Exploring the Role of Autonomy in Science Education - A Kantian Perspective

The concept of autonomy occupies a central place in contemporary science education, yet it is frequently employed without sufficient philosophical clarity. This paper critically examines autonomy through a Kantian philosophical framework, arguing that dominant interpretations in science education particularly those grounded in inquiry-based and learner-centered approaches tend to reduce autonomy to student choice, engagement, and self-directed activity. While these perspectives contribute to motivation and participation, they often neglect the epistemic and normative dimensions of autonomy required for genuine scientific reasoning. Drawing on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the study reconceptualizes autonomy as rational self-governance, emphasizing the learner’s capacity to evaluate, justify, and defend knowledge claims through reasoning. The analysis clarifies the epistemological, ethical, and humanistic assumptions underpinning this framework and systematically examines key pedagogical implications for science education, including inquiry-based learning, the role of the teacher, the nature of scientific knowledge, and engagement with socioscientific issues, demonstrating how each can either support or undermine the development of autonomy depending on the extent to which rational justification is foregrounded. A Kantian progression is proposed, outlining the developmental process from dependence on authority to independent rational judgment and the internalization of epistemic principles. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of ethical reasoning in addressing socioscientific issues, positioning autonomy as both an intellectual and moral capacity and structural contraints such as examination driven curricula, resource limitation, and challenges in teacher preparation that complicates the realization of Kantian autonomy in practice. The paper concludes by outlining implications for pedagogy, assessment, and teacher education, advocating for a shift from procedural engagement to the cultivation of critically reflective and rationally accountable learners. In doing so, it offers a philosophically grounded framework that redefines autonomy as a core aim of science education and aligns scientific literacy with the development of independent rational thinkers.

Autonomy, Science Education, Kantian Philosophy, Rational Judgment, Inquiry-Based Learning, Scientific Literacy, Socioscientific Issues

1. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Curren, R. (2006). Philosophy of education: An anthology. Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2016). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1144763⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hand, M. (2018). A theory of moral education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (A. W. Wood, Ed. & Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Levinson, R. (2018). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2017). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ramnarain, U. (2020). Inquiry-based learning in science classrooms: A review of the literature. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(3), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Siegel, H. (2004). Relativism and the evaluation of reasoning. Educational Theory, 54(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Sticker, M. (2021). Kantian moral education and the cultivation of autonomy. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(2), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wood, A. W. (2018). Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Waghid, Y. (2014). African philosophy of education reconsidered: On being human. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Yacek, D. W. (2018). Thinking and the moral imagination: Kantian perspectives on moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 47(3), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Boghossian, P. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi‐experimental studies of inquiry‐based science teaching: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hand, M. (2018). A theory of moral education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(2), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12287⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Levinson, R. (2018). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Osborne, J. (2016). Defining a knowledge base for reasoning in science: The role of procedural and epistemic knowledge. In R. A. Duschl & S. M. Bismarck (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM education (pp. 15–38). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Siegel, H. (2004). Rationality and the cultivation of mind. In R. Curren (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of education (pp. 305–319). Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 697–726). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study