In this review essay we examine five categories of dialectical materialism proposed by Paulo Lima Junior, Fernanda Ostermann, and Flavia Rezende in their study of the extent to which the articles published in "Cultural Studies of Science Education," that use a Vygotskian approach, are committed to Marxism/dialectical materialism. By closely examining these categories ("thesis, antithesis and synthesis," "unity of analysis," "History," "revolution," "materialism") we expect to enrich the general discussion about the possible contributions of Marxism to science education. We perceive part of science education practice as orientating toward positivism, which reduces human beings--teachers, learners and researchers--to isolated individuals who construct knowledge by themselves. The very same approach aggravates the inner contradiction of the capitalist society demanding commitments from researchers to continually build innovative science education from human praxis. Nevertheless, it is necessary to situate ourselves beyond a formal commitment with dialectical materialism and hence reach the heart of this method. Besides understanding the researchers' commitments, we question the extent to which the respective research helps to radically refresh the current view on science, science education practice, and research in science education.