curriculum


16/24

16

Guidelines text do not make any relation between scientific and metascientific knowledge

(C++

). Most of these excerpts refer only to scientific knowledge. The results also show that the

frequency of excerpts C- (higher status of scientific knowledge) is higher in the Curriculum

Guidelines text whereas the frequency of excerpts C-- (equal status of scientific and

metascientific knowledge) is higher in the Essential Competences text. The situation of

excerpts containing scientific and metascientific knowledge but with no relation between

them (C+) is absent in both curricular texts.

Figure 5. Intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific knowledge in Natural Sciencescurriculum: Essential Competences (EC) and Curricular Guidelines (CG).

This global trend changes when the sections of the curriculum are observed separately. In the

Knowledge section of both texts degree C++

does not now predominate and more emphasis is

given to degree C- -

in the Essential Competences excerpts and an identical frequency of

degrees C++

, C- and C

- - in the Curriculum Guidelines excerpts. This seems to be mostly a

consequence of authors attempt to relate knowledge of the external sociological dimension of

science to scientific knowledge, when addressing the theme ‘Sustainability in the Earth’. In

the Aims section there is a relative devaluing of the intra-disciplinary relations between

scientific and metascientific knowledge when passing from the Essential Competences text

(the general principles) to the Curriculum Guidelines text (the specific principles to the

discipline). However, this aspect should be read by taking into account that the number of

excerpts analyzed in this section is much lesser in the Curriculum Guidelines text. Excerpts of

the Methodological Guidelines section of both curricular texts had a very analogous

distribution. In this section the Curriculum Guidelines text keeps the global trend, but the


17/24

17

Essential Competences text shows a higher frequency of degrees C++

and C- and a lower

frequency of C- -

when compared with global results.

With regard to the Evaluation section, as it was mentioned before in the characterization of

the process of science construction, the Essential Competences text did not focus on theassessing of scientific and/or metascientific knowledge. The Curriculum Guidelines text

contained only two excerpts to be analyzed in this section, but assessment of this intra-

disciplinary relation would not be expected (degree C++

).

CONCLUSIONS

The article intended to divulge methods and concepts for analyzing the nature of science in

science curricula. With this purpose an exemplary study was described. This study analyzed

the sociological message transmitted by the Official Pedagogical Discourse of the Natural

Science curriculum for Portuguese middle school, on the theme ‘Sustainability in the Earth’,

with regard to characteristics of the teaching-learning process related to science construction –

metascientific dimensions and intradisciplinarity between scientific and metascientific

knowledge. The analysis intended also to appreciate the recontextualization that may have

occurred between the two main documents of the curriculum, the Essential Competences (the

general principles) and the Curriculum Guidelines (the specific principles to the discipline).At another level, the study intended to explore empirically Bernstein’s model of pedagogic

discourse (1990, 2000).

If the level of students’ scientific literacy recommended by current perspectives of science

education is considered, the study raises serious concerns, particularly related to the deficient

coverage of the process of science construction in the curriculum and to the weak intra-

disciplinary relations between scientific and metascientific knowledge. These concerns are

directly associated with the low level of conceptualization of the learning recommended, but

also with the low explicitness of the characteristics studied (Ferreira, 2007).

With regard to the process of science construction, the results showed that, although the

Natural Sciences curriculum (the case of the theme ‘Sustainability in the Earth’) focuses on

the five dimensions of science construction as conceptualized by Ziman (1984), this

curriculum attributes to them differentiated status. In fact, the OPD of the science curriculum

gives to the methodology of science a lower status than it gives to the external sociology of

science but a somehow higher status than it gives to the internal sociology and history of

science. The influence of scientists’ psychological characteristics on science construction was


18/24

18

almost ignored. These conclusions parallel the findings of a study by Calado and Neves

(forthcoming) focused on the theme ‘Living Better on Earth’ (9th

year of schooling, age 15) of

the same curriculum.

The external sociological dimension came out as the science dimension that has the higheststatus in both curricular texts, something that may be related to the S-T-S relation mostly

valued by the authors of the curriculum7. The highest status of this dimension is evident not

only by its greater representation in the science curriculum, but also by the greater complexity

of the knowledge of this dimension. Thus, the science curriculum advocates a students’

learning with a higher level of conceptualization in the case of the external sociology of

science when compared with the other dimensions.

As to the philosophical dimension, most of the curricular text containing this dimension was

only focused on competences to be developed within the methodology of science, without

making any relation to the respective knowledge. These competences correspond to

investigative competences which the curriculum, both in general and specific guidelines,

aimed to be developed by students when doing practical activities without, however, relating

them to the process of science construction. Thus, the results showed that the level of

conceptualization of the science curriculum, with regard to the methodology of science, is

very low. In this way the curriculum gives a limited view of what science education should bewith respect of promoting the relation between products and processes of science.

In the case of the internal sociology of science, the text of the curriculum was only focused on

competences with no relation to knowledge (e.g. concepts) of this dimension. This was also

the pattern in most of the curricular text related to the historical dimension of science.

The psychological dimension of science is limited to a reference within a general guideline,

where authors make a general statement in both curricular texts about epistemological

knowledge. It seems that curriculum authors found difficulties to give suggestions to

implement that general reference, something that would be particularly crucial in the case of

the Curriculum Guidelines. However, it is possible to think that the authors might have

decided to assign a low status to this metascientific dimension.

Summarizing, the results of this study show not only that science construction is mostly

absent in the curriculum but show also a low level of conceptualization of the science

curriculum with reference to science construction. One of the many possible explanatory

hypotheses to this fact is related to the horizontal structure of metascientific knowledge


19/24

19

(Bernstein, 1999) that, differing from the hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge, may

raise difficulties to authors of science curricula in terms of making that kind of knowledge

operational.

These results depart from the results of a study by McComas and Olson (1998), whichanalyzed eight international science curricula of the nineties (twentieth century) in terms of

the process of science construction. The philosophical and historical dimensions were the

dimensions that had a higher status in these curricula. The psychological dimension was the

dimension with lower status approximating in this aspect to the Portuguese curriculum. Thus,

the curriculum change that is taking place in Portugal is going in the direction of valuing the

external sociological dimension of science. This movement that started already with many

curricula of the last decades of the past century departed from the changes that occurredinternationally in the sixties and seventies when many curricular projects, wanting to

introduce science construction in science education, placed the emphasis on the philosophical

and historical dimensions (e.g. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study – BSCS, 1970).

The results showed that recontextualization processes occurred, when passing from the

general guidelines to the specific guidelines of the curriculum, in the direction of decreasing

the relative value accorded to the process of science construction. This is evidenced in the

case of the historical and philosophical dimensions, when the complex order knowledgepresent occasionally in the Essential Competences is absent in the Curriculum Guidelines.

Also in the case of the external sociological dimension, the complex order knowledge

associated with this dimension is more represented in the Essential Competences.

Unlike other studies focused on the analysis of science curricula (e.g. BouJoude, 2002; Neves,

Morais, Peneda & Medeiros, 1999), the differences between the sociological message of the

general intentions of the curriculum and the specific guidelines of the discipline were not very

marked in the Natural Sciences curriculum under study, with reference to the theme

‘Sustainability in the Earth’ and to the characteristics studied. An explanatory hypothesis for

the relative continuity between the two curricular texts is that both documents were

constructed by a team of authors, who although not being exactly the same, kept in the team

the authors who had more weight whenever curricular decisions were taken8.

With regard to the intradisciplinarity between scientific and metascientific knowledge, the

results showed that although there are in some cases intra-disciplinary relations, it is their

absence that predominates in both curricular texts. In the study carried out by Calado and

Neves (forthcoming), which is focused on the theme ‘Living Better on Earth’ of the same


20/24

20

curriculum, that absence is even more marked, prevailing well defined boundaries between

the two knowledge domains.

Whenever intra-disciplinary relations occur between scientific and metascientific knowledge,

these relations were mostly of the kind where the two types of knowledge have equal status,with little curricular text according greater status to scientific knowledge. This is the opposite

of what should occur in a science curriculum where scientific knowledge should have greater

status. The authors consider that the situation that better represents a good scientific learning,

significantly supported by the understanding and application of metascientific knowledge,

would be the one where the scientific domain has higher status in the relation between

scientific and metascientific knowledge (degree C-). This raises the hypothesis that the reason

why the authors of this curriculum accorded equal status to both types of knowledge in mostof the curricular text may be related to a intention of departing from previous Portuguese

curricula of Natural Sciences and therefore making quite clear the importance of including the

process of science construction in science education. The degree of recontextualization

between the two curricular texts was not significant with reference to this specific

characteristic of scientific learning. These findings are in line with those obtained by Calado

and Neves (forthcoming) for the theme ‘Living Better on Earth.’

The Ministry of Education leaves implicit, even when they are present, the metascientificknowledge to be learned, as well the intra-disciplinary relations between scientific and

metascientific knowledge (Ferreira, 2007), giving therefore more autonomy to teachers in the

management of the curriculum, namely on the what and on the how of the teaching of

metascience. This large area of intervention accorded to teachers may raise problems,

particularly by allowing a greater recontextualization of the OPD when it passes from the

curriculum to the classroom. This is of particular importance if we consider that the absence

of explicit criteria with respect to the curriculum to be implemented in schools may lead

teachers and textbook authors9, especially those who have scientific and pedagogic

deficiencies, to be unable to build on their own, a curriculum that takes into account research

findings about the importance of introducing metascience in scientific learning. Thus, the

teacher, in the absence of an education that allows him/her to reflect on the significance of the

sociological messages contained in the curriculum, may subvert the space of intervention that

is given to him/her in a situation of greater control. This is evidenced by Hipkins, Barker and

Bolstad (2005) when they focus on the lack of explicitness of the science curriculum in New

Zealand, with regard to the process of science construction. According to these authors, the


21/24

21

intention was that the teachers had more autonomy in interpreting the curriculum, but this

absence of guidance has led teachers to focus science construction on the science and

technology relation only10

. Thus the authors consider that, if teachers are to promote an

efficient scientific learning, explicit criteria are needed with regard at least to the knowledge

and competences to be developed and to the conceptual relation between distinct types of

knowledge. This is well discussed by Neves and Morais (2006) when they say:

“The distinct understanding by teachers/schools of what an efficient learning is, in terms of the specificities of

students, schools and their geographic contexts, may constrain, in a context of curriculum flexibility, the success

of the reform with regard to the success of all students. In order that the quality of education stands for all

students, to make the curriculum flexible does not mean to leave to teachers/schools the selection of the concepts

and competences to be learned and of the strategies to be implemented, but the selection, in terms of students

specificities, of activities which allow that all of them have access to the same concepts/competences and areexposed to strategies that appeal to similar levels of conceptual demand.” (p.90).

In spite of the problems it may raise, this large space of intervention given to teachers may

also have potentialities which will primarily depend on the scientific and pedagogical

education of teachers but also on their teaching-learning conceptions, developed along their

professional development. Thus, better educated teachers may have a space of control that

allows them to develop science learning processes with a higher level of conceptual demand,

by integrating the nature of science in science education.

The mode of analysis used in the study has the potential of highlighting the level of a science

curriculum in terms of specific aspects of the nature of science. The discrimination of various

dimensions of science construction, according to Ziman’s conceptualization, together with the

detail offered by Bernstein’s theory to study relations between discourses and agents and also

recontextualizing processes, allowed a fine analysis of the curriculum.

NOTES

1. ESSA Group: Sociological Studies of the Classroom – research group which is part of the Centre forEducational Research of the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon.

2. The broader research related to the process of curricular reorganization was focused on the Biology themes ofthe two curricular documents: “Sustainability in the Earth” for the 8th year and “Living Better on Earth” for the

9th year of schooling. This corresponds to 75% of the Essential Competences pages and 71% of the

Curriculum Guidelines pages of the Natural Sciences curriculum for middle school. Only the Geology themes

for the 7th year were not analyzed. An overview of this part of the curriculum shows that there is a similar

trend to the one found in the analyzed parts with regard to the presence of the nature of science.

3. The concept of conceptual demand was introduced by Domingos (1989) and it was related to the complexity

of competences. Further studies of the ESSA Group (e.g. Morais, Neves & Pires, 2004) considered thecomplexity of competences and scientific knowledge to characterize the level of conceptual demand. The

concept evolved to include the complexity of scientific competences and knowledge and also the strength of


22/24

22

intra-disciplinary relations. This is the concept that was used in the broader study of which the study presented

in this article is a part.

4. The analysis of the extent to which the text of the curriculum is made explicit to teachers and textbook authors

was taken out of the article in order to meet referees suggestions. However its results are referred in the

conclusions.

5. Aikenhead (2000) considers that STS includes all dimensions of Ziman’s conceptualization of scienceconstruction (1984). For him the STS content includes the interaction between science and technology, or

between science and society, or also any of the following aspects: society issues related to science or

technology, and issues of philosophy, history or sociology of science.

6. See instruments in Ferreira (2007).

Also available online on < http://essa.ie.ul.pt/researchmat_instruments_ text.htm>.

7. Ideological and pedagogical principles of the authors of the Natural Sciences curriculum were the object of a

specific study (Ferreira, Morais & Neves, 2011).

8. See note 7.

9. Complementary to the curriculum analysis, Calado and Neves (forthcoming) analysed two portuguesetextbooks for the Natural Sciences theme “Living Better on Earth” and the results of their study showed that

science construction and the relation between scientific and metascientific knowledge are mostly absent in thetextbooks. This combined with teachers own recontextualizations of a deficient Natural Science curricula,

when the nature of science is considered, may play a role in maintaining naïve views. In fact, the study carried

out by Alves and Morais (forthcoming), within the same research project, showed that the two teachers who

participated implemented a practice in the classroom where metascientific knowledge and its relation to

scientific knowledge were absent.

10. Some studies (e.g. Halai & McNicholl, 2004; McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 1998) have also shown thatscience teachers do not possess adequate conceptions of the nature of science. As referred by Lederman (2007),

“Students’ and teachers’ understandings of NOS remain a high priority for science education and science

education research” (p.832).

A former version of this article was published in Portuguese by the journal Revista Portuguesa de Educação.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge to the Foundation for Science and Technology for the financing of the research. They

are also grateful to Isabel Neves, Sílvia Calado and Vanda Alves for their contribution in the analysis of the

curriculum.

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. (2000). STS science in Canada: From policy to student evaluation. In D. Kumar & D. Chubin

(Eds.), Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and practice, 49-89. New York:

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Alves, V. (2007). O software didáctico nas aulas de Ciências Naturais - Análise sociológica de textos e

contextos [The educational software in Natural Sciences classes - Sociological analysis of texts and

contexts]. Master’s Thesis, Catholic University of Lisbon.

Alves, V., & Morais, A. (forthcoming). A sociological analysis of science curriculum and pedagogic practices.

Pedagogies: An International Journal.

Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control, Vol. IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London:

Routledge.


23/24

23

Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education,

20(2), 157-173.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (rev. ed.). London:

Rowman & Littlefield.

BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139-156.

BSCS (1970). Biology Teachers’ Handbook . New York: John Wiley.

Calado, S. (2007). Das competências essenciais aos manuais escolares: Estudo de processos de

recontextualização do discurso pedagógico de Ciências Naturais do 3º CEB [From essential

competences to textbooks: Study of recontextualizing processes of the pedagogical discourse of middle

school Natural Sciences]. Master’s Thesis, School of Science University of Lisbon.

Calado, S., & Neves, I. P. (forthcoming). Currículo e manuais escolares em contexto de flexibilidade curricular:Estudo de processos de recontextualização [Curriculum and textbooks in the context of curricular flexibility:

Study of recontextualizing processes]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação.

Castro, S. (2006). A construção da ciência na educação científica do ensino secundário – Análise do novo

programa de biologia e geologia do 10º ano [The construction of science in high school science

education: Analysis of Biology and Geology syllabus for10th year]. Master’s Thesis, School of Science

University of Lisbon.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches (2ª ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

DEB - Departamento de Educação Básica (2001). Currículo nacional do ensino básico – Competênciasessenciais [National curriculum for compulsory education: Essential competences]. Lisbon: Ministry of

Education.

DEB - Departamento de Educação Básica (2002). Orientações curriculares para o 3º ciclo do ensino básico[Curriculum guidelines for middle school]. Lisbon: Ministry of Education.

Domingos, A. M. (now Morais) (1989). Conceptual demand of science courses and social class. In P. Adey

(Ed.), Adolescent development and school science, 211-223. London: Falmer Press.

Ferreira, S. (2007). Currículos e princípios ideológicos e pedagógicos dos autores: Estudo do currículo de

Ciências Naturais do 3º ciclo do ensino básico [Curricula and authors’ ideological and pedagogical

principles: Study of the Natural Sciences curriculum for middle school]. Master’s Thesis, School of

Science University of Lisbon.

Ferreira, S., Morais, A., & Neves, I. (2011). Science curricula design: Analysis of authors’ ideological and

pedagogical principles. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(2), 137-159.

Fontes, A., & Silva, I. (2004). Uma nova forma de aprender ciências – A educação em ciência/ tecnologia/

sociedade (CTS) [A new path for learning sciences – Education in science/ tecnhology/ society (STS)] .

Porto: Edições Asa.

Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6ª ed.). New York: Longman.

Halai, N., & McNicholl, J. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A comparative study from

Pakistan and England. School Science Review, 86 (314), 93-99.

Hipkins, R., Barker, M, & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the “nature of science”: Modest adaptations or radical

reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27 (2), 243-254.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present and future. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds,),

Handbook of research on science education, 831-879. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


24/24

24

McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in

science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and

strategies, 3-39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards

documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales andstrategies, 41-52. Netherlands: Kluwer.

Morais, A. M., Neves, I. P., & Pires, D. (2004). The what and the how of teaching and learning: Going

deeper into sociological analysis and intervention. In J. Muller, B. Davies & A. Morais (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein, 75-90. London: Routledge & Falmer.

Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2010). Bernstein as an inspiration for educational research: Specific

methodological approaches. In P. Singh, A. Sadovnik & S. Semel (Eds.), Toolkits, translation devices and

conceptual accounts: Essays on Basil Bernstein's sociology of knowledge (chap.2). New York: Peter Lang.

Neves, I. P., Morais, A. M., Medeiros, A., & Peneda, D. (1999). Relação entre conhecimentos nos currículos de

ciências: Estudo comparativo de duas reformas [Relation between knowledge in science curricula:

Comparative study of two reforms]. Revista de Educação, VIII (2), 63-76.

Neves, I. P., & Morais, A. M. (2001). Texts and contexts in educational systems: Studies of recontextualising

spaces. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: Thecontribution of Basil Bernstein to research, 223-249. New York: Peter Lang.

Neves, I. P., & Morais, A. M. (2006). Processos de recontextualização num contexto de flexibilidade curricular:

Análise da actual reforma das ciências para o ensino básico [Recontextualizing process in the context

of curricular flexibility: Analysis of current sciences reform for compulsory school]. Revista de

Educação, XIV (2), 75-94.

Santos, M. E. (1999). Desafios pedagógicos para o século XXI [Pedagogical challenges for the XXI century].

Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies – The philosophical and social aspects of science and

technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziman, J. (2000). Real science – What is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

the nature of science in science curricula (ferreira & morais, 2013)

Documents