Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education

Cunningham, Christine M.; Helms, Jenifer V.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199805)35:5<483::aid-tea2>3.0.co;2-l

Cited by 68 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Through discussions centered on writing in science, the course participants framed an epistemology of their discipline as one that considered the contextual nature of science (e.g., issues of funding, audience, economic and political rami®cations), expertise (e.g., considering speakers' roles in framing arguments), evidence (e.g., supporting conclusions with an evidential base), and responsibility (e.g., citizens' role in the use and understanding of scienti®c knowledge). This is an important dimension for university (and other) science teaching: The discourse processes, both spoken and written, provide a means for communicating the substantive content of science as well as communicating messages about science (Carlsen, 1991;Kelly & Crawford, 1997;Cunningham & Helms, 1998). The importance of this dimension of science teaching can be illustrated through comparisons with other discourse analytic studies showing science to be portrayed as unassailable facts and laws of nature (Cochran, 1997;Moje, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography

Kelly

Chen

Prothero

2000

J. Res. Sci. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to examine how instruction in scienti®c writing in a university oceanography course communicated epistemological positions of this discipline. Drawing from sociological and anthropological studies of scienti®c communities, this study uses an ethnographic perspective to explore how teachers and students came to de®ne particular views of disciplinary knowledge through the everyday practices associated with teaching and learning oceanography. Writing in a scienti®c genre was supported by interactive CD-ROM which allowed students to access data representations from geological databases. In our analysis of the spoken and written discourse of the members of this course, we identi®ed epistemological issues such as uses of evidence, role of expertise, relevance of point of view, and limits to the authority of disciplinary inquiry. Implications for college science teaching are drawn.ß 2000

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography

Kelly

Chen

Prothero

2000

J. Res. Sci. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the final reports that appear in journals and textbooks typically portray science as purely analytical and logical, studies of science in the making (e.g., laboratory studies) demonstrate that much of science involves dialectical and rhetorical argumentation in writing, research and the production of knowledge (Latour & Woolgar, 1986;Sutton, 1992). Scientists devote their energies to persuading others that what they have perceived is important and that their interpretations are valid (Cunningham & Helms, 1998). Pera also argued that science's rationality resides in the fact that science can and does rely on rhetorical argument (persuasive argument) to justify its decisions (Pera, 1994).…”

Section: Scientific Inquiry and Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry

Kim

Song

2005

Res Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Participants were two boys and six girls in grade 8 of a middle school in Seoul, Korea. Students engaged in open inquiry activities in small groups. Each group prepared the report for peer review and then, during the peer discussion, presented their inquiry results while another group acted as critics, in a way similar to conference presentations by scientists. This study's data sources included audio-and video-tapes of discussions, copies of student reports, questionnaires completed by the students and transcripts of interviews with the students. It was found that the critical peer discussion in general proceeded through the following four stages: Focusing, Exchanging, Debating and Closing. In addition, 75.6% of evidence used in students' arguments was personal evidence and students used various cognitive and social strategies in the critical discussion. For an effective critical discussion, making good use of the Focusing Stage was found to be important factor. Students improved their interpretation and methods of experiment during the argumentation process and this feedback made the inquiry circular. Finally, we identify a model of argumentative scientific inquiry as an open inquiry that has the key components of authentic scientific inquiry.

show abstract

“…Because teachers are the frontline personnel in the educational system, what they say constitutes the resources for students to form first impressions and images of science. Over the past decades, researchers have become more interested in making authentic science accessible to students (Bencze and Hodson 1999;Cunningham and Helms 1998). Some research investigates how teachers use problem-based learning (PBL) activities in the classroom (Uyeda et al 2002); other research creates software and resources for teachers and students to engage in more authentic science activities (Lee and Songer 2003).…”

Section: Authentic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Teacher Discourse that Introduces Real Science Activities to High School Students

Hsu

Roth

2008

Res Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most academic science educators encourage teachers to provide their students with access to more authentic science activities. What can and do teachers say to increase students' interests in participating in opportunities to do real science? What are the discursive resources they draw on to introduce authentic science to students? The purpose of this ethnographic and discourse-analytic study is to investigate the ways in which the activities of scientists are discursively presented to high school students in a biology/career preparation course. Data sources were collected by means of observation, field notes, interviews, and videotaped lessons in an eleventh-grade biology/career preparation course. Drawing on discourse analysis, we investigate the discursive resources-or, more specifically and technically, the interpretative repertoires-teachers used to explain and promote opportunities to engage students in real science activities. Our analysis identifies and characterizes six types of interpretative repertoires: specialized, a-stereotypical, relevant, empirical, emotive, and rare-opportunity. To better understand the "big picture" of how these discursive resources are drawn on in the classroom, we also report on the frequencies of the repertoires in the discourse and the ways in which repertoires changed in the course of teacher-student interactions. The findings of this case study offer teachers and researchers with a better understanding of how specific forms of discourse-i.e., the repertoires-can serve as resources to enhance teacher-introduction of authentic science to students and provide students a bridge between school and authentic science.

show abstract

Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education

Cited by 68 publications

References 12 publications

The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography

The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography

The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry

An Analysis of Teacher Discourse that Introduces Real Science Activities to High School Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About