You are here:

A Holistic Approach to Science Education: Disciplinary, Affective, and Equitable

, , , Michigan State University, United States

JCMST Volume 36, Number 3, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


In this chapter, we argue that science education is more than the high stakes, rigorous practices and methodology that students often find dull and uninspiring. We present that aesthetic and humanistic motivations, such as wonder, curiosity, and social justice, are also inherent reasons for doing science. In the MSUrbanSTEM program, we designed an approach that built on these aesthetic and humanistic aspects of science. In this chapter, we share three case studies to present everyday pedagogical approaches to science education used by three Chicago Public School (CPS) teachers during a school year. These classroom practices used wonder, curiosity, and social justice as motivations for engaging in science and provided a disciplinary lens to look at the world that students found to be fundamentally interesting and inspiring.


Mehta, R., Mehta, S. & Seals, C. (2017). A Holistic Approach to Science Education: Disciplinary, Affective, and Equitable. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-286. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Barton, A.C. (2002). Urban science education studies: A commitment to equity, social justice and a sense of place.
  2. Barton, A.C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press.
  3. Basu, S.J., & Barton, A.C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466-489.
  4. Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975-1998.
  5. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2005). Systematic reviews of research in science education: rigour or rigidity?. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 387-406.
  6. Chandrasekhar, S. (2004). Science and Music: Truth and Beauty. CURRENT SCIENCE, 87(12), 1639.
  7. Chen, X. (2013). STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001. National Center for Education Statistics.
  8. Dawkins, R. (2000). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  9. DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
  10. Feynman, R.P. (2005). The meaning of it all: Thoughts of a citizen-scientist. Basic Books.
  11. Girod, M. (2007). A conceptual overview of the role of beauty and aesthetics in science and science education.
  12. Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science education, 87(4), 574587.
  13. Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: Case studies of three fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199-224.
  14. Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of elementary science education, 20(3), 35-48.
  15. Hadzigeorgiou, Y.P. (2012). Fostering a sense of wonder in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 985-1005.
  16. Mehta, R. & Keenan, S. (2016). Research to practice: Why teachers should care about beauty in science education. I Wonder: Rediscovering School Science, (2), 83-86.
  17. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.
  18. National Academy of Sciences. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academic Press.
  19. Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44.
  20. Orrell, D. (2012). Truth or beauty: Science and the quest for order. Yale University Press.
  21. Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
  22. Pugh, K.J., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 9-27.
  23. Robinson, P.B., & Sexton, E.A. (1994). The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of business Venturing, 9(2), 141-156.
  24. Root-Bernstein, R.S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49-82).
  25. Sagan, C. (1995). Wonder and skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer, 19(1), 24-30.
  26. Shulman, L.S. (1999). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Learners and pedagogy, 61-77.
  27. Stage, E.K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, P.A., & Hampton, S.B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation standards. Science Education, 340(6130), 276-277.
  28. Van Berkel, B., De Vos, W., Verdonk, A.H., & Pilot, A. (2000). Normal science education and its dangers: The case of school chemistry. Science& Education, 9(1-2), 123-159.
  29. Zembylas, M. (2005). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in science learning: Conceptual change, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. Mehta, Mehta, and Seals

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Mobilizing Creativity: Democratic and Humanizing Approaches to Creativity in the Classroom

    Rohit Mehta, Iowa State University, United States; Danah Henriksen, Arizona State University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 1159–1167

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact