Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Imperativeness of Scientific Practice-Based Science Education in Light of Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge

폴라니의 인격적 지식 관점에서 바라본 과학적 실행 기반의 과학 교육의 당위성

  • Received : 2023.09.11
  • Accepted : 2023.10.21
  • Published : 2023.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study points out that inquiry- or practice-based science education needs a philosophical justification and suggests that Michael Polanyi's (1891-1976) philosophical epistemology of science, which centers on personal knowledge, can serve such a role. More specifically, we focused on (1) intersubjectivity, which encompasses the objective and subjective aspects of knowledge, (2) tacitness, which is the basis of explicit knowledge, and (3) embodiedness, which emphasizes the body as the ultimate instrument of external knowledge. We discussed how Polanyi's epistemology can be seen as a justification for practice-based science education as an act in which the knower actively participates, and in particular, the importance of embodied mind-based science teaching and learning that relies on the body's tacit cognitive processes, rather than the mind in an information-processing sense.

본 논문에서는 탐구 또는 실행 기반의 과학 교육에 철학적 정당화가 필요하다는 점을 지적하고, 인격적 지식을 중심으로 하는 폴라니의 과학철학적 인식론이 그러한 역할을 해줄 수 있다는 점을 제안하였다. 보다 구체적으로는 인격적 지식이 갖는 특징으로서 (1) 지식의 객관적 측면과 주관적 측면을 아우르는 상호주관성, (2) 명시적 지식의 기반이 되는 암묵성, (3) 외부 지식의 궁극적 도구로서의 몸을 중시하는 체화성을 집중적으로 살펴보았다. 그리고 이렇게 정리한 폴라니의 인식론은 인식자가 적극적으로 참여하는 행위로서의 실행 기반의 과학 교육을 정당화하는 것으로 볼 수 있으며, 여기서 특히 정보처리적 의미에서의 마음이 아닌 몸의 암묵적 인식 과정에 의존하는 체화된 마음에 기반한 과학 교수학습(예: 체험 활동, 실험 수업)이 갖는 중요성을 재발견하게 된다는 점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Allen, R. T. (1978). The philosophy of Michael Polanyi and its significance for education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, 167-177.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1978.tb00515.x
  2. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33-46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
  3. Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: Two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 127-167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2015.1049843
  4. Brock, R. (2017). Tacit knowledge in science education. In K. S. Taber & B Akpan (eds.), Science education (pp. 133-142). Sense Publishers.
  5. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. Heinemann. 
  6. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. SAGE. 
  7. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 529-556). Routledge. 
  8. Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02628851
  9. Forman, E. A. (2018). The practice turn in learning theory and science education. in Kritt, D. W. (ed.). Constructivist Education in an Age of Accountability (pp. 97-111). Palgrave Macmillan. 
  10. Garcia-Carmona, A. (2020). From inquiry-based science education to the approach based on scientific practices: A critical analysis and suggestions for science teaching. Science & Education, 29(2), 443-463.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8
  11. Grene, M. (1977). Tacit knowing: Grounds for a revolution in philosophy. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 8(3), 164-171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.1977.11006507
  12. Hardahl, L. K., Wickman, P.-O., & Caiman, C. (2019). The body and the production of phenomena in the science laboratory: Taking charge of a tacit science content. Science & Education, 28(8), 865-895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00063-z
  13. Hodgkin, R. A. (1992). Michael Polanyi on the activity of knowing: The bearing of his ideas on the theory of multiple intelligence. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 253-267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498920180306
  14. Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534-2553.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
  15. Hurd, P. DeH. (1958). Scientific literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16. 
  16. Ibrahim-Didi, K., Hackling, M. W., Ramseger, J., & Sherriff, B. (2017). Embodied strategies in the teaching and learning science. In M. W. Hackling, J. Ramseger & H.-L. S. Chen (eds.), Quality teaching in primary science education (pp. 181-221). Springer. 
  17. Jacobs, S. (2000). Michael Polanyi on the education and knowledge of scientists. Science & Education, 9(3), 309-320.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008729129597
  18. Jang, S. (1994). Extension of Personal Knowledge. Seoul: Kyoyookbook. 
  19. Jung, E.-M. (2011). Knowledge, practice, and the problem of relativism: Reconsidering Michael Polanyi's 'personal knowledge'. In R. Schantz & M. Seidel (Eds.), The problem of relativism in the sociology of (scientific) knowledge (pp. 215-236). Ontos. 
  20. Kersting, M., Amin, T. G., Euler, E., Gregorcic, B., Haglund, J., Hardahl, L. K., & Steier, R. (in press). What is the role of the body in science education? A conversation between traditions. Science & Education. 
  21. Kersting, M., Haglund, J., & Steier, R. (2021). A growing body of knowledge. Science & Education, 30, 1183-1210.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00232-z
  22. Kim, K., & Jeong, K. S. (2020). Discussion on the meaning of curriculum reconstruction in the light of Polanyi's epistemology. The Journal of Elementary Education Studies, 27(1), 53-80.  https://doi.org/10.15854/jes.2020.09.51.3.53
  23. Kim, M., & Kim, B. (2003). A study on the objectivity of scientific knowledge: Focused on Michael Polanyi's epistemology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(1), 100-116. 
  24. Kim, J. -N. (2018). A discourse for educability of non-propositional knowledge - Ryle's knowing-how and Polnayi's tacit knowing. The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(3), 1-20.  https://doi.org/10.15754/jkpe.2018.40.3.001
  25. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147. 
  26. Lee, G. -G., Han, S. -R., Bae, C. -H., & Hong, H. -G. (2019). Hilary Putnam's internal realism and its implications for science curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 1-27.  https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.37.1.1
  27. Lee, G. -G., Park, J., Lee, S. -K., Hong, H. -G., Shim, H. S., & Shin, M. K. (2019). Exploring multi-faceted understanding and issues regarding science subject matter competency: Considering the relationship with general core competency. Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 94-118.  https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2019.43.1.94
  28. Lee, G. -G., & Hong, H. -G. (2023). A comparative study of scientific literacy and core competence discourses as rationals for the 21st century science curriculum reform. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(1), 1-18. 
  29. Martin, B., & Brouwer, W. (1993). Exploring personal science. Science Education, 77(4), 441-459.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770407
  30. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2015). Science Curriculum. 
  31. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2022). Science Curriculum. 
  32. Moon, M.-J. (2018). Reexamination of the meaning of character education based on Polanyi's theory of knowledge. The Journal of Education, 38(3), 289-306.  https://doi.org/10.25020/je.2018.38.3.289
  33. Moon, M. (2021). Exploring th relationship knowledge and competency based on Polanyi's epistemology. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 193-210.  https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.39.3.8
  34. Nam, J. Y. (2014). Teaching of the value of mathematics: In the perspective of Michael Polanyi's philosophy. Journal of Elementary Mathematics in Korea, 18(1), 63-81. 
  35. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 
  36. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 
  37. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary. Paris: OECD. 
  39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030 - A Series of Concept Notes. Paris: OECD. 
  40. Oh, P. S. (2008). Comparison of hypotheses-formation processes between an earth scientist and undergraduate students: A case study about a typhoon's anomalous path. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(6), 649-663.  https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2008.28.6.649
  41. Oh, P. S. (2022). Possibility of science concept learning in scientific practice-based science education: A review focused on situated learning theories and conceptual agency. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(4), 477-486.  https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2022.42.4.477
  42. Oh, P. S. (in press). How a student uses knowledge as a resource to solve scientific problems: A case study on science learning as rediscovery. Science & Education. 
  43. Osborne, J. (2023). Science, scientific literacy, and science education. In Lederman, N, G., Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, J. S. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume III (pp. 785-816). Routledge. 
  44. Palmer, P. J. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 
  45. Paksi, D., & Heder, M. (2022). Guide to personal knowledge: The philosophy of Michael Polanyi: Tacit knowledge, emergence and the fiduciary program. Vernon Press. 
  46. Park, J. (2022). A Study on Intersubjectivity of Michael Polanyi's 'Personal Knowledge'. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Dongguk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 
  47. Park, J., Song, J., & Abrahams, I. (2016). Unintended learning in primary school practical science lessons from Polanyi's perspective of intellectual passion. Science & Education, 25(1-2), 3-20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9788-0
  48. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Harper & Row. 
  49. Polanyi, M. (1962). The unaccountable element in science. Philosophy, 37, 1-14  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100030825
  50. Polanyi, M. (1966a). The tacit dimension. The University of Chicago Press. 
  51. Polanyi, M. (1966b). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41, 1-18.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100066110
  52. Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. Essays by Michael Polanyi. The University of Chicago Press. 
  53. Polanyi, M. (1997). Creative imagination. In R. T. Allen (ed.), Society, economics, and philosophy: Selected papers Michael Polanyi (pp. 249-265). Routledge. (original work published 1966) 
  54. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. The University of Chicago Press. 
  55. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1992). Meaning. (Kim, H., & Jeong, S. Trans.). 지적 자유와 의미. 서울: 범양사 출판부. (Original work published 1975). 
  56. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 559-572). Routledge. 
  57. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people. Mariner Books. 
  58. Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29-47.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20366
  59. Taber, K. S. (2011). Inquiry teaching, constructivist instruction and effective pedagogy. Teacher Development, 15(2), 257-264.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2011.571515
  60. Takaki, K. (2009). Embodied knowing: The tacit dimension in Johnson and Lakoff, and Merleau-Ponty. Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, 36(2), 26-39.  https://doi.org/10.5840/traddisc2009/201036218
  61. Thomas Jha, R., & Price, S. (2022). Embodying science: The role of the body in supporting young children's meaning making. International Journal of Science Education, 44(10), 1659-1679. 
  62. Zhenhua, Y. (2008). Embodiment in Polanyi's theory of tacit knowing. Philosophy Today, 52(2), 126-135.  https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday200852227