Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies

Abstract

Recent research in science and technology studies changed the way we understand science as it is practiced-that is, how scientific knowledge emerges from social, natural, social, political, cultural, historical, and economic contingencies of scientific work. Many science educators agree that students should learn not only science but also about science. In this article, we (a) outline important findings, research methods, and ways of reporting research that emerged from science and technology studies; and (b) show how familiarity with science and technology studies research can provide science educators with valuable insights about curriculum design and research on learning. We conclude that science and technology studies can serve as a resource to science education and that there is a potential for conducting collaborative work between science education and science and technology studies. Such collaborations have the potential to yield better theories about how people become competent in science from childhood to adulthood.

Re‐presenting the social construction of science in light of the propositions of Bruno Latour: For a renewal of the school conception of science in secondary schools

“…In both our presentation of a way of viewing the social construction of science drawing on actor-network theory (Latour, 2001(Latour, , 2004(Latour, , 2005 and our proposal for an operational deÞnition of this conception, we have carried forward with reßections centering on the renewal of the school conception of science that have borrowed from the sociology of science (Bader, 2002(Bader, , 2003(Bader, , 2005Bader & Therriault, 2008;Bianchini et al, 2003;Cunningham & Helms, 1998;Fourez, 2002;Pouliot, 2008;Roth & McGinn, 1998); on this basis, we have also attempted to produce a more focused conceptualization of science as a social enterprise whenever it is a question of addressing the NOS in the classroom. This theoretical work has enabled us to bring out various facets of this social construction of science that should be accounted for in secondary science classes to renew the school image of science in line with the characteristics of contemporary technosciences in the making (Latour, 1987(Latour, , 2005.…”

“…They generally consider that science studies can signiÞcantly contribute to achieving a better understanding of the various practices of science (Bowen & Roth, 2007;Bricker & Bell, 2008;Kelly, Carlsen, & Cunningham, 1993;Roth & McGinn, 1998;Rudolph, 2000;Wong & Hodson, 2009). Accordingly, this renewed comprehension of scientiÞc practices might well beneÞt science education by providing "science educators with valuable insights about curriculum design and research on learning" (Roth & McGinn, 1998). For instance, it could serve the objectives of democratizing science education, in line with achieving an operational, contextualized school conception of the social construction of science.…”

“…Such a contribution would be especially relevant whenever science education takes into account the social questions that emerge from recent scientiÞc developments (Roth, McGinn, & Bowen, 1996;Weinstein, 2008), as it is often the case with technoscientiÞc issues. In the same vein, Roth and McGinn (1998) have suggested that science education should resort on science studies to develop "better theories about how people become competent in science from childhood to adulthood. "…”

“…In the continuation of reßections centering on the renewal of the most widespread school conception of science, we set out a theoretical framework by drawing on a number of propositions borrowed from the sociology of science (Bader, 2002(Bader, , 2003(Bader, , 2005Bader & Therriault, 2008;Bianchini, Cavazos & Rivas, 2003;Cunningham & Helms, 1998;Fourez, 2002;Pouliot, 2008, Roth & McGinn, 1998. Our proposition draws strongly on the research of Bruno Latour (2001Latour ( , 2004Latour ( , 2005 and was mainly adopted to account for the social construction of science by characterizing research practices.…”

Science studies, situatedness, and instructional design in science education: A summary and critique of the promise

“…First, it argues that such instructional design claims are based on erroneous understandings of the concepts of situated learning and authenticity, which result from the historically evaluative orientation of education research. Second, it considers several specific claims about the success of designed environments from the science education literature (Roth & McGinn, 1998), and contrasts those claims with an alternative way of viewing students' work in school science. The article concludes that science education could productively consider situated actions in school science settings as interesting and authentic phenomena in their own right, apart from measuring them against professional scientific activities.…”