Elementary Science Learning at the Intersection of Educational Philosophies: Rethinking Pedagogical Paradigms and Practices
Abstract
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.
References
A. Booth, M. Martyn-St James, M. Clowes, and A. Sutton, Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021.
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.
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.
G. J. Biesta, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2015.
V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). 2022.
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.
D. Gough and J. Thomas, “Introduction to Systematic Reviews,” London, UK Sage Publ., 2017.
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
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.
C. T. Fosnot, “Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice,” New York, NY, USA Teach. Coll. Press., 2013.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
G. L. Gutek, “Philosophical, ideological, and theoretical perspectives on education,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 220-222, 2016.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
H. Hoveid, and M. H. Hoveid, “Making education educational,” A Reflexive Approach to Teaching. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
M. M. Suthish and M. K. Venkatesan, “Mathematics curriculum development: an analysis of successful frameworks and approaches,” Contemp. Tech. Math Educ., 2025.
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.
S. Singha, Material Play: Rethinking Human and More-Than-Human Connections Through GeoCaching, Arizona State University, 2025.
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.
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.
Copyright (c) 2026 Supriyati Fatma Rabia, Wahono Widodo, Hendratno Hendratno, Suryanti Suryanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Integrated Science Education Journal is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
