Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Elementary Science Learning at the Intersection of Educational Philosophies: Rethinking Pedagogical Paradigms and Practices

Supriyati Fatma Rabia ORCID
Universitas Pendidikan Muhammadiyah Sorong ROR
Indonesia
supriyatifatmarabia@unimudasorong.ac.id
Wahono Widodo ORCID
Universitas Negeri Surabaya ROR
Indonesia
Hendratno Hendratno ORCID
Universitas Negeri Surabaya ROR
Indonesia
Suryanti Suryanti ORCID
State University of Surabaya
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to map how the educational philosophies of constructivism, progressivism, pragmatism, and humanism shape pedagogical paradigms and teaching practices in elementary science education. It also seeks to develop an integrative conceptual framework that supports meaningful and student-centered science learning in 21st-century primary education.

    Methodology: This study employed a qualitative Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following PRISMA guidelines. Articles were retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases covering the 2015–2025 period. Ten peer-reviewed articles were selected after identification, screening, and eligibility stages. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and narrative synthesis supported by a structured data extraction instrument.

    Main Findings: Constructivism promotes active knowledge construction through inquiry-based approaches such as CIBSE. Progressivism emphasizes student-centered and adaptive learning environments supported by digital technology. Pragmatism integrates cultural and empirical knowledge through experiential reflection, while humanism supports holistic development by addressing affective and social dimensions. Effective science learning emerges from the interaction of these traditions rather than reliance on a single paradigm.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The study synthesizes four philosophical traditions into a unified Integrative Philosophical Framework, which has rarely been explored in previous SLR studies. The findings encourage educators to adopt a reflective multi-philosophical approach. However, the review is limited by its small sample size and reliance on predominantly English-language sources. Future research should involve longitudinal mixed-methods studies across a broader range of educational contexts.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Elementary Science Learning at the Intersection of Educational Philosophies: Rethinking Pedagogical Paradigms and Practices”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 465–478, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i2.2533.

    More Citation Formats

  • 108
    Abstract views
    45
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. A. Booth, M. Martyn-St James, M. Clowes, and A. Sutton, Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036232009
    2. A. Anggraeni and A. Andriani, “The relevance of pragmatism-based teaching methods in optimizing information processing in primary school students,” Proc. Ser. Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 25, pp. 324–326, 2025, https://conferenceproceedings.ump.ac.id/pssh/article/view/1713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30595/pssh.v25i.1713
    3. Y. Wen, L. Wu, S. He, N. H. E. Ng, B. C. Teo, C. K. Looi, and Y. Cai, “Integrating augmented reality into inquiry-based learning approach in primary science classrooms,” Educational technology research and development, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1631-1651, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10235-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10235-y
    4. G. J. Biesta, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319
    5. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-004
    6. L. Bryan and S. S. Guzey, “K-12 STEM education: An overview of perspectives and considerations,” Hell. J. STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.51724/hjstemed.v1i1.5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v1i1.5
    7. D. Gough and J. Thomas, “Introduction to Systematic Reviews,” London, UK Sage Publ., 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036234942.n1
    8. S.-C. Fang, “Towards scientific inquiry in secondary earth science classrooms: Opportunities and realities,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 771–792, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10763-020-10086-6. doi:10.1007/s10763-020-10086-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10086-6
    9. F. Ahmad, M. A. Raza, N. Abbas, A. Ali, “Impact of problem based learning on critical thinking of students in the subject of science at elementary level,” Crit. Rev. Soc. Sci. Stud., Online Submission, vol. 3, no.3, pp. 160-165, 2023, doi: 10.59075/ec4t4y55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59075/ec4t4y55
    10. C. T. Fosnot, “Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice,” New York, NY, USA Teach. Coll. Press., 2013.
    11. J. K. E. Florungco and D. G. Caballes, “Educators’ perspective on the progressivist approach to teaching science online,” vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 166–171, 2022, doi: 10.46966/ijae.v3i3.265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46966/ijae.v3i3.265
    12. N. Ghamrawi, T. Shal, N. A. Ghamrawi, A. Abu-Tineh, Y. Alshaboul, and M. A. Alazaizeh, “A step-by-step approach to systematic reviews in educational research,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 549–566, 2021, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.549
    13. M. N. Imani, “Ethno-STEM Innovation in Science Learning : Developing Scientific Literacy Using the Local Context of ‘ Dawet Jabung’,”Journal Evaluation in Eduaction (JEE), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 282–290, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i1.2378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v7i1.2378
    14. M. J. Gomez, “The impact of inquiry-based learning in science education: A systematic review of student engagement and achievement,” J. Educ. Learn. Manag., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 353–363, 2025, doi: 10.69739/jelm.v2i2.1143 DOI: https://doi.org/10.69739/jelm.v2i2.1143
    15. D. A. Kurniawan et al., “The influence of science process skills, digital literacy and students’ critical thinking skills on physics learning: A mixed method study,” vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 248–255, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i1.1251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v7i1.1251
    16. S. Suryati, P. B. Adnyana, I. P. Ariawan, and I. G. A. Wesnawa, “Integrating constructivist and inquiry based learning in chemistry education: A systematic review,” Hydrog. J. Kependidikan Kim., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1166, 2024, doi: 10.33394/hjkk.v12i5.13571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v12i5.13571
    17. D. F. Hasniati, “The potential of creative thinking in STEAM based science learning: Supporting factors and implementation challenges,” Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 256–269, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i1.2711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v7i1.2711
    18. D. A. Urdanivia Alarcon, F. Talavera-Mendoza, F. H. Rucano Paucar, K. S. Cayani Caceres, and R. Machaca Viza, “Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: a systematic review,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487
    19. G. L. Gutek, “Philosophical, ideological, and theoretical perspectives on education,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 220-222, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/ajer.v62i2.55996
    20. M. Oliver, A. McConney, and A. Woods-McConney, “The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: A comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 51, no. S2, pp. 595–616, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11165-019-09901-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09901-0
    21. B. T. Johnson and E. A. Hennessy, “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses,” Social science & medicine, vol. 233, pp. 237–251, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.035
    22. E. K. Kim, J. P. Allen, S. R. Jimerson, E. Kyung, J. P. Allen, and S. R. J. Supporting, “Supporting student social emotional learning and development,” School Psych. Rev., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 201–207, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2024.2346443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2346443
    23. M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, ... and D. Moher, “The PRISMA 2020 statement : An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews systematic reviews and meta-analyses,” bmj, vol. 372, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
    24. K. Driggers, and D. Boyles, “Educational implications of artificial intelligence: Peirce, reason, and the pragmatic maxim,” Educational Theory, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 682-701, 2025, doi: 10.1111/edth.70028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.70028
    25. L. Huang and X. Pei, “Exploring the impact of web-based inquiry on elementary school students’ science identity development in a STEM learning unit,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03299-5
    26. N. R. Haddaway, A. M. Collins, D. Coughlin, and S. Kirk, “The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching,” vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1–17, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
    27. T. Hagos, “Progressivism in chemistry education: emphasizing student-centered learning and real-world relevance,” African Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 147–179, 2025.
    28. H. Hoveid, and M. H. Hoveid, “Making education educational,” A Reflexive Approach to Teaching. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
    29. T. M. Cappiali, “A paradigm shift for a more inclusive, equal, and just academia? Towards a transformative-emancipatory pedagogy,” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 876, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13090876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090876
    30. K. T. Kotsis, “Artificial intelligence as a catalyst for changes in university-level science education,” EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 99–109, 2024, doi: 10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618.
    31. S. Bakar, “Investigating the dynamics of contemporary pedagogical approaches in higher education through innovations, challenges, and paradigm shifts,” Social Science Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2021, doi: 10.56106/ssc.2021.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.009
    32. M. Saleh, S. Sutrisno, Z. Arifin, M. Maemonah, and R. Solihin, “Paradigm of integration of islamic and scientific knowledge: Philosophical reflection on islamic basic education,” Scaffolding: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Dan Multikulturalisme, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 484–498, 2025, doi: 10.37680/scaffolding.v7i1.7102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37680/scaffolding.v7i1.7102
    33. Ł. Tomczyk, “Research trends in media pedagogy: Between the paradigm of risk and the paradigm of opportunity,” International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), vol. 9, pp. 399–406, 2021, doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-3-399-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-3-399-406
    34. D. L. Morris, “Rethinking science education practices: Shifting from investigation-centric to comprehensive inquiry-based instruction,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 73, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15010073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073
    35. J. Shuk and C. Leung, “Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific issues in a teacher education course,” International Journal of Science And Mathematics Education, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 659–682, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y
    36. A. Saleem, H. Kausar, and F. Deeba, “Social constructivism: A new paradigm in teaching and learning environment,” Perennial journal of history, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 403-421, 2021, doi: 10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86
    37. A. Sidelil, A. Shishigu, T. Bekene, and A. Atiso, “Swaying pedagogy: A new paradigm for mathematics teachers education in Ethiopia,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 100630, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100630
    38. R. Bell, “Underpinning the entrepreneurship educator’s toolkit: Conceptualising the influence of educational philosophies and theory,” Entrep. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s41959-020-00042-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-020-00042-4
    39. L. Huang and X. Pei, “Exploring the impact of web-based inquiry on elementary school students’ science identity development in a STEM learning unit,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 885, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03299-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03299-5
    40. K. T. Kotsis, “Artificial intelligence as a catalyst for changes in university-level science education,” EIKI J. Eff. Teach. Methods, vol. 3, no. 3, 2025, doi: 10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618
    41. P. A. Rospigliosi, “Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT?,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-3, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191
    42. C. Cirkony, M. Rickinson, L. Walsh, J. Gleeson, W. Salisbury, and B. Cutler, “Reflections on conducting rapid reviews of educational research,” Educational Research, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 371-390, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00131881.2022.2120514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2022.2120514
    43. H. Wasosa and I. Mutelo, “Progressivism in context: A critical psychological examination of john dewey’s educational theory in african schooling systems with a case study of Zimbabwe,” Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 880–890, 2025, doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000076
    44. R. Agustini, R. S. M. Meilanie, and S. I. Pujiastuti, “Enhancing critical thinking and curiosity in early childhood through inquiry-based science learning,” Aulad J. Early Child., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 734–743, 2024, doi: 10.31004/aulad.v7i3.780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/aulad.v7i3.780
    45. H. Rintoul and D. MacLellan, “Walking the pedagogical line in graduate studies,” in Crossing the Bridge of the Digital Divide, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018, pp. ix–xii. doi: 10.1108/978-1-64113-392-0-20251006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-64113-392-0-20251006
    46. M. M. Suthish and M. K. Venkatesan, “Mathematics curriculum development: an analysis of successful frameworks and approaches,” Contemp. Tech. Math Educ., 2025.
    47. M. Amini, W. Qiufen, D. Amini, L. Ravindran, D. T. A. Lin, M. Ganapathy, and M. K. M. Singh, “The significance of humanistic approach and moral development in English language classrooms,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 238, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00691-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00691-4
    48. S. Singha, Material Play: Rethinking Human and More-Than-Human Connections Through GeoCaching, Arizona State University, 2025.
    49. E. Okur-Berberoglu, “Affective learning: Why we need a humanistic curriculum,” World Futures, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 56–69, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02604027.2024.2315237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2024.2315237
    50. D. Yacek and M. Karcher, “Transformative education: Philosophical, psychological, and pedagogical dimensions,” Educational theory: on the web; founded by the John Dewey Society and the Philosophy of Education Society, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 529–537, 2021, doi: 10.1111/edth.12442. doi:10.1111/edth.12442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12442