I have a first degree in physics and a masters in astrophysics and have been on the staff at King's College London since 1985. Prior to that I worked as an advisory teacher and a teacher of physics in Inner London schools. I gained my Ph.D for the work that I did with Professor Paul Black exploring young (age 5-11) children’s understanding of science and a constructivist approach to its development. I was a co-editor of the influential report Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future which has had a significant impact on the future form of science education and policy in the UK. I was an Economic and Social Research Council fellow on their Public Understanding of Science Programme. Recently, I have been an adviser to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee for their recent report on science education and am also a member of the Board of the North American Association for Research in Science Teaching.

1) Theoretical work on teaching about science education
I have had a long-standing interest in what it means to teach and learn about science. My initial explorations of this field began with an article (Beyond Constructivism) about the prevailing constructivist paradigm and some of the inherent assumptions that it held about the nature of science.

From this work I moved to exploring what it would mean to offer a better account of science which more accurately reflected the ideas emerging from contemporary scholarship, and which addressed some of the many concerns about the relationship of science with the public. In the UK, and elsewhere, the many ‘crises’ surrounding such issues as BSE, global warming etc had transformed the relationship of science with society to one which was characterised by risk. I and others argued that developing any understanding of the impact of science on society required teaching about the nature of science to occupy a central, rather than peripheral, place on the curriculum. (2, 3)

Emerging from the latter document was an argument that the achievements of science are much better communicated as a set of ‘explanatory stories’. Hence, I have an interest in exploring what this might mean in practice. Another particular focus of interest of the work at King's College London was the role of argument and discourse in learning science. Two papers (4, 5) made the theoretical case that argument is a core discursive activity in science and yet was virtually absent from the school science classroom. Offering students the opportunity to consider plural theoretical interpretations of physical phenomena would not only make explicit the evidential basis of belief in science, but also provide an opportunity to engage in the normative discourse associated with doing science.

The emphasis on language and argumentation as a core activity in learning both the content of science and learning about science was further developed in a book and a recent article. (6, 7)

Not surprisingly, one of my major interests in the context of CILS is how informal science centres and museums can facilitate discourse about science. In particular, how they can offer plural alternatives that would generate a difference of view between visitors, as ‘truth’ or a deeper understanding of anything is the child of argument not affinity.

2) Research on teaching about science
The focus of our empirical research in this area has sought to explore a number of the challenges of teaching about science and argumentation. Our research group here has recently worked with teachers to develop their understanding of the role and significance of argumentation in school science, and explore ways in which it might be introduced. Emerging from that work we have developed a better understanding of the tools that can be used for the methodological analysis of argument and the means for evaluating its quality. (8, 9)

Of particular interest, is how such methodological tools might be applied to some of the discourse studies emerging from museums.
Working with a colleague from the University of Southampton, we have also explored what the scientific community thinks should be taught about science using a Delphi study. Emerging from this work were a set of nine themes that were communally agreed to be important. (10)

Our group then worked with a group of 11 teachers to explore what issues are raised when they attempted to teach about science in the classroom. From this we identified five aspects of teachers’ knowledge and pedagogy which were challenging for teachers when confronted with teaching about science. Likewise, science centres, which are predominantly object based institutions, have been very successful at offering phenomenological experiences that illustrate some of the major explanatory principles of science. Teaching students about the nature of science has been much more problematic and research is needed to explore ways in which this might be done.

Research on informal learning
The work of King's College London here has been ongoing over a period of 20 years. Initiated by Arthur Lucas, it has been mainly conducted through the work of Ph.D students such as Paulette McManus, Sue Dale-Tunnicliffe and Elin Kelsey. (11, 12)

Currently, we have a Wellcome funded project, directed by Professor Christian Heath which is exploring the issue of communicating science in museums looking at how visitors interact with exhibits. From this we are attempting to derive a typology of exhibits and the nature of the interactions that they generate in visitors. A particular interest is those that are productive at generating dialogue.

1) Theoretical work on teaching about science education

(1) Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond Constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82.

(2) Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the History and Philosophy of Science on the Curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-424.

(3) Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College London.

(4) Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

(5) Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

(6) Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

(7) Osborne, J. F. (2002). Science without Literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-215.

Back to top

(8) Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

(9) Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.

(10) Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. ((in press)). What 'ideas-about-science' should be taught in school science? A Delphi Study of the 'Expert' Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Back to top

(11) Tunnicliffe, S. D., Lucas, A. M., & Osborne, J. F. (1997). School visits to zoos and museums: a missed educational opportunity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1039-1056.

(12) Osborne, J. F. (1998). Constructivism in Museums: A Response. Journal of Museum Education, 23(1), 8-9.