Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 89–104 | Cite as

Studying science and engineering learning in practice

  • William R. PenuelEmail author
Article

Abstract

A key goal of science and engineering education is to provide opportunities for people to access, interpret, and make use of science and engineering to address practical human needs. Most education research, however, focuses on how best to prepare students in schools to participate in forms of science and engineering practices that resemble those of disciplinary experts. In this paper, I argue that education research is needed that focuses on how people use science and engineering in social practices as part of collective efforts to transform cultural and economic production. Drawing on social practice theory, I argue that learning inheres in such activities, not only because people access and make use of science knowledge and develop repertoires for participating in science and engineering practices, but also because participation in such activities transforms the ways that people imagine themselves and expands their possibilities for action. Research can inform and support these efforts, both directly and indirectly, by giving an account of the conditions for science and engineering learning and by diagnosing inequities in access to science and engineering for addressing pressing human needs.

Keywords

Social practice theory Science Engineering Production 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Annie Allen, Margaret Eisenhart, Katie Taylor, Rogers Hall, Susan Jurow, Wolff-Michael Roth, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and feedback on this manuscript. I also wish to thank Lynn Dierking and John Falk for inviting me to participate in the special issue and for providing me with the opportunity to think more deeply about learning and becoming in activity.

References

  1. Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. doi: 10.1002/sce.20392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55, 302–318. doi: 10.1159/000345322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2010). Conceptualizing and tracing learning pathways over time and setting. In W. R. Penuel & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning research as a human science. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 109(1), 113–127.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, P., Tzou, C., Bricker, L. A., & Baines, A. D. (2012). Learning in diversities of structures of social practice: Accounting for how, why, and where people learn science. Human Development, 55, 269–284. doi: 10.1159/000345315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Dreier, O. (2008). Psychotherapy in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295. doi: 10.3102/00028312033002261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243–259. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(91)90006-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in Human Geography, 31(1), 23–42. doi: 10.1177/0309132507073527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feinstein, N., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340, 314–317. doi: 10.1126/science.1230855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gamson, W. A. (1991). Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 27–50. doi: 10.1007/BF01112726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzales, R. G. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76(4), 602–619. doi: 10.1177/0003122411411901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hand, V., Penuel, W. R., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2012). (Re)framing educational possibility: Attending to power and equity in shaping access to and within learning opportunities. Human Development, 55(5–6), 250–268. doi: 10.1159/000345313.
  20. Harré, R., Moghaddam, F., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbard, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(4), 5–31. doi: 10.1177/0959354308101417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jurow, A. S., O’Connor, K., Shea, M., Cartun, A., & Wiley, K. (2013). Learning, as organizing, in social movements. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 60–101. doi: 10.1080/10508400701793190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J. (1993). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 17–36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10096-003.Google Scholar
  28. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149–164. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lave, J. (2012). Changing practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(2), 156–171. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.666317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave, J., & McDermott, R. P. (2002). Estranged labor learning. Outlines, 1, 19–48. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509568.007.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329–394. doi: 10.3102/0091732X09358129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDermott, R. P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 269–305). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511625510.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDermott, R. P., & Webber, V. (1998). When is math or science? In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 321–339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Michalchik, V., & Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Naturalizing assessment. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(2), 209–219. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00020.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi: 10.1179/msi.2009.4.1.113.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as social movement. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 383–406. doi: 10.1023/A:1021225728762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor, K. (2003). Communicative practice, cultural production, and situated learning: Constructing and contesting identities of expertise in a heterogeneous learning context. In S. E. Wortham & B. Rymes (Eds.), Linguistic anthropology of education (pp. 61–91). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. O’Connor, K., Hanny, C., & Lewis, C. (2011). Doing “business as usual”: Dynamics of voice in community organizing talk. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42(2), 154–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01122.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Connor, K., & Penuel, W. R. (2010). Introduction: Principles of a human sciences approach to research on learning. In W. R. Penuel & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning research as a human science. National Society for Studies in Education, 109(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  43. Packer, M. J. (2010). Educational research as a reflexive science of constitution. In W. R. Penuel & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning research as a human science. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 109(1), 113–127.Google Scholar
  44. Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–241. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Dynamics of negation in the identity politics of cultural Other and cultural self. Culture and Psychology, 1(3), 343–359. doi: 10.1177/1354067X9513002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peppler, K. A., & Bender, S. (in press). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27. Google Scholar
  47. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2007). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood (Ed.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781849200387.Google Scholar
  48. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Roth, W.-M. (2010). Activism: A category for theorizing learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 10(3), 278–291. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2010.504493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203463918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schön, D. A. (1992). Design as a reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147. doi: 10.1007/BF01580516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30. doi: 10.1023/A:1008651105359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. E. (2002). Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: Lessons from intergenerational design charrettes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 171–189. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor, K. H. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood: A social design experiment for spatial justice. Ph.D. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  56. Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, knowledge, and learning, 18(1–2), 65–93. doi: 10.1007/s10758-013-9201-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2012). Products: Food Desert Locator. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/food-desert-locator.aspx.
  58. Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. P. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wertsch, J. V., & Penuel, W. R. (1996). The individual-society antinomy revisited: Productive tensions in theories of human development, communication, and education. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 415–433). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, D., Fels, J., & Krygier, J. (2010). Rethinking the power of maps. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Learning SciencesUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations