The application of science education theories: A reply to Stephen P. Norris and Tone Kvernbekk

Norris and Kvernbekk (1997) deal with questions which arguably should be central to the field of science education: namely, what constitutes normative goal-directed theories in science education and what bearing does the nature of normative goal-directed educational theories have on their application to practice. The response is in sections. First, I present a number of general comments on the characteristics of normative goal-directed theories as specified by Norris and Kvernbekk. Second, I present my argument in outline about the nature of our theory. Third, I focus on the authors' interpretation of our work (as represented in the three articles) in terms of the characteristics of normative goal-directed theories. Fourth, I respond to their criticisms of our theory which they put forward as a result of their analysis. (The authors' analysis of our theory is technical and closely argued. To respond appropriately involves necessarily paying attention to technical details of the ways they interpreted our theory.) Fifth, the response considers a number of additional points relating to the authors' arguments which go beyond or extend their formulation of normative goal-directed theories. In particular, attention is given to the nature of interpretive theory and to the role of teachers in the application of a normative goal-directed theory. The sixth section addresses the central issue of whether, based on the authors' elaboration of normative goal-directed theories, the theory of Driver and associates constitutes such a theory. Finally, I summarize the contributions that the article makes. (C) 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.