An Implication of System Thinking Paradigm in Current Science Education

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the system thinking paradigm and current science education in a theoretical view and to discuss its implications with information technology. This is theoretical and philosophical research, and is divided into three parts: firstly, significant trends in science education during the late 20th Century are examined; secondly, the nature of the thinking paradigm are discussed, with a specific focus on system thinking; thirdly, the implications of the system thinking paradigm are discussed in relation to science education. The following results are then presented: 1) scientific literacy has emerged as the major goal of science education in the age of information; 2) the current thinking paradigm is changing from analytics to systemics in that it is concerned with interrelated components and systems as the property of the whole; and 3) in terms of its implications in science education, system thinking can be interpreted as the essential form of scientific literacy.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 277-279)
• Pages: 299-304
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.277-279.299
• Online since: January 2005
• Authors: Man Hee Kim
• Keywords: Science Education, Scientific Literacy, System Thinking Paradigm

References

[1] American Association for the Advanced of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

[2] American Association for the Advanced of Science. (1992). Update Project 2061: Education for a Changing Future. Washington, DC: Author.

[3] Auerswald, E. (1995). The Changes of Paradigm; Self-Reflective Criticism, in Steffe. (Ed. ). Constructivism and Education, pp.439-446. Seoul: Hakjisa.

[4] Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. (1987). Angels Fear. NY: Macmillan.

[5] Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Industrial Society. NY: Basic Books.

[6] Bertalanffy, L. (1952). Problems of Life. NY: Wiley.

[7] Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. NY: George Braziller.

[8] Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

[9] Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

[10] Bybee, R. & DeBoer, G. (1994). Research on Goals for the Science Curriculum, in Gabel (Ed. 1994). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, pp.357-386. NY: Macmillan.

[11] Capra, F. (1982). The Turning Point. NY: Simon & Schuster.

[12] Chalmers, A. (1982). What is this thing called science? Univ. of Qweenland Press. Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher).

[13] Cho, H. (1998). The theoretical backgrounds and their implications for science education,. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 18(2), PP 183-200.

[14] DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of Ideas in Science Education. NY: Teachers college press.

[15] Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy,. Educational leadership. 16. pp.13-16.

[16] Jenkins, E. (1991). History of Science Education,. In A. Lewy. (Ed. ). The International Encyclopedia of Curriculum. London: Pergamon Oxford.

[17] Kim, D., Kim, D.H., & Moon, T. (1999). System Dynamics. Seoul: Daeyoung.

[18] Kim, M. (2000). A Philosophical Study on the Paradigms of Science Education. KNUE: Master thesis.

[19] Kim, M. (2003). Narrative Natures of Science Teaching in the light of Polanyi's Epistemology. KNUE: PhD thesis.

[20] Layton, D. & Davey, A., & Jenkins, E. (1986). Science for Specific Social Purposes(SSSP) : Perspectives on adult scientific literacy,. Science Education, 13, pp.27-52.

DOI: 10.1080/03057268608559929

[21] Matthews, M. (1994). Science Teaching. NY. Routledge.

[22] National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980's. Washington: Author.

[23] National Science Teachers Association. (1991). NSTA position statement on science/technology/society. Washington, DC: Author.

[24] Pak, C. (1997). Systemology. Seoul; Bumyang-sa.

[25] Pak, S. (1980). The Science Education Research. Seoul national university press.

[26] Pak, S. & Cho, H. (1994). Science Education and Science. Seoul; Kyoyuk-Kwahak-Sa.

[27] Samsung Institute of Economics. (1997). Understanding and Application of Complex Science. Seoul; Author.

[28] Soh, W. (1998). The effects of science teachers Philosophical views on science and science content describing styles on the changes of middle school students, views on science. KNUE; PhD thesis.

[29] Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. SF: Berrett - Koehler.

[30] Toffler, A. (1990). Power Shift. NY; Bantam books.

[31] Waldrop, W. (1992). Complexity. NY: Simon & Schuster.

[32] Yager, R. (1992). The Constructivist Learning Model: NSTA report, pp.15-17.

[33] Yager, R. & Weld, J. (1999). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination: The Iowa project, a national reform effort in the USA,. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169-194.

DOI: 10.1080/095006999290778

[34] Yoon, S. (1996). A study on the Contextuality of the Science Education System. KNUE; PhD thesis.