I don't understand how Kevin Donnelly can compare the teaching of science in schools using approaches that he doesn't like to the teaching of a 'theory' based not on any data or continued critique of the theory but on a 'proposition' based only on faith.

There is no evidence supporting 'inteligent design' other than religiuous faith and an attitude of 'if I can't understand how else it happened, it must have been God' [similar to 'flat earth' thinking, which seemed reasonable, until, like evolution, better explanations emerged, and after a century or more, no other explanations could stack up].

All scientific theory must remain subject to criticism and questioning [and theories will develope, or even be discarded over time] but let's not try to float so-called 'theories' that haven't survived this process.

As for the teaching, yes there is room for some sceptitism but weighing the evidence still must be the way of coming to any conclusions. And recognising that some cultures might come to different conclussions [and might not weigh the evidence] can be part of that.

The argument that science teaching should occur in a politically neutral context can stand alone without the need to introduce the complication of "intelligent design".

As a former teacher of approximately 20 years, I never found it necessary to provide a social context for Ohm's Law or Newton's Laws of Motion. However, it was necessary to qualify the two with a recognition of non-Ohmic conductors and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, respectively.

It is certainly the case that science can be invoked to address issues of social significance. For example, what evidence is there to support the view that the combustion of fossil fuel contributes to the so-called "greenhouse effect"? However, that is different from teaching science so as to heighten a student's awareness of the greenhouse effect, although such an outcome might arise naturally.

From an educational perspective, the fundamental question might therefore relate to the intention of the teaching process. In the example above, two possibilities (amongst others) are to teach students as to what are the principles of a greenhouse (as used to grow plants) and why some scientists believe that as a race we need to be less dependent on fossil fuel. They are both legitimate. However, I believe that the second requires an understanding of the first.

As a teacher, I would feel obliged to explain what is the effect produced by the use of greenhouses. Then the question that might be asked is, "What evidence is there to support the notion that the combustion of fossil fuel contributes to a "greenhouse effect" on a global scale?"

As I write, I can see much opportunity for teaching and learning in a science classroom addressing the concerns of educationists such as Kevin Donnelly and at the same time, challenging students to address one of the most important contemporary issues confronting the human race.

"One of the defining characteristics of outcomes-based education is that learning is no longer based on the traditional disciplines associated with an academic curriculum and the belief that knowledge is impartial and objective."

An assumption based on the belief that there is an objective reality. Where pray tell is the empirical evidence to support the existence of an objective reality? When did Dr Donnelly here the tree falling in the forest when nobody was there to hear it?

Any philosophy based on any metaphysic is essentially faith based and unfounded at it's lowest level. Objectivist or epistemologies of scientism are such philosophies and are essentially faith based.

“It is not clear that these efforts have improved levels of mathematics and science performance in Australian primary schools."

Hardly proof things are getting worse AND that things are getting worse BECAUSE of curriculum. Lets see more reference to some (non-contrived) figures rather than person-X saying thing's aren't getting better.

"...fads as whole language, where children are taught to look and guess, and fuzzy maths, where memorising tables and mental arithmetic go out the window"

Less strawman mis-representations of constructivism and constructivist pedagogy would also be more collegial to those still in the practice. But maybe that's an artefact of writing for the popular press. Then again, it's common practice for the Libs to distort perceptions.

BruceRavent

"Less strawman mis-representations of constructivism and constructivist pedagogy would also be more collegial to those still in the practice. But maybe that's an artefact of writing for the popular press. Then again, it's common practice for the Libs to distort perceptions."

Please could you decipher the above for those of us who speak plain English. I am already struggling with 'objective reality' but the above is just incomprehensible to anyone without an arts degree. I am science trained and appreciate the importance of clear and concise language. I could use all sorts of difficult words to try to impress but I refrain out of courtesy and more importantly so that the reader can understand what I am trying to say. I really am interested in what you have to say.

BruceRaveRant still holds to the 'idea' that all knowledge is culturally based, that there is no such thing as objective reality. To be so ignorant and simultaneously arrogant (the certainty that there is no such thing as objective knowledge is a fearful arrogance) would be a hard cross to bear for most people. But for Edudribblers it is par for the course. Get real BRR, some things are certain. The existence of pi and e for example are inherent in nature. They exist irrespective of which human or none exists. No amount of sneering (and again arrogant) comments such as 'scientism' will alter the fact that in Mathematics some thing are correct. BRR appears to be claiming that proof should be given that things are worse than they used to be. Well, sorry old thing, there is a whole body of evidence that the standards in Maths and Physics at least are well down, especially up to and including the end of year 10. The blame for those declines lies at the feet of the edudribblers within universities and the various Boards of Study. It is they that produce the unarguably weak syllabi in both Maths and the numerical aspects of Science. I note that BRR uses the word 'curriculum' where the word 'syllabi' would be better. That is of course deliberate. Poor old Sajo wants the BRR's of the world to speak English. Silly thing. The whole objective of eduspeak, edudribble, is to ensure that multiple possible meanings are possible. That way they can themselves take anything to mean whatever they like. Obfuscation is their whole objective. The BRR's of the world are the cause of the poor education our children receive in Maths and the numerical Sciences at least. They are hence guilty of mass child abuse or, as the Brisbane Sunday Mail correctly put it, "betrayal".

Sajo, I'll try and kill two bids with one stone. Can't really describe constructivism in the word count (sorry), but Eyejaw gives me the opportunity to discuss what I was talking about; Strawman arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument) or logically false, rhetorical misrepresentations of other's arguments.

Eyejaw wrote:
"BruceRaveRant still holds to the 'idea' that all knowledge is culturally based, that there is no such thing as objective reality. To be so ignorant and simultaneously arrogant (the certainty that there is no such thing as objective knowledge is a fearful arrogance) would be a hard cross to bear for most people."

Not all constructivists hold to the idea that knowledge is culturally based. There are several breeds of constructivism and I am not a cultural (or social) constructivist and hence don't hold to this notion. Further more I never stated there was no such thing as an objective reality, rather that the metaphyscial notion of an objective reality is not empirically provable and epistemologies (ways of knowing) that depend on it can not be scientifically based. My own constructivist epistemology is not dependent on ANY metaphysical position.

Given that eyejaw's criticisms aren't actually of my argument, but rather a figment of his imagination, I don't really have to defend myself here. The danger with strawman arguements is when you have people mistaking them for genuine rebuttals.

Iff you do a google search on doolittle constructivism, you should find a .pdf with a good description of 3 different constructivisms.