Lyotard, Postmodernism and Science Education: A Rejoinder To Zembylas

Abstract

Although postmodernist thought has become prominent in some educational circles, its influence on science education has until recently been rather minor. This paper examines the proposal of Michalinos Zembylas, published earlier in this journal, that Lyotardian postmodernism should be applied to science educational reform in order to achieve the much sought after positive transformation. As a preliminary to this examination several critical points are raised about Lyotard's philosophy of education and philosophy of science which serve to challenge and undermine Zembylas' project. Subsequently, the three main theses of Lyotard that Zembylas considers beneficial and wishes to transpose onto science classrooms and pedagogy are scrutinized and found to be more of a hindrance than a help to curriculum reformers.

The Development of Science Concept in Turkey and Effects of Constructivism on 2004 Primary Science Curriculum

“…On the other hand, the approach of radical relativism towards science education and the reductionist comment that "scientific knowledge is a type of discourse and both scientific and non-scientific knowledge is a proposal" (Lyotard, 1995, p. 10) mostly lead to a deadlock by treating science and its teaching (and the contents of the science curriculum) as a narrative, a discourse (Schulz, 2007). Established educational institutions and particularly the field of science are far from ensuring this approach.…”

“…In this way, it implies that the approach will only be used in instructional activities. This confusion may be a result of postmodernism intertwining epistemological and pedagogical criticism, and its failure to clearly distinguish learning the nature of science from learning science (Schulz, 2007). In brief, the curriculum does not reflect the awareness that scientific epistemology is different to the epistemology of the learner.…”

Reforming Science Education: Part II. Utilizing Kieran Egan’s Educational Metatheory

“…For science education to ignore educational philosophy and theory is to leave it directly exposed and vulnerable to those who would seek to reshape the discipline by importing theories based on radical social constructivist views and epistemological-relativist perspectives (Weaver et al 2001;Loving 1997). An example here is the attempt to use ideas from Lyotard to transform the discipline (Schulz 2007). The other tendency is socio-economically driven, and described as the new ''managerialism'' with its emphasis on ''accountability'', testing and proper socialization, required, so it is argued, in order for students to navigate the emerging global techno-economy.…”

Engaging Students in Science: The Potential Role of “Narrative Thinking” and “Romantic Understanding”

“…Indeed, despite the fact that the student/listener does not actively participate in the telling of the story, she/he tries to create meaning by listening attentively to the story. Finally fifth, narratives and stories have the potential to break barriers and dichotomies between epistemic subject and epistemic object, something that has been stressed from both a post-modernist perspective on teaching and learning, and a hermeneutic approach (Kalman, 2011;Schulz, 2014b; Although a strong caution should be brought to bear when some post-modernist perspectives are employed in science education; Nola and Irzik, 2005;Schulz, 2007). Indeed, from such a post-modern perspective, understanding the world involves a rejection of traditional stark dichotomies, like those between fact and fiction, reality and epistemic subject.…”