Imitation game: Reflections from the developments of school

science curricula

SONG, Jinwoong (宋眞雄)

Department of Physics Education, Seoul National University

What will fulfill this need can be stated in equally simple terms. It is, ironically enough, that science be taught as science. (Joseph J. Schwab, 1962: 188-9)

1.Introduction The Imitation Game is a 2014 British historical drama film directed by Morten Tyldu m and written by Graham Moore, based on the biography Alan Turing: The Enigma by A ndrew Hodges. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch as British cryptanalyst Alan Turing, who dec rypted German intelligence codes for the British government during the Second World War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_Game). The ’Imitation Game’ refers to so-calle d ‘Turing Test’ which is a test for artificial intelligence suggested by a famous British ma thematician, Alan Turing (1912-54), who is known as the father of the computer. Through his paper, “Computing machinery and intelligence” (1950), Tuning gave a conceptual fou ndation of AI (Artificial Intelligence), by suggesting the Turing Test, “a test of a machine’ s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a h uman.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)

Science is now considered as one of the core (often three of them) subjects across th e world, together with the national language and mathematics. For example, in PISA studi es, science is included in the three main areas, with literacy and mathematics (e.g. OECD, 2018). And, in TIMSS studies, science and mathematics are the two main subjects for th e international comparison (https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/).

Then, how could science acquire this precious status in school curriculum? What wer e its main rationales and justifications through which science had been able to persuade th e stake holders of school curriculum to accept this relatively new subject? And, In doing so, what has been the main strategy for school science to meet the needs and pressures fr om the society?

Based on a brief review of the historical developments of school science curricula, in ternational as well as Korean (of more recent developments), this paper argues that the ov erall developments of school science curricula can be characterized as a kind of ‘imitation

118 game’ chasing after the presumed ideals of contemporary school science.

2. A Brief Review of the History of School Science

It has been around one and a half centuries since science was first introduced as one of regular school subjects in Europe (Turner, 1927). Not only in the West but also in the East, while classics and literatures (e.g. Greek, Latin, Chinese) had been the core of school curricula since the middle age, science began to permeate into school timetables, on the basis of its argued strength as an effective means for mind discipline (e.g. DeBoer, 1991; Bishop, 1994). At the beginning, during the first half of the 19th century in Britain, science was not first introduced into the school curriculum, but into so-called mechanics’ institutes. The mechanics’ institute (MIs) was a kind of self-funded adult education places which were begun to be established following the Industrial Revolution. The first two MIs (Glasgow Mechanics’ Institution and London Mechanics’ Institution) were established in 1823 (Kelly, 1992). The primary purpose of MIs was to self-educate by mechanics and artisans who needed some degree of basic scientific knowledge in order to understand and deal with newly developed machines and instruments brought by the industrial revolution. MIs became very popular not only in Britain but also then British colonies during the second quarter of the 19th century (e,g, Hudson 1851; Hole, 1853). After its peak around 1850 when there were about 700 institutions across the UK (Hole, 1853), the MI movement slowly faded away along with the decrease of its original spirit, i.e. the diffusion of useful knowledge among workingmen (e.g. Song, 2012). While some scholars argue that the mechanics’ institution movement is a part of the history of science education (Song, 2012), it is more common that MI movement is considered either a part of adult education or of technical education. With a gradual introduction of science(s) into some pioneering schools and a rapid decline of MI movement after 1850s, science gradually secured its place in school curricula and expanded its territory by self-dividing from ‘natural philosophy’ into several science disciplines (such as, electricity, magnetism, sound and light, botany, physiology). This inclusion of science in school curriculum was hastened by the establishment of DSA (the Department of Science and Art) and DSA’s examination system (Bishop, 1994). During the second half of the 19th century in Britain, the inclusion of science in school curriculum was strongly supported by a group of prominent scientists (including M. Faraday, J. Tyndall, H. Spencer, T. H. Huxley) made great efforts to advocate the potential and value of teaching science as an effective means of mind training, with a possibility of substituting classics (DeBoer, 1991). This distinctive character of our own times lies in the vast and constantly increasing part which is played by natural knowledge. Not only is our daily life shaped by it, not only does the

119 property of millions of men depend upon it, but our whole theory of life has long been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the general conception of the universe, which have been forced upon us by physical sciences. In fact, the most elementary acquisition with the results of scientific investigation shows us that they offer a broad and striking contradiction to the opinion so implicitly credited and taught in the middle ages. (T. H. Huxly, 1880) Maybe the first theory of science teaching in the history was made by a British chemist as well as an influential educator, H. E. Armstrong (1848-1937), who proposed a “heuristic method” of science teaching. The heuristic method was intended to put students as far as discoverer‘s position. Heuristic methods of teaching are methods which involve placing students as far as possible in the attitude of the discoverer methods which involve their finding out, instead of being merely told about things. (original italic. Armstrong, 1902: 396) For Armstrong, “The heuristic method is the only method to be applied in the pure sciences; it is the best method in the teaching of the applied sciences; and as it is a method in the study of those great works of art in language by the greatest minds which go by the general name of literature.” (original italics, Armstrong, 1902: 396-7). This strong belief by Armstrong and his followers was based on their conviction that the core values of learning science can only be achieved by following the exact pathway of scientists. During the first half of the 29th century, science education in Britain and the US took a different route away from the Heuristic method. Partly because of the limits of the Heuristic’ method in terms of its effectiveness and partly because of the realization of the need of ‘science for all’, school science education in Europe and in North America became closer to the issues of society and students. In this context, at the both sides of the Atlantic, school science education moved towards ‘general science’, ‘science and citizenship’, and ‘everyday science’ (Jenkins, 1979; Song, 2001). In this period, science education in the US was under the influence of John Dewey and progressive education movement, while British science education was rather under the influence of socialist ideas towards science and society (Bybee & DeBoer, 1994; Song, 2001). After more than a half a century since Armstrong, the spirit of the Heuristic method was once again revived by two prominent education theorists in the US - Jerome Bruner at Harvard who advocated discovery learning’ and Joseph Schwab at Chicago who were trained as a biologist and established a theory of ‘scientific enquiry’ (Matthews, 1994). Although these two theories were both influential to the 1960s’ school curriculum reforms, for science, Schwab’s theory of scientific enquiry was a more direct impetus for science curriculum reforms, of which outcomes were known as ‘alphabet programs’ (such as, PSSC, CHEM Study, BSCS, ESCP, IPS) and proliferated across the world. This school science curriculum reform movement was mainly initiated and

120 dominated by professional scientists, who were then dissatisfied with contemporary school science teaching. It was a historical moment that the power of science curriculum was handed over from science teachers to professional scientists. Teachers and educators concerned with science face a new situation. They are being asked to fulfill an urgent national need, to act as executors of a public policy which is not of their making. They can no longer treat their duties as determined only by themselves. ... The American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Mathematics Association of America, even the National Academy of Sciences, are now involved in curriculum studies, curriculum revision, and the sponsorship of changes in the preparation and certification of science teachers. (Schwab, 1962: 3-4) For Schwab, the situation of science education was so bad that there was a desperate “need to maintain and support a mode of scientific enquiry which has never before been so urgently required, so visible to the naked, public eye, and understood so little by so few.” (Schwab, 1962: 4). We have remarked that teaching science merely as authoritative facts and dogma has had an extremely bad effect on American attitudes toward science and scientists. Such methods of teaching science divorce the conclusions of science from the data and the conceptual frames that give conclusions their meaning. As a consequence, the student often learns a lesson we never intended to teach. He learns that science is unreliable and unrealted to reality. (Schwab, 1963: 45) The scientific enquiry method during the 1960s was largely supported by the views of modern philosophy of science, in particular of positivism (such as of Karl Popper’s falsificationism (e.g. Popper, 1934) and of hypothetico-deductive method), which presuppose the objective nature of scientific observation and measurement. While the movement of scientific enquiry was able to lead to the fundamental changes in the practice of school science, not only in the US and the UK but also across the world during the 1960s and 1970s, the impetus of the movement was gradually fading away due to its limits to attract non-elite students into science studies and to recruit well-trained science teachers (DeBoer, 1991; Matthews, 1994). During the 1980s and 1990s, departing from the enquiry-centered approaches which emphasized the core of science (i.e. scientific method as well as the conceptual structures of the discipline), there had been two world-wide movements for innovating school science education, i.e. STS (science-technology-society) movement and students’ misconception research movement. While STS movement was more concerned with the healthy relationships between science and society (rather than the unique nature of science disciplines), the movement of students’ conceptual understanding and misconceptions gave its attention to learners’ active construction of conceptual understanding. Although these two movements appear to have different emphases on

121 and implications to school science, both of them were theoretically rooted in the constructivist perspectives. The STS movement in science studies (i.e. HPS: history, philosophy, and sociology of science) was largely initiated by Thomas Khun’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution (Khun, 1962) and developed by J. Ziman’s Public Knowledge (Ziman, 1968), which were the departure from the positivist philosophy of science. On the other hand, the movement of students’ conceptual understanding and misconception studies in science was initially influenced by the studies of J. Piaget, D. P. Ausubel and E. von Glaserfeld, and then flourished in the field of science education with science education studies such as J. D. Novak’s ‘concept mapping’ (Novak & Gowin, 1984) and R. Driver’s ‘children’s idea’ (1983). In the meantime, from the mid 1980s, the US AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) started a long-term ambitious project, titled Project 2016 which symbolizes the nation’s determination to innovate US science education by the year of 2016 when Halley’s comet will return to the earth (https://www.aaas.org/programs/project-2061). Under the name of Project 2061, AAAS has produced a series of influential policy reports for science education: such as, Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1990); Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993); National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996); A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crossing Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2011); Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In particular, A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2011) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) have made great impacts not just on US science education but on world science education by providing examples of nation-driven innovations of school science and by suggesting a new conceptual framework which emphasizes the roles of engineering in school science. NGSS includes three dimensions of science learning: Practice, Crosscutting Concepts, and Disciplinary Core Ideas (Fig. 1). Science and engineering—significant parts of human culture that represent some of the pinnacles of human achievement—are not only major intellectual enterprises but also can improve people’s lives in fundamental ways. Although the intrinsic beauty of science and a fascination with how the world works have driven exploration and discovery for centuries, many of the challenges that face humanity now and in the future—related, for example, to the environment, energy, and health—require social, political, and economic solutions that must be informed deeply by knowledge of the underlying science and engineering. (NRC, 2011: 1-1)

122 [Fig. 1] Three dimensions of science learning in NGSS

Based on a series of studies on the history of science education, as shown in [Tab. 1], Song (2004) briefly characterized the historical developments of science education with a series of paradigm shift and a set of corresponding analogies. For example, he called science education until 18th century ‘Ears-on’ science education, which illustrates the common way of science teaching in which traditional sciences (like of Galilei’s Dialogue and Newton’s Principia) were mainly taught through the reading and listening of science classics. ‘Hands-on’ is a commonly used analogy to refer to inquiry-based science education during 1960s and 1970s. On the other hand, ‘Minds-on’ has been often used to refer to the constructivist view which pays more attention to students’ conceptual understanding and it was to make a sharp contrast with the previous one, ‘Hands-on’ science education. until 18C 19C to mid 20C 1960s-70s 1980s-90s 21C Period of science natural discovery personal school subjects culture as philosophy method constructivism Background scientific deductivism empiricism positivism constructivism philosophy humanism concept structure prior experience cognitive, Essence of science logic & knowledge & & discovery & cognitive emotional and learning reasoning utility process conflict behavioural the context of Focus of science philosophical demonstration of scientific inquiry children’s science and teaching argument usefulness process thinking process science learning

123 Nuffield context-rich mechanics’ Principia, programs, approaches, Examples institutes, object CLIPS etc. Dialogue alphabet scientific field lesson programs trips Corresponding Ears-on Eyes-on Hands-on Minds-on Hearts-on analogy [Tab. 1] The changes of paradigms of science education (from Song & Cho, 2004) 3. Recent developments of science education in Korea The education system in South Korea is still very much centralized, although the de-centralization process is being intensified. Because of its centralizedness, the national curriculum has enormous impacts on many aspect of school education. The national curriculum defines not only what to teach but also how and when to teach. While every school textbooks of any subject must follow strictly the guidelines of the National Curriculum, school tests are too confined by those textbooks. Since the results of school assessments are becoming more heavily used for the university entrance, school tests are more strictly following the contents of the textbooks. Here, as cases of school science curriculum changes in Korea, two most recent developments of Korean science education are summarized. (2015 Korean National Science Curriculum) Korea has gone through a series of the revision of National Curriculum, revised about every 5 to 10 years. The most recent one is known as 2015 Korean National Curriculum, which was officially announced at the end of 2015 and started to be implemented in schools in 2017. The new 2015 Korean National Science Curriculum (KNSC) was developed as a part of 2015 Korean National Curriculum. 2015 Korean National Curriculum has two main foci: (a) competence-based curriculum and (b) integrated approach. Following these two foci, 2015 KNSC introduced so-called ‘science competences’ as its core elements as well as ‘Integrated Science’ course & the idea of ‘generalized knowledge’ respectively. In 2015 KNSC’, a set of five science competences is introduced: i.e. ‘scientific thinking ability’, ‘scientific inquiry ability’, ‘scientific communication ability’, ‘scientific problem-solving ability’, and ‘scientific participation and life-long learning ability’. The ideas of introducing of ‘Integrated Science’ course which compulsory for all high school students and of ‘generalized knowledge’ are both benchmarked from the concepts of ‘big ideas’ and ‘cross-cutting concepts’ in the NGSS of the US (NRC, 2011; NGSS Lead States, 2013). In line with the two new ideas (i.e. ‘competences-based’ and ‘big ideas’), 2015 KNSC introduced a somewhat radical set of the aims of science education. One of the two main changes in the aims of 2015 KNSC was to put the affective aim as the first (implying the most urgent) one, “to have an interest and a curiosity towards natural phenomena and objects, and develop an attitude to solve problems scientifically” (MOE, 2015: 4). This change was made to overcome the

124 most critical weakness of Korean science education identified through PISA and TIMSS studies, often called ‘East-Asian disparity’ of high achievements but extremely low attitudes and engagements (Song, 2014). [Fig. 2] Aims of 2015 Korean National Science Curriculum (MOE, 2015: 4)

The other main change made in 2015 KNSC wa the introduction of its fifth aim, “to develop life-long learning ability through recognizing th enjoyment of science learning and the usefulness of science” (MOE, 2015:

4). This kind of aim was introduced in 2015 KNSC for the first time in its history, and maybe one of the first attempts across the world. This aim was added on the list to prepare school science to meet the most urgent national issue of Korean society (and education), i.e. a very rapidly ‘aging society’. It was expected that most of the students leaning 2105 KNSC sciences would have to live nearly 80 years more after they finish secondary education.

(Korean Science Education Standards)

Right after the development of 2015 KNSC, KOFAC (Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity), the national agency for promoting science culture and science education of the nation, started a multi-years’ project to develop a Korean version of science curriculum standards, KSES (Korean Science

Education Standards). The project of KSES was ambitiously launched by KOFAC and MOE (the Ministry of

Education) in order to prepare a long-term blueprint for the future developments of National Science Curriculum.

KOFAC and MOE were greatly influenced and impressed by the progresses made by AAAS projects for developing NGSS and National Science Education Standards in the US. After two years’ preparatory studies, in

2017, KOFAC began to support a group of specialists (led by professor Jinwoong Song at Seoul National

University, who was the president of Korean Association for Science Education) to carry out two years’ study to develop the KSES.

125 Fig. 3 CKP (Competences-Knowledge-Participation & Action) model for KSES (Korean Science

Education Standards)

After a series of fierce discussion and debates, the KSES team proposed the CKP model for a new conceptual framework of KSES. The first task of the team was to define ‘what kind of future citizen do we want to foster through science education?’ and ‘what would be a common feature of the future citizen cultivated through science education?’. These are called ‘the future citizen character (未來人間像)’ and ‘the future scientific literacy

( 未 來 科 學 素 養 )’ respectively in this study. While the future citizen character is defined as ‘a creative and cooperative person equipped with scientific literacy’, the future scientific literacy is defined as ‘the attitude and ability as a democratic citizen to participate in and act for solving personal and social problems using science-related competences and knowledge’ (Song et al., 2018). Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework of the new scientific literacy, the CKP model.

The CKP model of KSES is consisted of three dimensions as its core components: ‘Competence’,

‘Knowledge’, and ‘Participation and Action’. The Competence dimension is purposefully put at the first, while the

Knowledge dimension is placed at the second. This arrangement is in line with the change made in the aims of

2015 KNSC where the knowledge and concept aim was put at the third. Maybe the most noticeable feature of the

CKP would be the inclusion of the third dimension, the Participation and Action dimension, which goes even further from US’s NGSS practices.

The Competence dimension includes two content-specific categories (i.e. scientific inquiry ability and

126 scientific thinking ability) as well as two content-general ones (i.e. communication and collaboration ability and information processing and decision making ability). The Knowledge dimension includes four pure (but non-traditional) science-specific categories (i.e. regularity and diversity, energy and matter, system and interaction, and change and stability) and two society-related categories (i.e. science and society, science & technology for a sustainable society). Despite the difference in the kind of knowledge, the whole six categories of the Knowledge dimension are all ‘cross-cutting’ in their nature, as emphasized in NGSS.

The Participation and Action dimension is, on the other hand, rather radical and ambitious, where there are five categories involved: scientific community activities, scientific leadership, safe society, enjoying scientific culture, and contribution to sustainable society. Here, the participation and action are not confined into school science. The all five categories not only refer to school inquiry and practical activities but also refer to science-related everyday activities of the adult. This would be a further extension of the fifth aim of 2015 KNSC and a brave departure from the ‘Practice’ dimension of the NGSS in the US, which mainly concerns only the activities (of sciecne and engineering) in the school.

4. Imitation Games

So far I have briefly reviewed the historical developments of international science education for the last two centuries and recent developments concerning National Science Curriculum in Korea. By reviewing those developments from a critical point of view, I would argue that the history of science education and of science curriculum is basically a history of imitations of some presumed ideals by contemporary science education.

(Imitation of Science)

The history of modern science education can be characterized as a history of science education to imitate science itself. Armstrong’s heuristic method and Schwab’s scientific enquiry theory are the most typical examples of this imitation game. They criticized the then school science teaching and learning on the basis that the contemporary science education was fundamentally different from what scientists really do. The best, if not the only, way of achieving meaningful science education was “placing student as far as possible in the attitude of the discoverer methods” (Armstrong, 1902: 396) and “that science be taught as science” (Schwab, 1962: 188-189).

The science curricula and textbooks were to be radically revised in order to allow students to follow the steps of real scientists. ‘Young scientist’, ‘day scientist’, ‘being a discoverer’, ‘learning by doing’ are all the expressions which try to put students nearer to scientists.

When imitates science, science education reflects on the contemporary view on science, i.e. what would be real science? and what are the relationship between science and other disciplines? For example, when NGSS in the

US introduced engineering as a key components of it, the decision reflects their view on science in today’s society:

“Science and engineering are integrated into science education by raising engineering design to the same level as scientific inquiry in science classroom instruction at all levels and by emphasizing the core ideas of engineering design and technology applications.” (NGSS Lead States, 2103: xiii). Recent emphases on STEM &r STEAM

127 education across the world also illustrates this interconnected nature of science, technology and engineering in today’s and future society.

(Imitation of the Philosophy of Science)

When science education imitates science, science usually means natural sciences. And, throughout the history, science educators have tried hard to make school science to be more aligned with the development of the philosophy of science. In other wards, while science education tried to make school science like ‘real sciences’, the kind of the ‘real sciences’ perceived by science educators was in fact one supported by the contemporary (more precisely, popular outside but rather old-fashioned inside the community of the philosophy of science) philosophy of science. For example, as illustrated in Table 1, when direct experiences with natural and everyday things were stressed (for example, through Object lessons and scientific demonstrations during the 19th century in Britain), the rationale for introducing such things was based on then popular philosophy of science, i.e. inductivism and empiricism. Similarly, while Armstrong’s heuristic method was flourished with a philosophical background of positivism, Schwab’s theory of scientific enquiry emerged in the environment in which the logical positivism was a popular school in the philosophy of science.

In 1960s, new perspectives of science which had different perspectives from earlier noes, positivism and logical positivism, have emerged. Khun’s theory of scientific revolution and Ziman’s sociology of science would be representative examples of this change, both of which tend to consider science not as individuals’ activities but as group’s dynamics and not as logical and objective but as reasonable and somewhat rational.

More recently, as mentioned earlier, recent movements of STEM & STEAM education and a series of NGSS studies which are all emphasizing technology and engineering emerged from and supported by the realization that in today’s society science and technology are so much interconnected that they cannot be practically separated.

Despite their separate developments in history, we cannot now imagine ‘science without technology’ and

‘technology without science’.

(Imitation of the West)

When the modern school system was first introduced in the East (e.g. East Asia), the influence from the West often came through Western missionaries and textbooks. For example, in Korea, during the last period of Chosun dynasty, science textbooks were first imported and/or translated either from Japan or China, and they were originally came from Europe (e.g. Britain or Germany). In addition, since Korean War, the revisions of National

Science Curriculum in Korea one after another tried to accommodate new theories and developments of Western science education (esp. American): such as, scientific inquiry, STS education, constructivist approach, scientific argumentation, SSI (socio-scientific issues). Korea has been one of the earliest adopters of the new developments from the West, as recently exemplified by 2015 KNSC and Korean Science Education Standards developments.

Although the tendency to follow the West could have been an effective way to catch up new progresses and global trends, the imported theories and models of (science) education were not successful in bringing in meaningful changes in actual practices of school science. There has been a growing scholastic interest in the issues

128 of ‘localized practice’ and ‘imported theories’ of (science and mathematics) education, especially in East Asia (e.g.

Ogawa 1998: Leung 2005; Martin, 2010; Song, 2013; Lin et al. 2016; Song et al. 2018). In Korea, ECCO-SM

(East-Asian Classroom Culture of Science & Mathematics) project - now re-named GCER (GloCal Changes and

Educational Responses) for its second phase - investigated various aspects of actual classroom culture of Korean

(and some other East Asian) science and mathematics lessons: such as classroom silence & participation, classroom norms, classroom as a community of practice (e.g. Change & Song, 2016; Song et al., 2018) Based on research results, they argue that, even though most of imported theories of (science) education assume the active participation and horizontal communications from the student side, due to cultural tendency, East Asian students

(esp. Korean) usually seldom initiate verbal interaction and still have vertical relationships of communication with their teachers. However, this does not mean that they are dis-engaged with lessons or dis-connected with their teachers. On the contrary, they often show silent-but-active participation as well as structured-but-effective relationships with other classroom members.

So far, I have suggested that the changes of school science curriculum as a whole could be characterized as a series of ‘Imitation Game’ of the presumed ideals of the time. Throughout the history, science educators have tried to make school science (curriculum) more like ‘real science’, i.e. science outside school. However when they were looking for ‘real science’, it was in fact the ‘science’ mirrored in then popular views of the philosophy of science.

In addition to these tendencies, as illustrated by Korean cases, school science in non-Western countries with a varying degree has been hard to follow new developments in the advanced, mostly Western, countries.

But, the ‘imitation game’ by science education was not always of negative meanings. It was in fact a practical strategy, because otherwise it would be very difficult for insiders of science education community to bring in any radical changes by themselves. ‘Imitation’ is possible only when there is a difference between the two.

And, as in case of artificial intelligence, the second runner sometimes can overtake the forerunner. Maybe the time has come for school science to develop their own ideals, not imitating something from the outside.

Of course machines can't think as people do. A machine is different from a person. Hence, they think differently. The interesting question is ... thinks differently from you, does that mean it's not thinking? (a quote from The Imitation Game, 2014)

129 References

AAAS (1990). Science for All Americans. Oxford University Press.

AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Oxford University Press.

Armstrong, H. E. (1902). The heuristic method of teaching. School Science, 1(8), 395-401.

Bishop, G. (1994). Eight Hundred Years of Physics Teaching. Fisher Miller Pub.

Bybee, R. W. and DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.)

Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. (Vol. II), MacMillan Pub.

Change, J., & Song, J. (2016). A case study on the formation and sharing process of science classroom norms.

International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 747-766.

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education. Teachers College Press.

Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as a Scientists? Open University Press.

Hole, J. (1853). An Essay on the History and Management of Literary, Scientific, & Mechanics’ Institutions.

Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.

Hudson, J. W. (1851). The History of Adult Education. Longman.

Huxley, T. H. (1880). Science and culture. In T. H. Huxley (1964 Ed.), Science and Education, the Citadel Press,

132-133.

Jenkins, E. W. (1979). From Armstrong to Nuffield: Studies in Twentieth-Century Science Education in England

and Wales. John Murray.

Kelly, T. (1992). A History of Adult Education in Great Britain. Liverpool University Press.

Khun, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago University Press.

Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classroom based on data from the TIMSS

1999 Video Study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199-215.

Lin, H-S., Gilbert, J. K., & Lien, C-J. (2016). Science Education Research and Practice in East Asia: Trends and

Perspectives. Higher Education Publishing.

Martin, S. (2010). “Act locally, publish globally”: international/muilti-disciplinary research efforts needed to

understand the impact of globalization on science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(2),

263-273.

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge.

Ministry of Education (in Korea) (2015). Science Curriculum. MOE notice # 2015-74 [Appendix 9].

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crossing Concepts, and

Core Ideas. National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Education Standards: For States, By States (Volume 1 The

Standards). The National Academies Press.

Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to Learn. Cambridge University Press.

OECD (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. OECD. (www.oecd.org/pisa).

130 Ogawa M. (1998) A Cultural History of Science Education in Japan: an Epic Description. In W. W. Cobern (Eds.)

Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education. Springer.

Popper, K. (1934). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (translated into English, 1959, Hutchinson)

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In The Teaching of Science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge,

Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J. J. (1963). Biology Teachers’ Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Song, J. (2001). British movement of ‘Science and Citizenship; during 1930-50s and L. Hogben’s Science for the

Citizen. In Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 21(2), 385-399. (in Korean)

Song, J. (2012). When science met people through education: the mechanics’ institute movement in the 19th

century Britain. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32(3), 541-554.

Song, J. (2013). The disparity between achievements and engagement in students’ science learning. A case of

East-Asian regions. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing Assessment in Science

Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Policy. (285-306). Springer Publishing.

Song, J. & Cho, S-K. (2003). John Tyndall(1820-1894): Who brought physics and the public together. Journal of

Korean Association for Science Education, 23(4), 419-429.

Song, J. & Cho, S-K. (2004). Yet another paradigm shift?: From minds-on to hearts-on. Journal of Korean

Association for Science Education, 24(1), 129-145.

Song, J., Jeong, Young, Y. J., Martin, S., Na, J., Chang, J., & Kang, D. (2018). Classroom and Culture:

Understanding the Science Classroom Culture of East Asia. Bookshill. (in Korean)

Turner, D. M. (1927). History of Science Teaching in England. Chapman & Hall.

Ziman, J. (1968) Public Knowledge: Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge University

Press.

131