Report on a Boston University Conference December 7-8, 2012 on 'How Can the History and Philosophy of Science Contribute to Contemporary U.S. Science Teaching?'

This is an editorial report on the outcomes of an international conference sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (REESE-1205273) to the School of Education at Boston University and the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University for a conference titled: How Can the History and Philosophy of Science Contribute to Contemporary U.S. Science Teaching? The presentations of the conference speakers and the reports of the working groups are reviewed. Multiple themes emerged for K-16 education from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science. Key ones were that: students need to understand that central to science is argumentation, criticism, and analysis; students should be educated to appreciate science as part of our culture; students should be educated to be science literate; what is meant by the nature of science as discussed in much of the science education literature must be broadened to accommodate a science literacy that includes preparation for socioscientific issues; teaching for science literacy requires the development of new assessment tools; and, it is difficult to change what science teachers do in their classrooms. The principal conclusions drawn by the editors are that: to prepare students to be citizens in a participatory democracy, science education must be embedded in a liberal arts education; science teachers alone cannot be expected to prepare students to be scientifically literate; and, to educate students for scientific literacy will require a new curriculum that is coordinated across the humanities, history/social studies, and science classrooms.Comment: Conference funded by NSF grant REESE-1205273. 31 page

What aspects of reasoning do further education college lecturers use in writing rationales?

Commonly, the task of constructing rationales is used in development programmes as a means of advancing Further Education College (FEC) lecturers' understanding of their practice. Often lecturers also teach this task as a part of student project work. Drawing on psychological research on argumentative reasoning the aim was to illuminate strengths and weaknesses in lecturers' rationale construction by identifying (a) components of reasoning and (b) ideas used in rationales. A descriptive sample survey design plus a focus group interview was employed on an opportunity sample of 22 FEC lecturers. They provided 89 pages of word-processed responses to nine questions. Content analyses indicated that participants used only two of Kuhn's (1991) five broad components of argumentative reasoning and educational literature was cited without commentary or evaluation. It is argued that course design needs to draw on ideas from at least three bodies of research: pedagogies for learning argumentative reasoning, 'aspects of knowledgeability' (Bereiter, 2002) and situated learning

Blurring the boundaries between synthesis and evaluation. A customized realist evaluative synthesis into adolescent risk behavior prevention

Realist methodologies have been increasingly advocated for the investigation of complex social issues. Public health programs, such as those designed to prevent adolescent risk behavior, are typically considered complex. In conducting a realist review of the empirical literature relating to such programs, we encountered several challenges, including (a) an overabundance of empirical evidence, (b) a problematic level of heterogeneity within and between methodological approaches, (c) discrepancies between theoretical underpinnings and program operationalization, (d) homogeneity of program outcomes, with very little variation in program effectiveness, and (d) a paucity of description relating to content and process. To overcome these challenges, we developed a customized approach to realist evidence synthesis, drawing on the VICTORE (Volition, Implementation, Contexts, Time, Outcomes, Rivalry, and Emergence) complexity checklist and incorporating stakeholder engagement as primary data to achieve greater depth of understanding relating to contextual and mechanistic factors, and the complex interactions between them. Here we discuss the benefits of this adapted methodology alongside an overview of the research through which the methodology was developed. A key finding from this research was that combining the complexity checklist with primary data from stakeholder engagement enabled us to systematically interrogate the data across data sources, uncovering and evidencing mechanisms which may otherwise have remained hidden, giving greater ontological depth to our research findings. This paper builds on key methodological developments in realist research, demonstrating how realist methodologies can be customized to overcome challenges in developing and refining program theory from the literature, and contributes to the broader literature of innovative approaches to realist research